Spring Break
UJ finds constitutional violations
by Claire Moses
News | 10/9/07
Posted online at 9:28 PM EST on 10/8/07
/ Last updated at 1:24 PM EST on 10/8/07
|
A few hours after the decision, Goldman's new counsel, Jordan Rothman '09, Sam Dewey '06, Albert Cahn '07 and Igor Pedan '05, submitted a motion for re-hearing the case. The UJ hasn't responded to the request.
"While well intentioned, the opinion of the court is fundamentally flawed in numerous counts," his motion read. "Far from being illegal, Sec. Goldman's appointment of Assistant Secretary Ramakrishanan is well within the Constitution."
"We would like there to be a re-hearing and if not, we'd like to get the facts out there," Goldman said in an interview early Tuesday morning.
The hearing of the case, Maizlish v. Goldman, last Sunday evening, centered on a dispute over semantics in the Student Union Constitution.
In their opinion, justices Bryan Deutsch '08, Zachary Handler '09 and Cindy Kaplan '08 wrote that Goldman's appointment of Rajiv Ramakrishnan '10 to the post of assistant secretary for technology was unconstitutional because only the Union Senate, President and Treasurer have the ability to make "miscellaneous appointments," positions not specified in the bylaws. That ability, however, isn't included as part of the secretary's constitutional powers, they wrote.
"This Court finds that, while the duties granted to Mr. Ramakrishnan are not objectionable, and while the Senate did unanimously confirm his appointment, the channels by which Secretary Goldman created the position are unconstitutional," the opinion reads. Therefore, the UJ ruled to dissolve the position.
After the senate censured Goldman Sept. 23 and removed his power to view elections software, he appointed Ramakrishnan to view the software in his place. The senate approved of Ramakrishnan, but hadn't approved of the position being created in the first place.
Goldman's appeal argues, "Even if the office was illegal prior to that time it is now an office which necessarily exists and to which Secretary Goldman has made a valid appointment."
Viewing Comments 1 - 5 of 5
Michal Kerns
posted 10/09/07 @ 10:39 AM EST
Dear Readers,
I just wanted to speak to the sentiment behind the quote of mine in this article that "I see a conflict of interest where a Secretary is appointing someone to help him do his job. (Continued…)
james sanders
posted 10/09/07 @ 10:54 AM EST
"The senate amended the consttution Sunday night, adding a bylaw preventing Union officials from releasing elections results prematurely."
Let's play spot the errors in that sentence: a) Senate cannot amend the constitution. (Continued…)
Michael Kerns
posted 10/09/07 @ 3:36 PM EST
Dear Justice Readers,
I'm posting an email I sent to Rachel Kagan regarding her concern that I speak poorly of her through my comments published in this article. (Continued…)
Frank Man
posted 10/09/07 @ 11:38 PM EST
Nobody cares what a untrustworthy senator sent to the Senate list serve. Are Senators so delusional that they believe that people give a darn? Next think you know people will be posting comments about conversations they had while waiting for an Asian Chicken Wrap. (Continued…)
Man Frank
posted 1/09/08 @ 3:00 PM EST
Spinach wraps are good! Mike Goldman sucks monkey balls, that southern nerd, Shreeya is a noodlehead, Mike Kerns smells funny, The Justice is undoubtably a wannabe Chicago Tribune, Daniel Pepose and his team are A-holes, and the hoot is the worst tabloid ever! There! :D
Post a Comment