 |
 |
 | |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Senate stalled on constitution debate
Posted Wednesday, January 25 2006 04:40:54 am
The Student Association Senate could not decide early this morning whether or not to disregard the Student Court and operate under the new constitution, continuing a “constitutional crisis” and pitting one branch of government against another.
In a bill introduced and sponsored by sophomore Sen. Chris Rotella (CCAS-U), the Senate at first voted 13-11 to “continue to function under the Constitution passed lawfully on Dec. 1 and certified aw law on Dec. 7,” according to the legislation.
Around 3:30 a.m., however, senators reconsidered the bill and voted to postpone it until next week. Senators were concerned that a bill of such magnitude should be more thoughtfully considered. Also, several senators were absent and voted by proxy, leaving only a handful of senators available for actual debate.
The reversal leaves the question for another week as to which constitution the SA is governed by. Some contend that the Court, which is given the authority as the final decider of what is lawful, has the power to reverse the new constitution, which was approved in Dec. by a majority of voting students. Others say that since the constitution was already certified, the Court cannot uncertify it, therefore it is already in place.
Faced with this limbo, the Senate must now decide which governing document to abide by.
SA President Audai Shakour urged senators earlier in the evening to take action immediately and decide which constitution to run by.
“Get it done tonight,” he said. “If it goes on past tonight, we’re going to look like fools.”
Shakour gave his personal opinion that choosing to run by the new constitution would be “a horrible precedent to set.”
However, he said he would have the Senate would have his support no matter what they decide. Whether or not that means that he will sign the bill despite his personal opinions will yet be seen. If Shakour vetoes the bill, it can go back to the Senate for an override.
Little was accomplished at the six-plus hours meeting, which at times was bitterly contentious and hostile. At the start of the meeting, there was much confusion as to which constitution was in effect, a discussion that dominated a special meeting that was originally dedicated to the passage of election bylaws.
The elections rules, drafted mostly by Sen. Joe Henchman (Law), are meant to reform the much-criticized Joint Elections Committee from last year.
The JEC Chair will now be chosen by a select committee of senators and then transmitted to the entire Senate body. That chair will choose an assistant, who will be confirmed by the senate. The SA president, Marvin Center Governing Board and Program Board will nominate individuals for the remaining three seats.
One of the more contentious aspects of the rules were the campaign finance regulations, which proposed a voluntary spending cap of $2,000. Some senators felt that the cap should not be voluntary but mandatory. Henchman’s justification was the U.S. Supreme Court case Buckely v. Valeo, which ruled campaign spending was a tenant of free speech.
Debate over the elections rules occurred in tandem with debate over which constitution to follow. Many of the provisions in the elections rules are tailored to the new constitution, including guidelines for dealing with vice presidential candidates and tickets, which are not part of the old constitution.
Several times throughout the meeting, senators asked Executive Vice President Morgan Corr, a junior, which constitution they were operating under. Every time, Corr said he was unable to answer the question.
“It’s a gray area,” Corr would respond when asked which constitution he was following. He said numerous times that he was conducting the meeting in accordance with both constitutions but would not specify which one.
Many senators complained that their debate was a disservice to the students and fed the popular notion that the SA accomplished nothing.
Other senators, however, attempted to elevate the debate by suggesting it was vital to the future of the student government.
“This will tear the Student Association apart,” said Sen. Kirk Haldeman (SOB-U), who is running in the upcoming election as a vice presidential candidate. He voiced a concern of many that a government divided against itself will have an ineffective future.
The legality of the Senate’s bill is unknown. The question remains whether or not one branch of government can overturn and disregard another branch of government, leading many senators to provide real-life examples to the student governing body.
Both bills will now be considered next week, as further debate and analysis amongst senators and SA enthusiasts continues as to the future of the student government.
 |
 |
||