Advertise - Print Edition

Brandeis University's Community Newspaper — Waltham, Mass.

UJ rejects two BTV bids to fix amendment

Published: March 18, 2005
Section: News

BTV, BEMCo and Waltham Group filed a petition with the Union Judiciary (UJ) late yesterday asking the UJ to modify the amendment that BTV had submitted to the Union. The amendment, which originally was to only take money from the Justice, Archon and WBRS in order to increase BTVs budget erroneously also took several hundred away from BEMCo and Waltham group.

Former BTV president Nathan Westheimer 05, on behalf of the petitioners, asked the UJ to change the amendment to no longer take money away from the BEMCo and Waltham Group. His e-mail described the change as agreed to by all parties affected.
His e-mail to the UJ stated that BTV, BEMCo, The Waltham Group, and Student Events were affected by the change. The Justice, Archon and WBRS were not listed.

As the amendment it is now out of BTVs hands, we request that the UJ consider making these changes, Westheimer wrote.

In their response, Chief Justice Rachel Kohn 07 wrote on behalf of the UJ that Article XII. Sect. 3 of the Constitution states that once a proposal has been officially presented to the Secretary, it becomes the property of the Union Government and may not be altered in any way. She then went on to say, the UJ cannot help.

The UJ suggested that BTV either withdraw their amendment or try to amend if with another amendment if this one passes.

In a subsequent appeal to the UJ, Westheimer wrote: Since it [the amendment] is now property of the Union, of which the UJ oversees all constitutional matters (including proposed amendments to the constitution), we firmly belief the UJ could make these desired changes.

The UJ responded, this time in the person of Justice Samuel Dewey 06 by saying: While we understand your position we cannot override the Constitution and Art. XII Sec. 3 clearly states that once an amendment has been presented to the Secretary it cannot be modified. If we held otherwise one could change the amendment to present language which the signatories did not approve.