 |
| |
|
|
civman2000
|
 |
of the Martian Empire
Jun 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
I will be leaving early sunday, so I will not be able to argue my case after tomorrow night, though if anyone who agrees with me wants to take over for me after I leave they may.
Request to the Apolyton Court: That this poll be declared invalid.
Argument 1: Lack of clarity.
Article III of the constitution says:
quote:
The required inclusions for the post are: an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a general description of what your poll entails. |
The poll's first post:
quote:
The Question: would you agree to having sign-ups that replace current censuses and the lifetime signups, described in this thread
Options:
Yes, signups every month
Yes, signups every other month
Yes, signups every [insert your idea here]
No, keep the current system
No, I propose a different system
Abstain/Banana/Other |
The thread that is linked to, however, only presents a discussion and does not clearly say what importance these signups would have.
Argument 2: Violation of Clause 2, Amendment IV (Bill of Rights).
CLause 2 of the Bill of Rights reads:
quote:
Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll. |
After I posted in the poll:
quote:
No. It's not clear exactly how significant the results of the signups will be, but since there is a chance that people who don't sign up monthly will not be considered citizens, I vote no. |
jdd2007 replied:
quote:
we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up. it would be flexible.
Note: this is not an amendment |
Although this clarification of the poll is not in the first post, I believe it still may be enough of an explanation to invalidate my first argument. However, this clarification clearly violates Clause 2 of the Bill of Rights. Because the poll is not an amendment, it cannot restrict the right of anyone considered a citizen to vote.
Last edited by civman2000 on 26-07-2002 at 18:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UnOrthOdOx
|
 |
Hello....
Jun 2002
time: 22:21
|
|
civman, in all fairness, the Bill of Rights may have passed, but it is not officially added to the CoL yet. Therefore, any case based on such could be called invalid. Also, is it your position that the BoR is to be made RETROACTIVE? jdd's poll was made BEFORE the BoR was passed, therefore should not be bound by said BoR. Unless, of course, you claim jdd should have known the future?
And jdd, I will gladly represent your defense, for a trivial fee...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdd2007
|
 |
Cincinnati
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
civman, in all fairness, the Bill of Rights may have passed, but it is not officially added to the CoL yet. Therefore, any case based on such could be called invalid. Also, is it your position that the BoR is to be made RETROACTIVE? jdd's poll was made BEFORE the BoR was passed, therefore should not be bound by said BoR. Unless, of course, you claim jdd should have known the future?
And jdd, I will gladly represent your defense, for a trivial fee... |
i was thinking about defending myself, but i would be glad for your help. your hired at 5 bananas a day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
The court must agree to hear a case. By my understanding, they have not yet, so this isn't a case yet, just a debate.
The issue IMO jdd2007 was getting at is an important one. I agree with him that the system as it currently stands is screwey. It needs some sort of revisions. Judging by the voting in this poll, 9 said no, 9 abstianed, and only 5 or 6 voted for changing. Obviously, the majority either doesn't like these proposed changes, or doesn't care. Fine. jdd2007 obviously doesn't want to exclude anyone unfairly. And by his statements, he is sorry for having this turn out this way.
civman2000. You are right in the technicalities of this issue. However, the way you have gone about this is poorly thought out. It appears, unintentionally I do believe, that you are attacking jdd2007 personally. I know that this is not what you intended.
So both you, please, look at what is going on here. Sit down, recognize each of you is both right and wrong, in different regards. Appologize to eachother. Offer to buy each other a beer (or coca-cola, or coffee, or whatever) the next time you are in eachothers home town. Peace.
Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
My hope is that someone from The Court will drop in and post to this thread that they have declined to hear "Civman2000 vs jdd2007" and end this speculation and misuse of the court. This issue is moot.
jdd2007's poll, while saying "official" does not actually change the laws, it just gages the opinion of the people into one "official" poll.
If jdd2007 had created a law that violated the Bill of Rights and Constitution, then we'd have an issue. There'd be a conflict of laws and one would have to be invalid. At THAT point The Court would have to step in to determine which law was, in fact, the will of the people.
Since there clearly is no conflict right now as to the state of the law, no one's rights are currently being violated, and nothing illegal is being done, this isn't a viable case.
--Togas
p.s. I would prefer, in the future, that The Court itself post case threads and that citizens PM possible cases to The Court for submission.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-07-2002 18:14
.
.
).
. You have my support, jdd2007.
|