Purple State v. Lief

[bullmoose88]

I'll jump in right here because I have a question for the plaintiff.  Atlasia would be wise to consider this question in its reply.

Mr. GM, my question on the surface looks simple but it is not...How are you a proper plaintiff to this suit?  In other words, how has the pardon harmed you?  Do you need to be harmed to sue?

Mr. Chief Justice, I thank you for your question.

On the face of it, this matter does not seem to harm any individual in particular. However, the use of the pardon, which, by definition, allows a convicted felon to walk free before the expiration of his or her sentence, in fact harms all Atlasians.

The Law, in essence, is the agreed upon standards and principles of a society. The Court, as defender and interpreter of those guidelines, ruled that society would be best protected by its prescribed sentencing of Devilman aka Josh. On the other hand, the Executive was given no such power to interpret and act on those standards and, therefore, does not have the power to extend or reduce sentences. For the Executive to act in such a way endangers Atlasia and the rule of law in our society.

I feel that the actions of President Lief create a clear danger to my rights as a citizen of Atlasia and so I would answer that it is both true that one must be harmed in order to sue and true that the pardon of Devilman has harmed me and the greater citizenry of Atlasia.

That seems like a very broad definition of harm.

Do you believe that whenever a person's rights are even most tangentially harmed, they would have the right to sue?  Supposing I cut down twenty trees, could you or someone else sue stating that I am harming your right to breathe fresh air?

[Sam Spade]

Question to both parties on the standing issue:

I note that our Constitution is conspicuously lacking a requirement that the Supreme Court can only judge a "case or controversy" such as found in the US.  I think that my brother justices would admit that such a requirement forms the basis of standing doctrine in the US and without a similar clause, it becomes especially difficult to derive a "direct" standing requirement from our Constitution.

Rather, I think that the Constitution says four major things concerning the power of the Supreme Court:

1) The "judicial power" is vested in the Supreme Court.
2) The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisidiction to nullify or void federal laws but only if such law contradicts the Constitution.
3) The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to nullify or void regional laws but only if such law contradicts the Constitution (I note that nothing is said whether we can void regional laws that contradict federal law, though I think the StatesRights case may have implicitly answered this question)
4) The Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all disputes concerning federal elections.

Clearly, if such a standing requirement were to exist, it must arise "indirectly" from the "judicial power" vested in the Supreme Court. 

Similarly, our jurisdiction to hear a Presidential exercise of executive power, such as that raised in this case, under the Constitution must derive from Power #1 or from a broad definition of Power #2, which I question about extending to this situation. (which we have done before)

This is a lot of writing, very theoretical and with few questions.

My question is essentially this:  Should there even be a standing requirement, and if so, what are the grounds that you wish for us to extend the standing requirement under Power #1?

I will have more on this question later.

[Purple State]

I will try to answer both the Chief Justice's follow-up, as well as Justice Spade's question in this answer:

The position of the Plaintiff lies somewhere along the spectrum of possibilities as it pertains to standing in the realm of Atlasia.

The idea of standing falls under the idea of "judicial power." To this extent, the Supreme Court may decide for itself what constitutes a relevant case, what are the parameters of questioning and debate, etc. As such, it is within the right of the Court to post standing requirements.

Under the assumption that the Court may extend such requirements under the powers given it by III.1.1. of the Constitution, the next question is what should constitute those guidelines issued by the Court or should they even exist. While I do not wish to decide for the Court what its own consideration of standing ought to be, I do believe that some semblance of standing rules should exist, albeit with a fair amount of flexibility.

Due to the nature of Atlasia, actions that seem not to have any ramifications may, in fact, have enormous consequences for the game. If, as an example, a situation would arise in which the pardon of Devilman would directly lead to the victory or defeat of an elected official, I would consider that to be a harm to all those who wished to be represented by the losing candidate. While this may seem overtly political harm, one must see Atlasia as a game and one of a fast-paced nature, centered around an election simulation. The swing of an election can, in fact, be considered a harm. This is, of course, in addition to the reasons I presented earlier.

In fact, I believe that, for the purposes of Atlasia, a broad definition of harm should be considered as appropriate in determining standing before the Court to allow for this body to provide the greatest degree of clarity as quickly as possible in this rapidly shifting "game-scape."

