Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[Napoleon]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

The President is responsi ble for this, so maybe he should feel an obligation.

[Napoleon]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

The President is responsi ble for this, so maybe he should feel an obligation.

I have no desire to defend it, since I loathe what certain people have been up to, here.

But you could appoint someone. (Admittedly that didn't work last time)

[Napoleon]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

I would like to explore this - if we find that the action of 'abolishing itself' is not constitutional, is not the government of the Pacific still in fact extant, and thus eligible for the role of respondent?  I would like to read both sides argument on this question.

All actions are constitutional unless ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court may reestablish the former Pacific government if it so rules, but without any decision to the contrary, the constitutional amendment abolishing the region is valid; therefore, there is no Pacific government to respond.

At the very least, I suggest that the period for the respondent to file a brief be delayed until it is clear who the respondent is.

[Napoleon]

Do you wish to submit an amicus brief arguing about the interpretation of the title of the case, Lewis?  There is a respondent listed there.

The obvious thing to have done would have been to issue an injunction restoring the previous Constitution until this trial's over. Hey presto, you have a respondent.

I do differ with you on the one second rule. That's a default ban on voting, and I have a great deal of trouble understanding why you do not acknowledge that. And it's actually fraudulent to say one has one second to vote and under those conditions with no official thread or administrator. That's voter fraud.

It's really simple: The XVIIth Amendment is not a democratic document (nor... well... how do I say this as politely as I can without actively lying... not something that can be used to demonstrate the intelligence of anyone involved in drafting it), and does not protect against this. In a nutshell. There was a reason why the duration of constitutional referenda was fixed before it.

It is not a criminal activity to pass, by due process, unconstitutional laws. Never has been, never will.

No, but performing the duties of a Cabinet. Ofricer is and we could get Xahar that way.