The Agrinautica

Weekly ASUCD Report
   A bill was passed unanimously by the ASUCD Senate two weeks ago which would allow Court members to write legislation. Currently the judicial codes forbid Court members from writing legislation, making them the only nine members of ASUCD who cannot write legislation (Aggie employees can't either but thats their rule, not an ASUCD one).
   I'm told by Senator Thomas Lloyd, though independant confirmation hasn't been successful yet, that President Gallagher vetoed the legislation. Lloyd claims that I tricked everyone (all of IAC, all of the Senate) because it didn't explicitly say that Court members could only write legislation on the Judicial Codes and Article VII of the Constitution (the judicial article). I think this is preposterous considering the legislation is only like five lines. If they interpreted it to be wildly different than it actually was, its certainly not my fault they failed to read and interpret FIVE FREAKING LINES.
   Consequently, Lloyd has authored a bill which went through Internal Affairs Commission on Monday which very explicitly removes the rights of Court members to write legislation on things other than the Judicial Codes or Article VII. Incidently there is no precedent anywhere in the world outside ASUCD for abridging our ability to write legislation, nor is there any reason that holds any water. The one that continually comes up is "whats to stop them then from abusing their power and writing legislation giving them more power," to which the obvious answer is that it has to go through the entire process of IAC, Senate and President. Additionally, wouldn't that same argument make for a much more realistic reason to ban the president from writing legislation? And what about the Senate??
   If the previous legislation was really vetoed, I say the Senate should override the veto this Thursday. If one really wants to push the argument that the Court is going to go mad with power with the ability to write legislation, I urge that one at least be consistent and similarly ban the executive office from writing legislation other than for the Government Codes and Article III of the ASUCD Constitution.

   Otherwise, the new Senators were sworn in last Thursday, ushering in an era of unprecedented diversity of affiliation on the Senate. Previously dominated by the two parties, Lead and Focus, the Senate now consists of four Leadite senators, three Focite senators, three independant senators (two republicans and the president of the davis college democrats), and two Urger senators. Also IAC Chairperson Kahliah Laney has become the most recent in a string of resignations.

[Poll #451234]

Rating Elections
   Polling here has indicated that Emosnail readers consider the ASUCD Election to have had a Shadyness Rating of 9.42, with 83% of the respondants indicating a 10.0. Incidently, once the issue could no longer be appealed to us (after the Senators were sworn in), we discussed the topic on the ASUCD Supreme Court. Fortunately most of them knew little about the case, so I gave them the relevant facts while avoiding leading them to any particular conclusion. The members of the ASUCD Supreme Court all found that Roy's actions did not constitute falsification, and furthermore, finding so after having verified the information oneself sounds suspiciously like one is "gunning for him." I would concur: what is listed are possible examples of falsification, but that does not mean they are in all occurances falsification. Clearly, the information was not falsified. Also if they found on the high end of their discretion in this case, what the crap would constitute less severe falsification??

   The MUN election occurred today. In lieu of rumours that there had been intended elections fraud, Dana Davies-Shaw, former ASUCD Senate candidate, Campus Judicial Board member, and Canadian, was brought in to observe the ballot counting.
However, former Secretary-General Catherine Myung (who appears to still be planning everything two weeks after resigning) instructed those wishing to cast their ballots via email to email them to her. I pointed out to her that they ought to be instructed to at least cc these to Davies-Shaw as well. Her response as "I was just planning on printing out all the email ballots, and have them mixed into with the regular ballots. But if Dana is okay having ballot's cc'ed to him, I will send out another email about it. Or I could forward all the ballots to him as well." She never sent out another email. We are therefore depending entirely on Myung's word alone that she faithfully forwarded all the emailed ballots and didn't make any up. I don't mean to say that she did use the opportunity to conduct elections fraud, but its just a huge blow to the legitimacy of the election.

   I've never really understood people who boycott elections, like the Shiites in the recent Iraqi election. Aren't you mainly just screwing yourself over? However, I found myself not voting in the MUN election. It wasn't a boycott in the same way -- I didn't publicize my abstention to any of the relevant parties as a political statement. Rather, it was more for myself. I couldn't in good conscience participate in this election -- any candidate that the current leadership didn't like had been intimidated out of running (I myself would have considered running I think if I didn't feel it would just result in a concerted slander campaign against me and being the victim of completely unfair and fraudulent tactics just like last time). I couldn't grant it the credence of legitimacy without making myself feel sick, so I abstained from participating.

