On 11/21 executive branch elections were held at the National Constitution Center. Each candidate for treasurer, Vice President, President, and Secretary had 3 minutes to make a speech discussing their qualifications and what their vision for their term in office. After speeches, candidates were asked prepared questions.
a. With the failure of Amendment 12, freshmen are denied the opportunity to serve on the Judicial Branch. What is your position on this issue?
b. What measures do you plan to take to create a friendly atmosphere between and within classes in our school?
c. Respond to this situation: You know of a possible altercation about to happen involving 2 or more students at CHS. What is your role as a leader of our school’s community?
Each candidate could respond to these questions as well as address their opponents' positions. Finally, questions were open to the student body. One question was about improving school lunches while another one was directed at comments made in a speech by a presidential candidate. Afterwards, students lined up at the polls and voted!
11/26. A teacher has made the government advisees aware that the winner of the Presidential candidacy is unqualified as stipulated by the school's constitution. The principal is challenging the decision and has petitioned the court to correct this issue and make recommendations on how to fill such a vacancy in a timely manner. The defendant will have his day in court most likely Friday. With the likelihood that the court will rule in favor of the principal to avoid contradicting the constitution, this process has partly been initiated to open a conversation with the student body about leadership that holds students accountable to students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It's only our second year and already we have a Constitutional question about the election. This crisis is similar to the election of 1800 involving Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In his exciting narrative of the founding era, John Ferling characterized this election as so contentious that it almost led to a Civil War. I hope this isn't true for us!
Davidson v. Latimore 2007-01
Today was the case challenging the validity of the 2007-08 presidential election by principal Dr. Davidson. Open to the public, the hearing was in the future site of our school's courtoom (plans have been made to complete construction before the beginning of the 08-09) Serving as bailiff, Mr. Ackerman reviewed how to act during the proceedings and had the audience stand upon entrance of the school's justices. The school court can have 9 judges, 2 faculty and 7 staff. The constitution stipulates that the 2 faculty judges are to be nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. Then, the 2 newly appointed judges select through an interview process, the other 7. by the time this case was heard there are 3 vacancies. One student resigned after being elected as Vice President (new amendment) and the two other vacancies were never filled because not enough qualified candidates applied and there was not any process to fill vacancies (new amendment has fixed this). Baifliff Ackerman announced the entrance of the judges saying oyez three times. The six judges sat next to each other at the head of the class and the petitioner and defendant had their own tables. The audience lined the room and there was about 25-30 student and staff members. The presiding judge ran the hearing, describing the process and case. Each side was given 15 minutes to make their cases with interrputions for questions by judges. Both sides took more time than was allocated and the review of this process will be forthcoming. Dr. Davidson presented his case, the Government Advisor presented her side since her role as the background checker , and Todd presented his case t hrough his counsel Andrew.
I was incredibly impressed with the professionalism and integrity demonstrated by the student judges, petitioners and audience.
Post a Comment