Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[bgwah]

Alright. I will bring this up with the other Justices and hopefully get back to you before the end of the week.

[bgwah]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Wednesday, June 26, 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Friday, June 28, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[bgwah]

I have some questions for the Attorney General.

You're saying the keyword here is "may."

It sounds like you acknowledge that a region may choose to not have a governor or legislature. Is the problem here that the Pacific Council has tried to make the abolition of these offices permanent? That according to Article IV of the Third Constitution, regions also may choose to have a governor or legislature, and that the regional constitution in question prevents this, thus conflicting with the federal constitution? And if so, why wouldn't that mean that only the parts of the regional constitution making such changes permanent?

As for the amendment process, the federal constitution does not specify a time limit for public votes. Article VII of the Third Constitution merely says each citizen must approve the amendment. One second may not seem like enough to accomplish this, but how much time is? You won't have every citizen vote after a week, either. And the Constitution does say regions get to determine this time limit. I'm not entirely sure I understand you argument here.

[bgwah]

This was technically a 2-1 decision, as I was not convinced the entire "final" constitution should be thrown out. The court was unanimous in striking down sections 6, 7, 9, and 10.

While I was convinced the permanence in sections 9 and 10 was in violation of Article IV of the Federal Constitution, in that the citizens of those states may form a regional government if they so choose, I also believe a region has the right to choose a minimal form of regional government. While those who attempted to abolish the region did so in a deceptive way, I believe the abolition of those offices and laws should have continued until formally undone by the people of the Pacific.

---

As for sections 6 and 7, the Court found the amendment ratification process in violation of Article VII of the Federal Constitution. A recent amendment to Article VII was, quite frankly, poorly written and poorly thought out, and this is the second time this year we have had to take a look at it.

For the public referendum method of ratifying an amendment, Article VII says that each citizen must vote. While a region may choose the time length of their ratification voting booth, it is the court's opinion that it is impossible to have each citizen vote in one second. The court has decided that 72 hours is the absolute minimum acceptable time frame to allow each citizen who wishes to vote the chance to do so. It is also the court's opinion that a tie-vote is not an acceptable way to ratify an amendment. Given the vagueness of Article VII in its current form, it is the court's opinion that the intention was a simple majority vote of those voting for or against is required for an amendment to be ratified via public referendum.