   The amendment to the MUN bylaws I wrote last week to eliminate the Secretariat's ability to expel people from the club without consulting the membership was not voted on today because it was placed sixth our of seven agenda items, and by that point in the meeting we had lost quorum. I have written another amendment that will require amendments to the bylaws to be considered first on the agenda, because otherwise they could be put off indefinitely, as regularly a good third of the members present at the beginning of a meeting are gone by the end.


Shady Quote of the Day
amazonjedimaster: you have no morals of any sort to hold you back
amazonjedimaster: ^_^
PrzemekP: ha! I do
PrzemekP: I have morals, they're just weird and skewed

Previously on Emosnail
   Two Years Ago Today: Another Party on Loyola - and one next door, to which I believe Shemek showed up.
   Year Ago Today: Dancing in the Kitchen - Four months for Kristy and I. Today it has been 16 months of the strongest sauce and heartred.

   "...I hereby resign ... I was in the freshman dorms, I never lied about that. Fact is, I was told to go there by my Focus [his party] advisors ... and you all sit around smiling smugly as if you didn't do the same. Not only that but I know many of you were drunk during budget hearings..." -(former) ASUCD Senator Nafeh Malik (paraphrased here, I don't have an exact transcript), resigning in lieu of the campaigning in the dorms controversy.
   "wow um... I think we need a ten minute break now to recollect ourselves." -Vice President Paloma Perez. "actually... I resign as well... -(former) ASUCD Senator Sean Reul.
   "The word is FUBAR" -ASUCD Senator Donald Cohen-Cutler on his cell phone immediately after a recess was subsequently called.
   "I'm... not resigning..." -ASUCD Senator Brianna Haag, the third implicated new Focus senator, as an anxious silence awaits her report.
   "I'm resigning... from all my other positions" -ASUCD Business & Finance Commission Chairman Alan Pang. "So wait, you're remaining in this one?" -President Kalen Gallagher, interjecting in the subsequent confusion. "yes." Room breaths an exasperated sigh of relief, Internal Affiars Commission Chairwoman Kahliah Laney looks like she's having a heart attack.

   Also at yesterdays senate meeting they swore in former Focus candidate Cari Ham to fill the senate seat earlier vacated by Lead senator Adam Barr. Selection of senators to fill vacated seats is the sole discretion of the ASUCD president.

Aggie photographer Matt Jojola (blueliquid13) sulks after missing both resignations, having left the room right before the excitement commenced (but he got a picture of the empty seats which I tihnk was probably more poignent anyway). Orwellian party candidates Rob Roy and Chad van Schoelandt can be seen in the back right corner.

Jurisprudence in ASUCD
   President Gallagher ostensably vetoed the bill passed by senate last quarter to allow ASUCD Court members to write legislation. He justified it by saying that US Supreme Court justices don't write legislation, among other things.
   In response, I firstly pointed out that as the ASUCD president has until the next regularly scheduled senate meeting to veto legislation, and that has already transpired, his veto is unconstitutional. So what happens now is either the relevant government body can refuse to recognize his veto in light of its manifest unconstitutionality, or it can be reversed in a case. The former more convenient method is unlikely to occur so either I will be filing a case myself, or if I don't other people have said they will certainly file one. Obviously either way I wouldn't be sitting on the case though.
   Furthermore I pointed out that in the national arena, one has the Justice Department, the Bar Association, numerous other law related lobby groups, and armies of lawyers who love to tinker with the law. In ASUCD the only semblance of any of these is the ASUCD Court. To say the court can't write legislation is to say that no judicial legislation will be written in ASUCD, and that is ridiculous.
   Also I mentioned that Marberry v Madison in 1807 established that the US Supreme Court could review issues that inherently involved the Court, thus negating the opposing argument that if Court members wrote legislation it would be a conflict of interest for them. To this Commissioner Gordon "I was president of my JC" Fung responded that he didn't think Marberry v Madison applied in this situation. In response I proceeded to give a brief history of the circumstances and significance of Marberry v Madison for the Senate.
   Chairperson Jenni Beeman then asked why we were citing US Supreme Court cases as relevant to ASUCD. This prompted me to give the Senate a brief overview of legal theory and jurisprudence.
   In summary, it was altogether good times.


ASUCD Senators Keith Shively, Janine Fiel, & Darnell Holloway during Thursdays meeting.