Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 27, 2020, 12:28:04 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games
  Mock Parliament (Moderators: Hash, Dereich)
  Legislation: Federal Courts Act, 1789 (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Legislation: Federal Courts Act, 1789 (Passed)  (Read 679 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,468
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 07, 2018, 07:33:43 pm »
« edited: July 10, 2018, 11:03:11 pm by Lumine »

Federal Courts Act, 1789:

Be it resolved:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the Sponsor:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,468
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2018, 07:34:48 pm »

There will be 72 hours for debate, extendable to 96 at the request of the sponsor and further only by OOC requests by the players (with a credible reason).
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,003
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2018, 10:27:44 pm »

Mr Speaker,

The Opposition finds itself in broad support of the bill, but would like to offer an amendment to it. We propose that all judicial appointees be confimed as nonpartisan before their approval for office. The courts must remain a non-political branch, unaffected by the partisanship of the Assembly or any state governments.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,503
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2018, 05:45:42 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in opposition to the legislation. The "High Constitutional Court," as proposed, would empower a small group of unelected judges to overrule the decisions of our democratically-elected National Assembly, a broad power that may quickly lead to tyranny. In England no model of liberty! the decisions of their highest court are reviewable by the House of Lords. Any supreme judicial body in our country ought to be similarly liable to some other body of men, ideally some body that depends upon the people for its place. I believe the Senate would be a natural body for such a role; alternatively, the justices of the court may simply be elected in a fashion similar to our President.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,733


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2018, 07:25:37 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

The supreme voice on matters relating to the Constitutionality of laws and actions must - must! - be vested in a seperate, independent body from all forms of politics. It also must be vested in a body far removed from the opinions, whims, and desires of the American people. There may come, nay, there will come, a day when the majority of the American people will sanction a course of action that runs contrary to the very nature of this grand experiment in which we are engaged. That day may have already arrived on the question of slavery. The highest court on constitutional matters must be strong and independent of the political process to ensure that we, as a Republic, are acting in accordance with our foundational principles.

I will accept the amendment from the gentleman from Suffolk and Queen's as friendly to the intentions and purposes of the bill.

I yield.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,468
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2018, 07:31:47 pm »

The Speaker announces the Hamilton Amendment has been added to the bill.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,003
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2018, 07:52:54 pm »

Mr Speaker,

Any attempt to have an elected judiciary would only result in said judges being loyal to those who could fund their campaigns. I was led to believe this government was opposed to a handful of wealthy individuals picking and choosing who they want to serve. Much of the time, those with the most money will win an election, and that is supposed to be the very anathema of this government.

An elected judiciary would only result in each faction attempting to play partisan politics with their candidates for such a job. The task must be to apply the Constitution to federal law, and elected judges will merely do this as their masters wish.

In conclusion, I merely state this: would not a group of judges who have spent their lives studying law better apply the Constitution than partisan politicans who would merely seek to play politics on this?

I yield.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,503
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2018, 10:25:41 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

The desire of the opposition to insulate judges from all forms of politics seems to me a fool’s errand. Are they not today seeking to establish the judiciary through a political process? Would not their judges, in the legislation they propose, be appointed on the advice of the First Secretary, with the consent of the Senate? Do they not charge their High Constitutional Court with the task of reviewing the actions of governments?

They claim their Court to be independent of politics, but its origins are political, and its duties are certainly so. The question before our body today is not whether we are to have an apolitical court — such a contradiction is incapable of existing. The question, rather, is of the powers of the judiciary, and the power of the people to hold the judiciary accountable.

The esteemed gentleman from New York proposes that the majority of the American people may sanction a course of action contrary to our grand experiment. Such an idea merely betrays that the gentleman misunderstands the nature of this experiment. Given his past suggestion that a monarchical despot ought to rule this union, this misunderstanding is not particularly surprising, but it is disappointing all the same.

The unique character of our project is derived from recognizing that all powers of government are derived from the people, and that a just government ought to be exercised solely for the benefit of the people. This differs from the monarchies of Europe, where governments are exercised for the benefit of a King, with little regard paid to the liberty of the public.

The creation of an unelected high court capable of striking down the laws justly enacted by the representatives of the people is entirely antithetical to the nature of this American republic. Given that the objections of the member for Suffolk & Queens pertain entirely to the idea of a directly elected judiciary, I present the following amendment, which would ensure the court remains accountable in some fashion to those elected by the public:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I yield back the balance of my time.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,003
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2018, 11:13:56 pm »

Mr Speaker,

THe proposed amendment would indeed make the High Constitutional Court accountable to the public, but such an extreme measure must only be taken when the Court is adjudged to have grossly abused its power, else we risk the independence of the judiciary, as well as risking the Assembly becoming bogged down in each faction attempting to start votes to overturn decisions constantly.

