SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: Judiciary (Check and Balances Amendment)

[TJ in Oregon]

Senator TNF, is there any particular decision you believe should be overturned by the senate?

[TNF]

Senator TNF, is there any particular decision you believe should be overturned by the senate?

Not in particular.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would recommend giving the members a period to finalize their statements before closing this hearing and proceeding with something else, Mr. Chairman.

[TJ in Oregon]

Since I will may not have internet access tomorrow, I'm going to go ahead and post my recommendation now.

I recommend the Judiciary Committee and full senate reject the Check and Balances Amendment. It would serve as a way to politicized the Court, which has in my opinion, been fairly even-handed in recent memory and would be best served by remaining so. In addition to such that statement, I would like to draw to the attention of the senate the difference between Atlasian jurisprudence and American jurisprudence.  The Third Constitution grants the Supreme Court of Atlasia the power to void duly passed legislation only if it explicitly violates the constitution whereas American judicial review, based on Marbury v. Madison casts a wider power of interpretation. If a Court should unabashedly rule in contradiction of the Constitution, the correct course of action for the senate to take would be to impeach the justices who did so. If the Court were to make a ruling based on an interpretation of the constitution that was not intended as such, an amendment would be the correct course of action for the senate to take.

This amendment would effectively give two-thirds of the senate the power to ignore the constitution. If for instance, the senate were to pass an amendment that was rejected by the regions, the senate could theoretically place a suit on the subject and overturn the Court's rulings based on the Constitution. It effectively creates a loophole to pass de facto amendments without popular approval.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maxy baby? Maxy? You have not posted in here for a whole week.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What the hell Maxy?

[TJ in Oregon]

I may be a committee of one here pretty soon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg3837240#msg3837240


Wake up TJ and Maxy, time to finishu p that last business and proceed to this ^

[MaxQue]

I concur with what TJ wrote on the last subject.

So, next subject is what Yankee proposed, you agree TJ?

[TJ in Oregon]

I concur with what TJ wrote on the last subject.

So, next subject is what Yankee proposed, you agree TJ?

Yes, I think it makes sense for us to discuss.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would like to involve TyrionTheImperialist, since this is his design, to help explain the various provisions and motivations behind it, if you two are in agreement on doing so?

[MaxQue]

I would like to involve TyrionTheImperialist, since this is his design, to help explain the various provisions and motivations behind it, if you two are in agreement on doing so?

Why not? Usually, we ask the sponsor to explain us why he proposes it, but, in this case, it's probably better.

TJ, you agree?

[TJ in Oregon]

I would like to involve TyrionTheImperialist, since this is his design, to help explain the various provisions and motivations behind it, if you two are in agreement on doing so?

Why not? Usually, we ask the sponsor to explain us why he proposes it, but, in this case, it's probably better.

TJ, you agree?

Yes, it would make sense for us to call him in to testify to the merits of his proposal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Has the Chairman made contact or is it desired that I take care of that?

[President Tyrion]

I found you guys myself

Hm, well the short and sweet explanation is simple: citizens should be involved in the process. Atlasia is a special case and is not particularly comparable to the USA in the respect that its citizens are acutely aware of the goings on in the government. Operating under the assumption that people dislike the current insulated nature of the Supreme Court (and you may disagree, but I sense that quite a few people believe that some change is in order), the change I propose is to include citizens in the process while keeping the main structure of the SC intact. Naturally, the power of the Justices is diminished, but the honor of the position is not. Justices would still be required to both oversee cases and rule on cases in which there is the possibility of political motivations.

Like the original constitution, I left much to the courts, but I would advise that in the case this system is used, Justices should use extreme caution in granting appeals. I would readily assume that if Justices were too loose with granting appeals, the SC's workload would bloat. Hearing every case twice would be untenable.

I am flexible on the number of jurors/People's Court Adjudicators. On second thought, 13 may be too many.

Any questions?

[MaxQue]

Who would randomly select members and how?

[TJ in Oregon]

Do you think more public involvement would politicize the cases?

[President Tyrion]

Who would randomly select members and how?

I gave that responsibility to the Supreme Court, and I worded it in a manner that would allow their discretion. Basically, the SC can determine who would be "qualified."

[President Tyrion]

Do you think more public involvement would politicize the cases?

That thought is very high on my mind. In a perfect world, the jurors would have a firm understanding of the politics while being partial. Of course, that's impossible. I would say that the SC could vet candidates, looking for professionalism. However, there's no doubt that some cases could get hairy, and that's why the appellate process exists. If the system were to get too political, the SC could always step in.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If someone was to argue that adding another layer to the court system was less than ideal in a game such as this, how would you respond to that critique?

[President Tyrion]

If someone was to argue that adding another layer to the court system was less than ideal in a game such as this, how would you respond to that critique?

I think my response would depend on the specific nature of the argument. If complexity is the issue, I would argue that an appellate process is fairly straightforward, and, judging by the amount of future/current lawyers on the site, would not cause undue difficulty to understand.

If you're worried about increasing the time frame of cases, you would be technically right. It'll probably take longer to resolve the cases, but I think the increase in activity and citizen participation is more than worth it.

[President Tyrion]

Any other questions? I'm always happy to answer via PM as well

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Maxy? TJ? What do you guys think at this point?

[MaxQue]

I don't really have a strong opinion on it, but I would vote on it if I were senator, since I want the people to have the last word.

But, as I won't be when this reach the floor...

[President Tyrion]

I don't really have a strong opinion on it, but I would vote on it if I were senator, since I want the people to have the last word.

But, as I won't be when this reach the floor...

Well, I understand your position from a procedural standpoint, but, as a citizen, what is your opinion? At this stage in the process, there's a lot of time for change, so if you see anything glaring, now's your chance!