Amendment SR#7-1

If reasonable evidence of prejudice and/or great corruption exists against or for the defendant in the sovereign world in which the prosecution is pending that he/she or it cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial a Change of Venue can be called for.
If such evidence exists then the Republic shall provide a Change of Venue in which a third party planet with no bias or corruption towards the defendant will hold the trial as pertaining to the prosecuting worlds laws.

Funding for the change of venue will come from the planet of origin, not to exceed the maximum amount that would have been spent on a local trial.

Senators that have nominated this Amendment are as follows Senator Sha’no Ryn, Senator Torco Bastra, and Senator Azervado Renning.

"Amendment SR 7-1, with greatest respect to the honoured author, still fails to address the fundamental unconstitutionality of SR 7. The principle at stake is the sovereign right of member systems in the Republic to govern themselves regarding their own affairs. This is sometimes referred to as the system of shared federalism. The proposition for change of venue is a just one, to be certain; those in the judiciary are not blind to the fact that prejudice for or against a defendant has the capacity to render that defendant's trial unfair.

"The fundamental difficulty lies with the lack of an agreement structure with, or consent to the practice by, the sovereign system where the crime or defendant originates from. To create a peremptory right to change venue in this Republic would have two effects as this office sees them. The first would be to immediately burden the Republic Court system with a vast quantity of applications by accused from multiple worlds to be tried in sympathetic forums. That could cause injustice in many ways. The second would be to create the potential for a diplomatic incident between the Republic government at large and the sovereign system concerned if the star system did not believe a change of venue was justified. The star system concerned would quite rightly insist that its sovereign rights to determine its affairs were being infringed upon by the Republic.

"That difficulty could be addressed by a 'consent provision' in the resolution providing that the process of change of venue was contingent upon the consent of both the Republic and the sovereign system to the change. In that scenario the Constitution would not be infringed since the sovereign system would then be ceding some of its sovereign rights to the Republic for that particular purpose. But to unilaterally create a change of venue right in the Republic is to risk infringing the Constitution."

"The difficulty I see with this amendment is that, to my understanding, the allegation of corruption is not one directed against the New Republic, but against the people of Bakura. That is always a matter for the judiciary of Bakura, as an arm of the sovereign government of Bakura. For the New Republic to intervene in that charge without the consent of Bakura's leaders is to infringe the New Republic's Constitution.

"As to the widening of the charge to conspiracy, I must preface my remarks with some unease at the flexibility with which alternative charges are being tossed about. The decision as to which offence to charge an individual with are far better left to law enforcement officers, not political bodies. At the very least this assembly's experiences under Cos Palpatine should have driven that message home.

"Leaving that aside, the widening of conspiracy does require some clarification. If the suggestion is that the conspiracy is against the New Republic at large, that is one thing. It is a crime against the Republic and this government has the power to intervene. But again the precise charge must be carefully considered. If the crime is conspiracy against the New Republic wholly constituted by conspiracy against Bakuran citizens, that is a Bakuran charge in substance and would offend against the Constitution. If the crime is simply conspiracy against the Bakuran people, that is also a Bakuran matter and for the Republic to intervene without Bakura's consent would offend against the Constitution."

To all concerned,

I have heard disturbing things from our Chief Justice, the man charged with not only defending the Constitution by its letter, but also by its SPIRIT which is in many ways only his jurisdiction - as Chief Justice - to interpret. Indeed, it is his provenance to understand that the letter of the law - written by the flawed hands of sentients - is often at odds with the spirit of the law, for which it was created.

Often in law, a criminal is set free due to some technicality in the law and most judges and justices are tied down to serving the letter in letting them go. The Chief Justice, on the other hand, is in a unique position to fulfill the spirit of law, that one undeniable fact that justice, above all things, must be served and not hindered by the flawed writing of imperfect sentients. The spirit of any law is that the guilty should be punished and the Chief Justice should be well aware of this and I wager he is forgetting his responsibility to the galaxy at large.

I also find cause to dispute his own words.

'The principle at stake is the sovereign right of member systems in the Republic to govern themselves regarding their own affairs.'

Clearly the Chief Justice is saying that Bakura is still part of the New Republic which is not the case, but even assuming this were the case, then the next piece of his statement is ever more confusing...

'If the suggestion is that the conspiracy is against the New Republic at large, that is one thing. It is a crime against the Republic and this government has the power to intervene. But again the precise charge must be carefully considered. If the crime is conspiracy against the New Republic wholly constituted by conspiracy against Bakuran citizens, that is a Bakuran charge in substance and would offend against the Constitution. If the crime is simply conspiracy against the Bakuran people, that is also a Bakuran matter and for the Republic to intervene without Bakura's consent would offend against the Constitution."'

First, the honorable Chief Justice would have us believe that Bakura is part of the New Republic, then he would have us believe that a conspiracy to corrupt only affects the people of Bakura. This is erroneous, because any corruption would - and has - been felt around the entire New Republic. Not to mention the fact that if Bakura is to be considered a part of the New Republic, then any corruption and conspiracy affects New Republic citizens and is therefore jurisdiction proof positive for the New Republic. It is our responsibility to see this man punished for his crimes against New Republic citizens.

To wit, since he clearly cannot be punished on Bakura, then it is the duty of the New Republic, Constitution et al, that he be tried away from that system.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sen. Tak
Naboo

Senator Natal,

Unfortunately, I am away at the moment and could not speak out in person, but this is the best I could do.

In addition, I would like to point out that I was willing to pay extradition costs, not because it was anything personal, but because well meaning bills often are struck down in the Senate due to a funding consideration that may put the New Republic into debt and I thought the situation warranted the removal of this corrupt individual regardless of considerations of money, which in itself often corrupts - something I fear you may know all too well.

Regards,
Sen. Tak
Naboo

Normally, I wouldn't do this, Your Honor, but I feel it is necessary. Senator Tak Vedis is a very large potential thorn in our sides and the side of all things sane. Have you read his latest tirade against reason in the face of Chief Justice Blackstone's proclamation?

I think it is time we acted together, as a unit to eliminate this threat the Minimalist Party brings to the Senate. If reason and compromise cannot win the day, then we are treading dangerously close to treason in this Senate. We don't really want him to sit in the minority and dictate policy in this august body, do we?

Please consider my offer of temporary alliance between our two sides - the goal being to suffocate the Miminalists into submission so that we can better represent our peoples interest without such interference by well meaning dullards. If we can work something out, I invite you to support our Chief Justice by voting Nay on this current bill.

Sincerely,
Ashil Furn, leader of the Galactic People's Party

Saintheart posted:

---

OOC: It would be improper of me to continue commenting on the amendments while the voting is on, so Blackstone will refrain from speaking further at this point.

However, I should raise something: as I said in an earlier post, I had been posting on the presumption Bakura was in fact one of the sovereign systems of the New Republic. Hammer, what's your ruling on this?

---