Proposed Legislation on the Judiciary Act

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Proposed Legislation on the Judiciary Act

Post by Beathan »

I have proposed the following bill to the RA by giving it to Justice Soothsayer. While I am proposing the bill today -- which is technically late -- I request that the RA consider it tomorrow on an emergency basis. I have filed an appeal of a moderator decision, and the Judiciary Act is preventing it from being heard. The determination of CDS forum moderation standards and enforcement practices are matters of critical public concern -- and my filed appeal should proceed, even if that requires a repeal of the Judiciary Act.

I further note that, unlike previous legislative proposals, my proposal does not kill the Judiciary Act. Rather, it requires only that the Act be redrafted into bite size pieces so that the RA and SC can consider it and its implications, rather than having nasty surprises buried in it and hidden from view by the sheer volume of the surrounding words.

Thus, this proposal both preserves the work Ash did, acknowledges and respects the concerns the opponents of the Act have about the Act, and responds to Pat's specific new concerns about hidden pitfalls in the Act. Thus, I believe that this proposal is position-neutral -- allowing us to step back, breathe, and reassess the Judiciary Act, rather than fighting about it on the barracades.

[quote:2et5rhc3]
Whereas the Judiciary Act remains controversial; and

Whereas a significant portion of the C.D.S. believes that the Judiciary Act is unworkable and the Judiciary as constituted by the Act is biased or otherwise corrupted by the operation of the Act, regardless of the goodwill of the people involved in the Judiciary; and

Whereas the Judiciary Act is an omnibus, multi-subject bill, and has been shown to include terms and provisions that were not debated, contemplated, or understood at the time it was based, largely because of its unapproachable complexity:

1. The Judiciary Act is hereby repealed;

2. The Special Commission on the Judiciary is given two weeks to divide the Judiciary Act into its component parts, without amending any of those parts;

3. The Special Commission on the Judiciary should represent as a bill with a single subject each discrete part of the Judiciary Act, which shall be approved or disapproved by the RA;

4. For every section of the JA disapproved by the RA, the Special Commission on the Judiciary shall propose alternative legislation; in the event the Commission cannot agree on single legislation, multiple bills can be proposed; such proposals shall be made within two weeks of the RA's rejection of any bill.

5. Until finalization of the reformed Judiciary Act, all legal cases shall be heard by the SC, with the Dean of the SC appointing Chairs of the SC to hear specific trials, under the Rules of Justice as previously passed by the RA.
[/quote:2et5rhc3]

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

I deal with your underhanded way of trying to abolish the judiciary permanently through improper channels [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:zrk66in6]here[/url:zrk66in6], and it is explained quite clearly on [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:zrk66in6]this thread[/url:zrk66in6] why the constitution does not stop your appeal from being heard (and therefore that there is no emergency at all).

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”