We must have assurances that no faction will attempt to play political games of the judiciary. It is far too important to do so. If we can be given these assurances, then we will support the amendment.
Logged
Not_A_Man
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,093
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2018, 11:20:08 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

On behalf of the Patriots, I wish to come out in full support of the Gentleman from Kentucky's amendment to the bill, and the Gentleman from Suffolk & Queens may have my word as Leader of the Patriots that we would only vote to overturn a decision should it be clearly erroneous and opposed by a clear majority of the public of this nation.

I yield.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,503
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2018, 12:05:14 am »

Mr. Speaker,

As much as any other member, I do not wish to see the Court turned into a proxy for legislative squabbles. I believe the 2/3 majority which in our present Assembly would require the combination of the four largest factions, or an even broader coalition of smaller factions is sufficient to ensure that a faction would only dedicate their platform in the legislature to overturning a decision when it is clear the Court has erred. This is not an attempt to establish the judiciary as yet another political battlefield; rather, it is merely a recognition that judges, like deputies, err from time to time. In the interest of preserving a functional system of laws, it is far better that such errors be corrected quickly by the National Assembly, rather than waiting years or decades for the Court to revisit its past thinking.

I yield.
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,669


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2018, 12:14:32 am »

Mr. Speaker,

While I and my fellow faction members support this legislation for the most part, it is apparent that it is necessary for the honorable member from Kentucky's amendment to be passed. It is important for our highest courts to be separate from political drama, yes, but it is also just as important that the American people, through one voice or another, have a check and balance on these courts, or we shall descend into tyranny of these institutions, for it is the people which should have the final say, be it through the Assembly, if it must. A two-thirds majority of votes in this house, as noted by the honorable member from Kentucky, does provide ample protection against political ploys, due to the very polarized nature of this house, and the large number of seats required to meet the threshold.

I yield.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,003
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2018, 12:22:28 am »

Mr Speaker,

Our people are satisified with the assurances given by the government. The gentleman from Kentucky has our support.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,468
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2018, 12:46:46 am »

The Speaker requests the Sponsor (The Hon. John Jay of New York) as to his opinion/direction pertaining the Hon. James Wilkinson's amendment.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,733


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2018, 04:35:04 am »

Mr. Speaker,

I am opposed to the Amendment from the Gentleman from Kentucky. The courts should NOT be responsible to the people - the courts should and must operate ABOVE the people and their political representation. If the National Assembly passes a law that is directly contrary to the intents and purposes of our Constitution, then it should be overturned by the Constitutional Court. The Gentleman says that today it would take agreement from 4 parties to overturn a Constitutional Court decision. Well what of tomorrow? Ten years from now? 100 years from now? A law cannot only be good and proper today.
Logged
terp40hitch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,587
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2018, 08:13:49 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

Over the last three days, I have strongly debated whether to support this or not. I believe that there is a need for a court for constitutional matters but this bill is taking away powers from the states. States rights are gurteened in the constitution and creating a federal constitutional court is going to be created by neglecting the constitution.

This court will be a massive growth in the federal government and I will not sit by and watch it happen.  We must prevent this power surge to the federal government or else we may face another oppressive government like the one we just freed ourselves from.

I do support adding the deputy from Kentucky's amendment and I might have supported this bill but with the Tories doing everything in their power to not have it added I know I cannot support this bill. I will be voting against this unchecked federal court system and urge my fellow deputies to do what is right for this nation and vote against this bill.

I yield
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,669


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2018, 08:37:57 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I propose a compromise amendment: for a three-fourths majority of the assembly to be required to vote in favor of an overruling to undo a decision by the highest court. This amendment would ensure that no one faction or party of the people would be able to overturn a ruling alone, as it is improbable to believe that a caucus could garner such support in a free and fair election, of which I hope we can continue for the sake of our liberty. This, however, would also ensure that the people, albeit through indirect means, would still have a say in these most important rulings.

I and my colleagues do believe it offensive for the Tories to claim that these justices must be above the rule of the people, that the unified voice of our constituents should be disregarded by the iron rule of some few, much like the monarchy of our days past. In this grand experiment, we have pursued this first and foremost for the vision of the people, not a select few.

Our misgivings aside, we do hope that the Tory faction will come to support this compromise, as it is clear the large majority of the rest of the opposition and government do stand in favor of this judiciary but with a check by the people, not through absolute rule. We are coming to the table to cooperate for the people, and we hope our colleagues in the opposition do stand with us also to unify this nation.