[opebo]

Doesn't the term 'harm' mean an actual harm caused to the plaintiff, rather than just a potential one?  Is it even established that the released convict is any more likely to commit further crimes than people in general? 

[Purple State]

Doesn't the term 'harm' mean an actual harm caused to the plaintiff, rather than just a potential one?  Is it even established that the released convict is any more likely to commit further crimes than people in general? 

I would argue that the release of someone deemed dangerous to Atlasia prematurely and against the previous set sentence of the Supreme Court is, indeed, a harm to our society.

In addition, the unchecked expansion of executive power is, as deemed by the Plaintiff, a direct harm to all Atlasians, as it contributes to a general sense of confusion as to the proper distribution of powers in Atlasia, as well as fear and uncertainty as to what the Executive may do next. This relates to the "First they came for the _____, but I said nothing because I wasn't a _____, etc." paradigm.

It can also be said that, if such Executive expansion is left unchallenged, it could create a chilling effect on future cases, with this instance serving as a precedent for such expansion to exist beyond the confines of the Constitution and its intent.

For those reasons, I believe that this case is both important and directly impacts each and every Atlasian; therefore, it can be considered a "harm" for the sake of standing before the Court.

[bullmoose88]

Doesn't the term 'harm' mean an actual harm caused to the plaintiff, rather than just a potential one?  Is it even established that the released convict is any more likely to commit further crimes than people in general? 

I would argue that the release of someone deemed dangerous to Atlasia prematurely and against the previous set sentence of the Supreme Court is, indeed, a harm to our society.

In addition, the unchecked expansion of executive power is, as deemed by the Plaintiff, a direct harm to all Atlasians, as it contributes to a general sense of confusion as to the proper distribution of powers in Atlasia, as well as fear and uncertainty as to what the Executive may do next. This relates to the "First they came for the _____, but I said nothing because I wasn't a _____, etc." paradigm.

It can also be said that, if such Executive expansion is left unchallenged, it could create a chilling effect on future cases, with this instance serving as a precedent for such expansion to exist beyond the confines of the Constitution and its intent.

For those reasons, I believe that this case is both important and directly impacts each and every Atlasian; therefore, it can be considered a "harm" for the sake of standing before the Court.

Perhaps...but even as just an exercise...could you, under your own standard or set of beliefs, tell us when a particular person might not be the proper plaintiff to a suit?  Or can anyone sue in your view?

[Purple State]

Doesn't the term 'harm' mean an actual harm caused to the plaintiff, rather than just a potential one?  Is it even established that the released convict is any more likely to commit further crimes than people in general? 

I would argue that the release of someone deemed dangerous to Atlasia prematurely and against the previous set sentence of the Supreme Court is, indeed, a harm to our society.

In addition, the unchecked expansion of executive power is, as deemed by the Plaintiff, a direct harm to all Atlasians, as it contributes to a general sense of confusion as to the proper distribution of powers in Atlasia, as well as fear and uncertainty as to what the Executive may do next. This relates to the "First they came for the _____, but I said nothing because I wasn't a _____, etc." paradigm.

It can also be said that, if such Executive expansion is left unchallenged, it could create a chilling effect on future cases, with this instance serving as a precedent for such expansion to exist beyond the confines of the Constitution and its intent.

For those reasons, I believe that this case is both important and directly impacts each and every Atlasian; therefore, it can be considered a "harm" for the sake of standing before the Court.

Perhaps...but even as just an exercise...could you, under your own standard or set of beliefs, tell us when a particular person might not be the proper plaintiff to a suit?  Or can anyone sue in your view?

I would say that the parameters used by the Plaintiff does leave room for restrictions to standing. As an example, we can look at the Law passed in the Southeast, later struck down by this Court, which would have replaced the official Atlasian currency with "Dixies."

In that situation, only a member of the government, such as then Attorney General Marokai Blue, or a citizen of the Southeast would have appropriate standing to sue, as the Law harmed those in the region, as well as the federal Constitution.

So there do certainly exist cases in which standing would not be provided to given groups of individuals. However, there also exist situations where it would be the right of every citizen of Atlasia to sue. I believe that this case, regarding expansion of Executive authority, is one such example.

[cinyc]

\Perhaps...but even as just an exercise...could you, under your own standard or set of beliefs, tell us when a particular person might not be the proper plaintiff to a suit?  Or can anyone sue in your view?

