|
| 26 Apr 2015 04:14 AM |
Section I - Preamble The noticeability of the failure to keep checks and balances is increasing. The judicial branch has far more checks over the other two branches, and can even nullify the legislative branch's one check against them: impeachment. Not only that, but more frequently there are people emerging with high ranks in more than one governmental branch. We must close the paths of ridiculous amounts of power for the betterment of our country.
Section II
(1) This bill shall be cited as the "Strengthening of Checks and Balances Act".
(a) "SCBA" may be used as a shortened alternative.
Section III
(1) It is henceforth illegal to be a member of both the judicial branch and the executive branch.
(a) This includes all government agencies and departmental entities.
(b) Membership of the Department of Justice under the rank of "Board of Directors" is allowed.
(c) Membership of the American Bar Association is also allowed.
(2) It is henceforth illegal to be a member of both the judicial branch and the legislative branch.
(a) This includes all of Congress and the United States Capitol Police.
(3) All citizens who conflict with subsections (1) or (2) have 3 days after the passage of this bill to abide by them.
(4) If any citizens break subsection (1) and (2) and subsection (3) has expired, they are to be suspended from all positions they hold, and they may not exercise any authority which their positions give them.
(a) Their impeachment is also to be written, for Criminal Negligence.
Section IV
(1) The Judicial Branch is hereby banned from participating in or overseeing any impeachment trial.
(a) The Chief Justice, may, however, if their constitutional authority is required, oversee an impeachment trial of the President.
Section V
(1) With the consent of both the Senate and the House of Representatives' Majority and Minority Leaders, a legislative subpoena may be ordered to summon a specific member of any governmental branch; they are to speak in the Congress chambers about a specific issue which the Congress wishes to discuss.
(a) Failure to comply with a legislative subpoena shall justify punishments as sanctioned by the votes of both houses of Congress.
Section VI - Conclusion The judicial branch's reign of terror will come to an end with the passage of this bill. Not only will the outrageous powergrabbing and abuse decrease, but Congress shall be given the tools needed to stop any more cases, should they arise. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 05:54 AM |
Excellent bill mail man!
Support |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 08:05 AM |
Very well. Written exquisitely. Support.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 11:12 AM |
well here we go;
(1) It is henceforth illegal to be a member of both the judicial branch and the executive branch. ah, so copa failed so naturally kill a different branch. Fun fun!
(a) This includes all government agencies and departmental entities. to be honest, i dont care about not being in other groups as im only in sc
(b) Membership of the Department of Justice under the rank of "Board of Directors" is allowed. the rank is Judicial Directory, not Board of Directors as none of us are directors
(c) Membership of the American Bar Association is also allowed.
(2) It is henceforth illegal to be a member of both the judicial branch and the legislative branch. not that anyone really wants to be in the legislative anyway
(a) This includes all of Congress and the United States Capitol Police. again, no one wants to be
(3) All citizens who conflict with subsections (1) or (2) have 3 days after the passage of this bill to abide by them.
>>>how to kill SC: since SC currently only has 5 members, and the majority is in executive branch, so make them choose between either and then you'll have even less! but wait theres more!
then if we don't pass the approval of more scjs, the entire branch dies and we get all the power!
(4) If any citizens break subsection (1) and (2) and subsection (3) has expired, they are to be suspended from all positions they hold, and they may not exercise any authority which their positions give them.
(a) Their impeachment is also to be written, for Criminal Negligence.
Section IV
(1) The Judicial Branch is hereby banned from participating in or overseeing any impeachment trial.
how dare we do our jobs! impeach all of us!
(a) The Chief Justice, may, however, if their constitutional authority is required, oversee an impeachment trial of the President.
oh yes, wouldn't want to go against the constitution! that would be horrible!
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 11:48 AM |
No support due to the section which will not allow the judicial branch to look over impeachments.
Congress has always had problems when it came to impeachments. Look for example, Marino's. It was completely biased, and I'd think corruption was involved, and misconduct.
They should be able to look over impeachments.
Like your recent legislation proposal, you're trying to stop criminals from being able to get into Congress or at least stop them from being able.
How would you feel if a criminal was proposing an impeachment, and there was misconduct within the impeachment?
This is why we need the branch...
I do how ever agree to some of your other great points. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
| |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 12:06 PM |
@soviet Thank you for your constructive criticism! The reason I wrote that the SC shouldn't have a say in impeachments (besides the CJ presiding over the presidential impeachment) is that the Supreme Court currently has the power to block an impeachment for whatever reason. They also control all evidence in an impeachment, which means that partial judges can control the case if they want to. I hope you understand if I'd like for it to be retained.
@punisher i'm not going to start an argument with you (since you're clearly biased - you're in the judicial branch), but I'll say this: we're not killing a branch, we're limiting its powers. the SC limited our powers severely by picking a speaker (which is unconstitutional), killing things they didn't like (that WERE constitutional) and, at one point, shut down congress for nearly 2 weeks.
