Franzl
Atlas Star
Posts: 22,254
|
 |
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2012, 08:06:24 AM » |
|
Ruling: The "Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II", passed by the 19th Mideast Assembly, is constitutional. This case brought by Afleitch is dismissed.
1. Which questions need to be answered?
There are two basic questions to answer. First, are rulings made by the United States Supreme Court automatically valid in Atlasia, as claimed by the plaintiff? And if not, do the Atlasian and/or Mideast Constitution contain anything that would make the Mideast abortion law unconstitutional?
2. Plaintiff's case:
The plaintiff makes the argument that Atlasia is the successor of the United States of America and that therefore, all laws and court rulings that were in effect before Atlasia's existence and that are not inconsistent with the current Third Constitution of Atlasia are automatically assumed to be in effect. He goes on to argue that the ruling made in Fritz v Ernest, regarding the powers that belong to the federal and regional governments respectively, was based on a government structure that no longer exists and is therefore inconsistent with our current Constitution. Finally, the U.S. case Roe v Wade is brought up as the relevant ruling making it impossible for either the federal or regional governments to restrict abortions.
Irrespective of that argument, the plaintiff goes on to claim that the Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004, reinstated in 2007 after its repeal in 2005, describes abortion as a reproductive option and that this needs to be considered because federal law is supreme under the terms of our current constitution.
3. How does the Court answer these relevant questions?
Atlasia has a tendency to amend existing American laws, therefore assuming their existence and validity, in order to pass its own legislation. The plaintiff correctly identifies this, even naming several examples. The question that needs to be answered is whether all laws are automatically valid. Depending on how you view Atlasia, your answer can vary. It does appear that we assume existing law to be the general status quo.
But the First Constitution did not clearly state this to be true. Subsequent constitutions, such as our current one, proclaim that "all Legislation and Judicial Rulings not inconsistent with this Constitution passed prior to the Adoption of this Constitution shall remain in full force, unless superceded by subsequent legislation or Judicial Rulings."
This court holds the arguments of the defense to be true, that this is included in the interest of Atlasian continuity and to make sure that previous work done by Atlasian governments and courts does not go to waste. Considering that the First Constitution never clarifies the question of the relevance of American law, this Court does not consider the plaintiff's conclusion necessarily correct. In the absence of a clear indication, the Court is reluctant to view this claim as fact.
Although laws are often transfered from the United States to Atlasia in practice, this does not seem to be the precedence in the judiciary. The cited ruling in Fritz v Ernest, as correctly concluded by the plaintiff, no longer is relevant for Atlasia because the constitutional conditions that led to it no longer exist. Included in the ruling is the following statement: "Barring a constitutional amendment stating that federal laws are binding in the regions, and also specifically spelling out what the Senate has the power to legislate on, all federal laws are essentially "suggestions" that the regional governments can or cannot accept as they so please.". In our current Constitution, this problem no longer exists.
In other words, Fritz v Ernest is no longer relevant, but that doesn't make it "inconsistent" with the Constitution now in effect. Its conclusion was taken and used to craft better and more effective constitutional conditions.
The defense very correctly mentions that the abortion law that was declared unconstitutional as a result of Fritz v Ernest was not invalidated because of the content of the law, but rather due to the issues already listed. No thought was given to, for example, Roe v Wade. The case was decided on entirely Atlasian grounds.
In addition to that, because this Court believes that the "continuity" outlined in the Second and Third Constitution only applies to previous Atlasian productions, the question needs to be asked, why U.S. law, that was obviously invalid under the First Constitution, suddenly becomes valid again under the Second or Third Constitutions.
The defense also presents an interesting question regarding Afleitch's standing to sue. If we were to assume that everything is to be carried over, then Frothingham v. Mellon would also naturally apply. The plaintiff would have no standing to sue, as he can suffer no direct injury from this issue, if enforced.
However, the amicus brief filed also makes an interesting point, that there are direct examples of such American rulings being viewed as irrelevant by the Atlasian judiciary. Justice Marokai wrote that:
"A question has been raised regarding Bgwah's standing to sue in this matter. Let it be known that we have voted to overrule the standing requirement set in Purple State v. Lief.
We feel the standing requirement to sue is an unnecessary waste of time, and only creates needless obstacles to doing justice. It is an incredibly time consuming procedural hoop that doesn't really make much sense inside Atlasia when consideration is given to the fact that Atlasia is what it is.
But most of all, the standing requirement is entirely without precedent until very very recently, whether that precedent be in many past decisions of the Court or the Constitution. Not only does the majority of the Court believe that the standing requirement is a practical mistake, but it is a legal one."
This not only blatantly disregards longstanding American legal precedence but also establishes the fact that most previous Atlasian court rulings ignored that principle entirely.
4. Conclusion on the primary issue argued:
The Court disagrees with the plaintiff about American law, and particularly, American court cases being automatically valid in Atlasia. For the reasons cited concerning the history of Atlasian Constitutions and the precedence set by the Atlasian judiciary, it would be a miscarriage of justice to suddenly recognize this as fact, even if it has become a widely accepted practice when legislating. Even though, that does not make it necessarily true, and certainly not to an extent that this Court is willing to base its ruling on that claim. The Mideastern law being challenged, is, therefore, not unconstitutional due to Roe v Wade.
5. That considered, is the abortion ban unconstitutional for other reasons?
The plaintiff makes arguments based on the Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004, the relevant text of the law stating: "(...) (c) no funds shall be made available through the CHIP program for the care of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses as described by regulation as an "unborn child".
(d) no law shall be construed to punish someone for an attack on a pregnant woman in such a way as to treat the act against the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as a separate offense.".
The plaintiff argues that this establishes a federal guideline that a fetus is, in fact, not a person, and that this strengthens the argument in favor of establishing a right to abortion as a part of a woman's general right to privacy.
The Court agrees and disagrees in different respects. First of all, the law is designed to not be binding. It only states that funds will not be made available to "unborn children", as the federal government does not recognize them as people. That a fetus is not a "person" is made clearer by neglecting to allow double punishment for the murderer of a pregnant woman.
5. Conclusion:
So yes, the Court recognizes that this legislation establishes that "unborn children" are not persons worthy of protection, but this does not prevent regions from passing laws to allow or disallow abortion as they see fit. Abortion can, in the view of this Court, be banned for any reason, whether or not it has to do with the personhood of the unborn child.
The right to privacy that some establish through the due process principle outlined in Article VI of the Atlasian Constitution, does not apply to whether or not a woman be allowed to have an abortion.
Many laws can legitimately be passed that could equally be viewed as a violation of one's right to privacy. Whether or not someone is actually harmed by their violation, for example in the case of drug usage, it is generally accepted that one's privacy, for example within their own home, does not allow people to violate the law just because one is not in public. Someone that has posession of an illegal substance is still committing a crime even if they do not leave their home, for example. Due to constitutional rights protecting one from unreasonable searches, it may be a lot more difficult to discover and prevent in that case, but that does not affect the legality of the act.
Except when clearly violating someone's constitutional rights, the government is free to pass laws and make regulations for whatever reason it wishes. The government is democratically elected and has a mandate from the Mideastern public.
6. Ruling
Case dismissed. The "Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II" remains in effect.
|
