![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Intriguing Developments
Oct. 19th, 2006 01:30 am
So awhile ago I had created a facebook group dedicated to the game of Assassins. Nearly a year later there were still only six members in it because I never got around to promoting it and in the dark days before the Facebook Newsfeed things tended to go unnoticed on Facebook unless you put effort into them.
Well this morning I finally got around to sending facebook invites to a number of my friends. Some 12 hours later, 9 more of my friends have joined, and due to their joining being echoed on their friends' newsfeeds, 13 more people joined bringing membership up to 28.
I think I'll declare an actual physical meeting for next week. I will do this declaring tomorrow.
(And yes, for those who don't remember (& the 95% of you who weren't around back then) thats ASUCD Senator Jon Avidor & then-President Tiqula Bledsoe in the picture to the left here.)
Seceding from the Union
In a special operation today Emosnail agents obtained photographs of a draft bill that would remove ASUCD from the UC umbrella organization UCSA. In addition to the picture at right, a close up where the writing is more legible can be found here.
Judicial Adventures
I thought I'd highlight what we actually do on the ASUCD Supreme Court by posting a general summary of the last two meetings.
Last week ( On the Succession of the Chief Justice )
This Week Vice Chief Joe Harney was unable to be present so senior justice Tim Coady presided. We primarily discussed the first case of several that would make up the current scandal at Berkeley -- ASUC vs. Student Action Executive Slate. Basically it regarded whether or not chalking done before voting started that remained near polling locations on election day despite the Elections Chair having advised all candidates they needed to remove the chalkings could be considered "active and knowing campaigning."
So first I read them the relevant ASUC Berkeley bylaws and the evidence, and we discussed it. Then I read them the most relevant quotations from the plaintiff / defendant arguments (I particularly liked "[Defendant] Mr. Vakil states that “the act of chalking, which is the action of campaigning via chalking (the transfer of potential energy into kinetic energy with the intent of garnering votes) occurs at the time the chalk is transferred to the pavement.") and we discussed it further. Then I read the largest concurring opinion (basically the Berkeley Opinion consisted of a short general part they all agreed on, and then every justice was part of a different concurring opinion) and we discussed our thoughts on their findings. As the whole thing was rather complicated (as evidenced by the disagreement among the ASUC Berkeley justices) we didn't vote on a final conclusion.
Altogether I think we all found the exercise very useful and look forward, time permitting, to going over previous cases of our own or other such things in the future.
