SPC vs. Atlasia

[SPC]

I would like for the Atlasian Supreme Court to hear my case challenging the constitutionality of FL 33-8, the Protection of Public Health Act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SPC]

Article I, Section 5, Clauses 13 and 14 outline specifically what the government may do for reasons of public health:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly a law prohibiting smoking does not qualify for any of these standards, and by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Atlasian government lacks the power to prohibit smoking.

[SPC]

Statement of Facts
The Protection of Public Health Act was enacted on September 27, 2009, after the Senate overrid President Lief's veto. Here is the text of the act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Questions Presented
Is it constitutional for the Senate to pass laws protecting public health by prohibiting voluntary actions? Is it constitutional for the Senate to apply different standards to different businesses?

Argument
There are only three places in the Constitution where public health is mentioned. Article I, Section 5, Clause 13 gives the Senate the power "To promote the Public Health, by the conducting of researches, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of medical disorders and by assisting and fostering such research activities by public and private agencies." Clearly there is nothing in the Protection of Public Health act pertaining to research. Article I, Section 5, Clause 14 gives the Senate the power “To protect the Public Health and commerce, by providing for the quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of individuals, animals and plants as needed to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.” The Protection of Public Health Act does not specify anything regarding quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of smokers or tobacco. Finally, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution states, “The Senate shall have power, save where limited by other provisions of this Constitution:

1.   To protect the Public Health and commerce by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of those in employment. 2. To protect the Public Health, commerce and heritage by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection and preservation of natural beauty, biological diversity and other natural resources.”

The Protection of Public Health Act says nothing about protecting those in employment or natural resources, as it bans smoking in any establishment open to the public. Thus, there cannot be found any constitutional justification for prohibiting smoking for public health reasons. Thus, under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which states, “The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people,” the power to to prohibit smoking to reserved to the regions or the people, and under Article VI, Section 1, Clause 15, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the right of the people to smoke in public areas cannot be denied.

However, even if one were to ignore all of that, Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 gives the Senate the power “To provide an area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.” How can it be said that the Senate is providing a single market with free competition when it prohibits anyone in an establishment with fewer that 40% of its annual gross revenue coming from the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and paraphernalia from smoking? Additionally, Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 states, “No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, how can there be equal protection under the law when the law may be unequally applied depending on the revenue of the establishment in which you are smoking? For that matter, how can there be equal protection under the law when the law may be unequally applied depending on whether the building you are in is open to the public?

Conclusion
The Senate is not empowered to prohibit smoking anywhere in the Constitution. Even if it were, the Senate would not be empowered to unequally apply this prohibition toward different establishments.

[SPC]

Neither party has even pretended to answer these questions, which are the only ones I care about.

As some preliminary questions from the CJ, even though this isn't in the cert, I'm going to ask:

1) How does the 22nd amendment impact this case?
2) What does the statute mean when it says that the places covered by "buildings and establishments open to the public?"  Does this mean every federal/regional/private place that is commonly open to the public?  Does it mean something even broader than that?  Or something more narrow?  What I'm getting at is what is the "line" in application.

OH RLY?

Statement of Facts
The Protection of Public Health Act was enacted on September 27, 2009, after the Senate overrid President Lief's veto. Here is the text of the act:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Questions Presented
Is it constitutional for the Senate to pass laws protecting public health by prohibiting voluntary actions? Is it constitutional for the Senate to apply different standards to different businesses?

Argument
There are only three places in the Constitution where public health is mentioned. Article I, Section 5, Clause 13 gives the Senate the power "To promote the Public Health, by the conducting of researches, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations relating to the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of medical disorders and by assisting and fostering such research activities by public and private agencies." Clearly there is nothing in the Protection of Public Health act pertaining to research. Article I, Section 5, Clause 14 gives the Senate the power “To protect the Public Health and commerce, by providing for the quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of individuals, animals and plants as needed to prevent the spread of contagious diseases.” The Protection of Public Health Act does not specify anything regarding quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of smokers or tobacco. Finally, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution states, “The Senate shall have power, save where limited by other provisions of this Constitution:

1.   To protect the Public Health and commerce by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of those in employment. 2. To protect the Public Health, commerce and heritage by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection and preservation of natural beauty, biological diversity and other natural resources.”

The Protection of Public Health Act says nothing about protecting those in employment or natural resources, as it bans smoking in any establishment open to the public. Thus, there cannot be found any constitutional justification for prohibiting smoking for public health reasons. Thus, under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which states, “The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people,” the power to to prohibit smoking to reserved to the regions or the people, and under Article VI, Section 1, Clause 15, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” the right of the people to smoke in public areas cannot be denied.

However, even if one were to ignore all of that, Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 gives the Senate the power “To provide an area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted.” How can it be said that the Senate is providing a single market with free competition when it prohibits anyone in an establishment with fewer that 40% of its annual gross revenue coming from the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and paraphernalia from smoking? Additionally, Article VI, Section 1, Clause 2 states, “No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Again, how can there be equal protection under the law when the law may be unequally applied depending on the revenue of the establishment in which you are smoking? For that matter, how can there be equal protection under the law when the law may be unequally applied depending on whether the building you are in is open to the public?

Conclusion
The Senate is not empowered to prohibit smoking anywhere in the Constitution. Even if it were, the Senate would not be empowered to unequally apply this prohibition toward different establishments.

[SPC]

Argument for the Defense:

The Constitution of Atlasia states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Smoking is a danger to the public health. The damage inflicted to a non-smoker who is in the vicinity of a smoker is greater than the actual damage afflicted to the smoker, and it stands to reason that this would be a danger to the Public Health.

Furthermore, this bill only outlaws smoking in public areas and not areas that are privately owned. These areas include parks, libraries, schools, etc. The Government has responsibility over these locations, and it has a responsibility to preserve the public health.

Please excuse me for asking, but if you read the clause, it only gives the Senate the power to protect the public health by conducting researches, investigations, experiments, and demonstrations and by providing for the quarantine, vaccination, and treatment of individuals, animals, and plants. Where is banning smoking on that list?

[SPC]

Neither party has even pretended to answer these questions, which are the only ones I care about.

As some preliminary questions from the CJ, even though this isn't in the cert, I'm going to ask:

1) How does the 22nd amendment impact this case?
2) What does the statute mean when it says that the places covered by "buildings and establishments open to the public?"  Does this mean every federal/regional/private place that is commonly open to the public?  Does it mean something even broader than that?  Or something more narrow?  What I'm getting at is what is the "line" in application.

I apologize, you Honor.

1. The 22nd Amendment clearly states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, for example, what if a public official worked in a park? Smoking in a park would be detrimental to their health, and could lead to them having to either quit their job, or die.
2. I believe that this applies to all buildings, parks, libraries, schools, etc. operated by the Federal government and/or a Regional government.

The Protection of Public Health Act states explicitely in it that it would apply toward restaurants and cinemas. I wasn't aware that the Federal/Regional governments were in the entertainment industry.

[SPC]

Isn't there a conflict of interest here, in which not only was the deciding vote on part of the rulings given by someone who authored the bill, but the ruling was made based on the judgement by said justice? Aren't the justices supposed to make the decision based on the arguments that the prosecution and defense give rather than whatever arguments they would like to make themselves?