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 12:29 PM |
"Section VI - Conclusion The judicial branch's reign of terror will come to an end with the passage of this bill. Not only will the outrageous powergrabbing and abuse decrease, but Congress shall be given the tools needed to stop any more cases, should they arise."
Did I miss something here? I've never really thought of our justices to be outrageous powergrabbers and holding a reign of terror |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zdude3000
|
  |
| Joined: 05 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 10834 |
|
| |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 12:39 PM |
When did we pick a speaker? You vote on your own speaker, and got who fairly won.
"is that the Supreme Court currently has the power to block an impeachment for whatever reason." And where does it say this? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 01:11 PM |
The Supreme Court made a decision appointing EconomicsMaster as Speaker, without holding an election. Look in the NARA for the second point.
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:09 PM |
Ross, you make it seem as if the Supreme Court can walk in and get rid of an impeachment.
SECTION 4. The Supreme Court shall have the power to review any action of the legislative and executive branch at any time by a majority vote of the Justices. They may overturn any law, executive order, or other action if they find it illegal, unconstitutional, or unlawful.
If they deem the impeachment illegal, unconstitutional, and or unlawful they can overturn it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:14 PM |
| They actually have to have reasons according to our constitution. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:17 PM |
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=148435359
^thunder basically saying, in the best english he could possibly muster, that the supreme court controls impeachments
2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> This clearly says (For those who don't read much) that congress decides the punishment for Treason, not give people the charge! And wait whats that ... "No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." IT SAYS COURT!!! Oh no... I guess that means we have the power...
also impeachments can't be illegal, unconstitutional or unlawful it's not up to the SC to decide
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:46 PM |
Impeachments can be declared illegal or unlawful.
During Mar's impeachment there was legislation misconduct, and conflict of interest. The Supreme Court
Thunder doesn't know what he's talking about, and there was talk about impeaching him.
It is up for the SC to decide according to our constitution.
"SECTION 4. The Supreme Court shall have the power to review any action of the legislative and executive branch at any time by a majority vote of the Justices. They may overturn any law, executive order, or other action if they find it illegal, unconstitutional, or unlawful. "
Article 3 SECTION 4.
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=151756530 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:52 PM |
I didn't see Thunder say that the Supreme Court controls impeachments.
All I saw him do was violate part of the constitution possibly, if he did pick the punishment unsure about the entire thing.
But he was wrong, Congress picks the punishment. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 02:55 PM |
Alright. If I loosen the restrictions on the Supreme Court by removing "or overseeing" (meaning that they still cannot dictate or manipulate the trial because of "participating), would you consider supporting the bill?
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
soviet510
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 2705 |
|
|
| 26 Apr 2015 03:02 PM |
They have the ability for a reason Ross, and I honestly don't think it's ever been abused.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 06:29 AM |
Basically I said, you can NOT convict people of treason in this forum: http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=148435359
Now on to you being speaker, you created a "EX POST FACO LAW" which is clearly unconstitutional. Now you trying to say we over rule impeachments, is just not true. We have never done, and won't ever do it unless a dire situation. Your Act can't over rule the constitution, where it gives us expressed permission to do so.
- Chief Justice thunderstarcat |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 10:58 AM |
The constitution does NOT give the supreme court the power to overrule impeachments. In fact, look at this:
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"
"shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"
you have absolutely NO power over impeachments. Congress has granted the Supreme Court, at Congress's discretion (not yours), the ability to review evidence for impeachment cases.
Stop thinking you're all-powerful. You may think you are, and you definitely act like it, but you're just power-obsessed twits who have no idea what they're doing.
-Senator rossb654mail
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 10:58 AM |
"EX POST FACO LAW"
funny how you know nothing about what you're supposed to be an expert at, XD
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 03:45 PM |
What's this? "SECTION 4. The Supreme Court shall have the power to review any action of the legislative and executive branch at any time by a majority vote of the Justices. They may overturn any law, executive order, or other action if they find it illegal, unconstitutional, or unlawful. "
Okay so is impeachment an action? I think so. We can't impeach we can review.
Continuing on I mean ex post facto
I.e you made a rule that anyone in a specific group within the previous two weeks would dq, which Eco was in and was not currently in. Ross back up your claims don't just say "He doesn't know anything" because again circular reasoning. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 03:48 PM |
"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"
LITERALLY only the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment, and it is the one which commands it. The supreme court CANNOT overturn impeachments, as the articles of the constitution clearly state that ONLY the House of Representatives has any power over impeachments. Of course, trials are a different thing as they are directly controlled by the Senate.
rossb654mail || i'm right you know || "ross the meanie tearing your bills to shreds since 2015" - fauxtillion |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Apr 2015 09:57 PM |
Im afraid i cannot support this. As an American citizen i want justice to be swift and fair. The judicial department may have their kinks, but i believe those can be brought out from the department. If they are removed from an impeachment trial then justice cannot be swift and fair. While this may be a good idea in the future if need be, its not time for it yet. Signed, Alikenut777 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|