Serving as ad-hoc constitutional adviser to the Murphy Memorial Fantasy Baseball League, its managers, and its Commissioner, GM Iafe penned the following opinion on the matter of ESPN v. YAHOO! during the lead up to the league-wide vote scheduled for 4-5 April, 2008.
-----
The relevant excerpts from our Constitution are as follows:
From the 2006 Amendments:
For an amendment to pass, a majority of the league must vote for it. In the case of 2006, this meant 5/9 league members (we killed SAC). A member may blackball a change, but only if he's willing to stake his membership in the league on the change.
1) Trade Vetoes:
Each manager will be equipped with a trade veto. In order for a trade to be overturned, 5 out of the 8 non-participating managers (2 will be in the trade) must actively veto the trade.
From the 2007 Amendments:
For an amendment to pass, a majority of the league must vote for it. In the case of 2007, this meant 4/7 league members.
1) Violation of The Starts Limit
If the starts limit is violated, the following two punishments will apply:
a) If the violation is deemed non-malicious and unintentional by the Commissioner, the result will be a benching of the player's hitters for four days the next time the teams meet. If they do not meet again, the manager may be fined up to $1 Keeper Money at the Commissioner's discretion.
2) ESPN v. Yahoo
By a vote of 7-3, we will use ESPN over Yahoo! Andrew Kreicher would like to place. an official note of dissent, and used his annual blackball threat/summit tantrum to no avail."
ANALYSIS:
From the outset, it is specifically enumerated in the Constitution that "For an amendment to pass, a majority of the league must vote for it." If this were simply a vote being taken at an official Summit, I do not see any other argument except for this textualist and noninterpretist view that we must follow the letter of the law. However, this is an emergency referendum being called mid-season, so we must look deeper.
First, is this referendum even constitutional? Can our humble and loyal commissioner use his powers to make such a vote to happen? I say yes, and for two reasons. The first is more general, and it is that we, by our very nature, constitute a democracy, and we expect equality both of opinion and of treatment. Equality is a politico-moral principle, and as such, we follow the political principles which we believe should be applied. In this case, we champion stability and democratic consistency, which are both legitimate ends. However, applying strict scrutiny, the means must be narrowly tailored to the end, so does the vote establish this relationship?
The answer to this question brings me to my second reason, and I point you to the 2007 Amendments, in the Starts Limit Violation section. It states that an appropriate punishment is a monetary fine, which is implemented "at the Commissioner's discretion." Here, we have a view that the Commissioner can constitutionally exercise his discretion to dole out punishments. It is my professional opinion that the framers of this Constitution had in mind that other situations might rear their ugly heads which would have to be addressed by a certain level of discretion on the part of the Commissioner. We, as a league, would do well to have a vote of confidence in our Commissioner, lest the entire system of order come crashing down on our heads. This may be a stretch, but I see no other valid options that would make sense. Should we have a vote of whether we should have a vote on this issue? This seems rather stupid, and I would guess that this vote would return overwhelming support for the Commissioner anyways.
For the future, I suggest that we pass an amendment that first specifically gives this discretional power to the Commissioner (like an opposite of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, which would be "anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is reserved for the Commissioner"), but then goes on to reserve our rights (like in the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") and also resemble Article 1 Section 7 our the United States Constitution which allows for a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. For example, something like: "In all situations not specifically enumerated in this Constitution, the Commissioner can exercise his discretion, but his decision can be overridden by a two thirds vote of all remaining members." This should be reworded, but it fits.
Now that we know this vote is constitutional, we have to play the numbers game. Here are the relevant issues for consideration:
- From 2006 Amendments: "For an amendment to pass, a majority of the league must vote for it. In the case of 2006, this meant 5/9 league members (we killed SAC)."
- From 2007 Amendments: "For an amendment to pass, a majority of the league must vote for it. In the case of 2007, this meant 4/7 league members."
However, as previously stated, this is not simply an Amendment at an official Summit, so special circumstances apply. How should we treat these special circumstances? That is a tough one, but I did find something that might speak to the issue:
- From 2006 Amendments: "Each manager will be equipped with a trade veto. In order for a trade to be overturned, 5 out of the 8 non-participating managers (2 will be in the trade) must actively veto the trade."
- From 2007 Amendments: "By a vote of 7-3, we will use ESPN over Yahoo!"
The special circumstances here is a trade veto, and I believe it is applicable. First, b/c a trade veto is a special circumstance, and therefore we have an idea of how the framers would have chosen to deal with it. This provision calls for a 5/8 vote, or 62.5%, to override a trade. I believe what should be required here is the same: at least 62.5% of the vote. Unfortunately for the supporters of Yahoo (of which I am a member), this means that 7/10 is necessary if all votes are cast. However, other votes resulting in a switch to Yahoo could be 6/9, 5/8, 5/7, 4/6, and so on.
The second reason I believe at least a 62.5% vote should be required is b/c we originally chose ESPN over Yahoo by a vote of 7/10, and to allow anything significantly less than that to pull a 180 would seem improper.
Other relevant issues are as follows:
- From 2006 Amendments: "A member may blackball a change, but only if he's willing to stake his membership in the league on the change."
- From 2007 Amendments: Andrew Kreicher would like to place an official note of dissent, and used his annual blackball threat/summit tantrum to no avail."
It is also worth noting that I am speaking solely if ESPN runs smoothly for the remainder of the year. If ESPN continues to give us problems, I believe a different approach is necessary, and martial law may be appropriate. Let's write something to this effect into the Constitution at next year's Summit as well.
In sum, I believe that this weekend's vote is constitutional. For the vote to pass, Yahoo needs to garner at least 62.5% of the vote.
Taking all this into account, the following is my official proposal:
The best solution would be for us take the 62.5% voting requirement, but allot Kellan two votes: one as GM McNulty, and one as Commissioner McNulty.
This is the best plan b/c it employs both the numbers precedents and the added weight given to our Commissioner's discretion.
Obviously, my opinion is not law, but I do hope you take it to heart, If the Commissioner wishes to take other action, it very well might be in his authority to do so because we the people have no Constitutional checks on his power.
Sorry for the long-winded analysis, but that is my whole-hearted, professional opinion.
Commissioner, we await your guidance.
Your legal counsel,
GM Iafe of Operation Chowder Storm
No comments:
Post a Comment