If I may as an amicus for Purple State, this is ultimately a case about something that's fundamental to Atlasian democracy - the right to vote and have your vote counted without dilution by those who are legally ineligible to vote.  Why?  Because if the President's pardon power in this particular case is upheld, Devilman a.k.a. Josh will be entitled to vote in Atlasian elections immediately.  Even in the United States - where their Constitution actually requires that a case or controversy be presented to a federal court before a plaintiff has standing to sue (unlike ours) - voters are generally permitted to bring lawsuits in cases where their right to vote will be directly impacted, whether through "rotten borough" overly large districts, illegal gerrymandering or otherwise. 

Purple State is - like all of us registered Atlasian citizens - a registered voter whose vote will be illegally diluted by Devilman's if the President does not actually have the power to pardon.  This case could have been brought by any of us.

On the merits of the action, I'd note that the power to pardon was historically a prerogative of the king, derived from God.  But Atlasia hath not a king, but a President.  The rule of law is king here.  Unlike in many other constitutional republics, like the United States (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1), our Atlasian Constitution does not grant the Atlasian President the power to pardon.  Therefore, he quite simply doesn't have it.

Thank you.

[bullmoose88]

Does the Government require more time?

[bgwah]

Apologies... My laptop crashed and I've had limited internet access... Currently stuck on an older PC... Anyway, here we go:

In Sam Spade v. Porce, it was argued that the President did not have the power to appoint a Game Moderator because such a power is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. However, the powers of the President are not limited either. The court said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also believe precedent is on the President's side in this area... For example, in October 2005, Acting President Emsworth granted amnesty to the West Atlasian rebels:

As Acting President of the Republic, I hereby proclaim that amnesty is granted to all those who rejoin Atlasia. There will be no prosecution, penalty, or punishment whatsoever for such individuals.

We clearly see here that precedent shows the President has the power to grant pardons.

[opebo]

So, bgwah, you are saying that the president's powers are limited only by those powers constitutionally assigned (specifically) to other branches of government, and by the constitutional rights of atlasian citizens?

[Sam Spade]

bgwah, do you believe the Court's decision in Ebowed v. Atlasia affects your argument, and if so, how would you respond?

Same question to Petitioner.

Relevant thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95998.30

[Purple State]

bgwah, do you believe the Court's decision in Ebowed v. Atlasia affects your argument, and if so, how would you respond?

Same question to Petitioner.

Relevant thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95998.30

I would ask the Justice if he could specify clearly the point to which he would like a response.

As far as my reading of the decision in Ebowed v. Atlasia, the ruling pertained to a Senate action that impinged on the rights of the executive as expressed by a clause in the Constitution. In addition, the special status afforded the position of Game Moderator led the Court to specifically limit its ruling in the case.

This, on the other hand, pertains to the expansion of executive power into the distinct and constitutionally expressed realm of judicial power.

Is there a sentence or paragraph that the Justice would like specifically addressed?

[Purple State]

Bump. Just don't want this to be forgotten. It is a pretty important issue.

[bullmoose88]

Just a little update: We haven't forgotten this case, on the contrary, we're still debating its main issues and have not yet come to a consensus.  When we may reach one, I do not know, but we are (for lack of a better phrase) working on it.

[Devilman88]

Just a little update: We haven't forgotten this case, on the contrary, we're still debating its main issues and have not yet come to a consensus.  When we may reach one, I do not know, but we are (for lack of a better phrase) working on it.

Thank y'all. Y'all always make a fair and just judgement and I'm sure y'all will do the same on this one.

[Purple State]

Just a little update: We haven't forgotten this case, on the contrary, we're still debating its main issues and have not yet come to a consensus.  When we may reach one, I do not know, but we are (for lack of a better phrase) working on it.

Much appreciated Mr. Chief Justice. It is, without a doubt, a complex issue. If there are additional questions from the justices I am happy to clarify anything.

[bullmoose88]

We're very close...ironing out a few extra details.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Jolly good.

I mean, it only took a month.

[Devilman88]

Jolly good.

I mean, it only took a month.

For something like this, I shocked it isn't taking longer.

[bullmoose88]

The Court's Decision will be posted in a separate thread in a moment.

[bullmoose88]

The Court directs you to:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102670.0