I yield the remainder of my time.
Logged
Galaxie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2018, 09:15:45 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

This delegate will rise in agreement with those arguing for a 2/3ds majority to overturn decisions of our courts. After all, didn't John Jay assign this as the magic number to remove a justice? Surely, if Mr. Jay believes that a 2/3 majority was enough to prevent politics from interfering with the process of removing a justice, it is enough to prevent politics from interfering with overturning decisions.

In addition, this Delegate would like to see an amendment that limits these judges and justices from holding other political offices while simultaneously serving in the judiciary. We must keep the judiciary independent from other branches of government to ensure that it is truly a check on what could spiral into tyranny of the legislature.

I yield my time.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,733


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2018, 09:24:24 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I will accept the amendment from the gentleman from Pennsylvania of the Tory Faction as friendly.

I yield.
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,669


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2018, 09:32:48 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

Given that the honorable member from New York City & Westchester has had a reversal of position on the two-thirds amendment, I withdraw my compromise amendment from consideration. Additionally, I would like to speak in support of the honorable member from Pennsylvania's proposition to have a judiciary which is free from other political office, to ensure that these justices are free from partisan politics.

I yield the remainder of my time.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,733


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2018, 09:38:30 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I have not reversed my position on the idea of our courts being overturned by an elected, political body. I am still opposed to it. The amendment I accepted as friendly was this one: "In addition, this Delegate would like to see an amendment that limits these judges and justices from holding other political offices while simultaneously serving in the judiciary. We must keep the judiciary independent from other branches of government to ensure that it is truly a check on what could spiral into tyranny of the legislature."

I yield.
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,669


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2018, 09:43:38 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

After a humorous exchange, I now reintroduce my compromise amendment, and hope that the honorable member from New York City & Westchester can next time state his intentions in a more clear sense. Furthermore, we in the government still implore the Tory faction to join with the rest of the Assembly in approving this amendment, as it would be obstruction to not only prevent the will of the majority against the minority, but also to prevent the will of the American people in these most important cases.

I yield.
Logged
Not_A_Man
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,093
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2018, 09:49:39 pm »
« Edited: July 10, 2018, 03:54:16 pm by Not Senator Not Madigan »

Mr. Speaker,

I concur with the Tory Gentleman from Pennsylvania and the Gentleman from Charlottesville in guaranteeing our judiciary is free from political office, and would support such an amendment.  I also urge the Gentleman from New York City & Westchester to support holding the Courts accountable to the people, as even one of the deputies within his party finds himself supportive of such an action.

I find myself mostly supportive of the legislation, as with the most likely passage of Amendments protecting the rights of the states as well as the natural rights of man we will need a constitutional court in order to make sure there are no attempts to infringe upon the rights guaranteed in the amendments.  I do hope that there is an amendment added to the bill that will allow the courts to be accountable to the people through the Assembly.  However, with the apparent support of such an amendment likely to be able to override the Gentleman from New York City & Westchester's objections, I urge my fellow deputies, especially the Gentleman from Augusta and my fellow Patriots, to support this legislation.

I yield.
Logged
Galaxie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2018, 09:55:55 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to ask a question to those in this Congress:

If Senators are able to remove a judge or justice with the support of three-fourths of their chamber, certainly they as well should be granted the right to overturn legislation by that same margin?

It seems strange to this Delegate to grant them one authority over the judiciary, but deny another.

Perhaps, if it is friendlier to the Gentleman from New York City & Westchester, only our Senators -- being unelected -- could overturn rulings by our judiciary.

While this Delegate still stands in favor of this body having that ability as well, it seems prudent for the passage of policy in this chamber to continually fight for compromise.

I yield my time.
Logged
terp40hitch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,587
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2018, 10:07:52 pm »
« Edited: July 09, 2018, 10:12:11 pm by terp40hitch »

Mr. Speaker,

I must rise again as new developments for the bill have come up. We must hold these courts accountable by the people and not let them be unchecked. This is why I am so strongly in favor of adding the 3/4ths amendment. This will hold the courts accountable so they aren't unchecked and they don't become oppressive and so they actually do protect and preserve our contsitioun.

If the 3/4ths amendment is added to the bill then I will change my vote to in favor of the bill instead of my earlier stated no vote. If this amendment doesn't get added to the bill then I remain strongly against it and will urge my fellow deputies to vote no.

We cannot allow the federal government to be unchecked and unbalanced, this is why it is so important that we add the 3/4th amendment proposed by Mr. Jefferson.

I yield
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC