Criminal Justice (Reform) Act

[Blair]

aye

[Senator Cris]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Aye FTR

Previous amendment vote-

Aye(s): Talleyrand, Lief, Blair, Yankee
Nay(s): Cris
Not voting: TNF, Polnut, TheCranberry, HagridoftheDeep
Vacant seats: Windjammer


Senators have 36 hours to object to Yankee's proposed amendment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Irrespective of its merits or deficiencies, I would strongly recommend that someone reword the proposed amendment.

[Blair]

Could someone put the amendment in laymans terms for me? I assume it's basically saying that the Federal Government has authority on certain issues, and that this authority should be put into law (even more so)

[Talleyrand]

Yankee, could you just explain the amendment in one sentence? I'm frankly a bit lost here.

[TNF]

The amendment has been adopted.

[bore]

Yeah, apart from the intentional bit I'm struggling to see the point of Yankee's amendment, and I think we should, if at all possible, try to keep the text as short and sharp as possible.

Federal law, as I understand it, is supreme, so if a regional law contradicts it, that region is wrong and should be charged. It seems tautological to be talking about federal law in areas where the federal government has the power to make law. In cases where the senate passes a law on something that is not within the senate's powers then that law is unconstitutional so effectively doesn't exist so no treason would have been committed.

[Senator Cris]

Looks like it's necessary...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Changes in red.

[Talleyrand]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

I still have no idea what the original amendment Yankee put forth and passed does, so I'm hesitant to build off of it until we determine what it actually is.

[Blair]

I'm objecting on the basis I don't want an amendment to pass that no-one understands

[Talleyrand]

Senators, a vote on this amendment is now open.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This vote will last 72 hours, or until there is a majority to pass or fail this amendment.

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for my late response, I had a computer virus scare on Saturday and had to work Sunday.

1. Addition of the word intentional in front of "omission". People forget past laws like crazy around here. It is not uncommon for such to create instances where Federal law is omitted and turning that into a crime would cripple regional governance.

2. The rest of the amendment limits the text to applying to just matters where Federal power is "enumerated". The reason for is to fold. 1. Federal Gov't is not supreme in all matters, otherwise the regions would be functionally impotent (first bolded line). 2. The implied powers of the Federal Gov't are the product of the Court and or its rulings, therefore challenging such in court is completely appropriate in my view and I worry this text would impede the ability to seek the court's input and therefore it is aimed at protecting that (last bolded line)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[bore]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this?

As I said here and also in this thread, a federal law about an issue not mentioned under the rights of the senate is unconstitutional, so the first bit is tautological.

[Talleyrand]

I'll sponsor that amendment for Bore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's also the case that a criminal standard of proof would mean that a criminally liable omission would have to be an intentional one.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about this?

As I said here and also in this thread, a federal law about an issue not mentioned under the rights of the senate is unconstitutional, so the first bit is tautological.

Without a doubt, but this is once again in my view, a broad sweeping text illegalizing the challenging of the government's authority. It is fine to rest on precedent and such, reasonable heads prevailing, but history is full of instances where the worst case occurs. My priority in that case is to air on the side of caution and to place crystal clear constraints.

The mere presence of such phrasing could discourage people and regions from exercising their rights for fear that a rogue justice department (of course that would never happen, ever ) would bring them before the court. One must also consider that this is an elections game, and the mere presence of a trial (where yes the standard of proof and all of that would protect them, weeks or even months later) could impact an election. Granted that should not be a consideration in most criminal proceedings, but when it comes to issue of proper authority, I think it should factor into the equation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's also the case that a criminal standard of proof would mean that a criminally liable omission would have to be an intentional one.

Then why not air on the side of caution and include the word "intentional"?

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Guys, there are 6 hours left to vote and only 3 of us have voted.

[Lief 🗽]

AYE