Emergency Senate Session

[Akno21]

If someone could write a constitutional amendment to fix the problem pointed out by the Supreme Court, that would be a good idea. We could pass it fairly quickly, possibly by the end of the week.

[KEmperor]

You need to pass something along the lines of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, as well as a Supremacy Clause.

[Peter]

By tomorrow morning I will have a comprehensive amendment to fix this problem. It may need to repeal sections of the original constitution.

[Peter]

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Authority Amendment[/u]

1. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

2. No Court within the Forum, State, Regional or Federal, shall rule on a case unless the plaintiff shall have legal standing.

3. The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws.

4. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a law in the event that the law explicitly contradicts the Constitution.

More to follow....

[Peter]

Supremacy of the Constitution and Federal Law Amendment[/u]

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All other forms of law are inferior to it.

2. Amendments to the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution.

3. All federal law passed by the Senate is superior to any law or Constitution of the various Regions and States, as long as the said law is authorised by the Constitution.

[Peter]

I'll give some brief justification of what I have proposed.

Article III Section 2 is incredibly contradictory in that Clause 2 and Clause 3 are almost negations of one another. This problem needed to be fixed - my amendment makes clear exactly what the authority of the Court is.

I was also particularly worried by the Texasgurl v. Fritz decision where nobody had standing to sue (except Migrendel) but the Court still stepped in and struck a law. It is a fundamental concept of English Common Law that only if a person has standing can a case be heard: That principle must be translated to this forum. Also Clause 1 gives seemingly limitless power to the Court - at any time the Court can step and strike both laws and executive actions without any warning - this is a recipe for disaster. I also gave sole authority to nullify laws to the SC so that the provisions of the Hollings ruling are essentially nullified - at present the regions can arbitrarily strike any laws passed that they want.

I have also decided to make explicit the supremacy of the Constitution, followed by the federal laws so as to avoid another crisis such as this in the future.

Powers of the Senate this afternoon hopefully.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I was also particularly worried by the Texasgurl v. Fritz decision where nobody had standing to sue (except Migrendel) but the Court still stepped in and struck a law.

Yes... that *is* a rather grim precedent...

[The Dowager Mod]

Have the new senators been sworn in?

[Peter]

Have the new senators been sworn in?

Not until Friday.

[The Dowager Mod]

with resignations do we have a quorum?

[Peter]

There are seven of you in place (IrishDemocrat, Nation, Akno21, Texasgurl, Harry, StatesRights, StevenNick).

I'd just like to say that I don't think we should take any rash instantly decisive action to resolve this issue, we should reflect upon the issue before we submit any Constitution Amendments to popular vote as we don't want to fix one problem only for another to emerge from the solution. Whilst certainly debate over a solution should begin immediately, there is no need to rush.

[The Dowager Mod]

No reason we can't wait until monday at the least.

[7,052,770]

we need to simply pass an amendment that states that laws passed by the Senate are superior and regions must comply.

[Peter]

we need to simply pass an amendment that states that laws passed by the Senate are superior and regions must comply.

We need that, but it is also more complicated. The legislative powers of the Senate that are promised at the beginning of Article I are never actually enumerated in the Constitution. Therefore the Senate has very few powers except a few implied as regards federal elections and the rules of its own proceedings. These must be enumerated for any Law to be constitutional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

we need to simply pass an amendment that states that laws passed by the Senate are superior and regions must comply.

Absolutely not.  If you are going to render the Regions incompetent, be humane and extinguish them please.  There is no point in having Regions if they have no power.  If all Governors are supposed to be are people with fancy but meaningless titles, why have Governors?

[7,052,770]

we need to simply pass an amendment that states that laws passed by the Senate are superior and regions must comply.

Absolutely not.  If you are going to render the Regions incompetent, be humane and extinguish them please.  There is no point in having Regions if they have no power.  If all Governors are supposed to be are people with fancy but meaningless titles, why have Governors?

Regions can still pass their own laws, but the national laws must be highest.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Co-soverignity, yes.
National absolutism, never.

[Peter]

I present the following commentary on the legal situation and what I see as our best Constitutional response to it:

The decision of the Supreme Court reached in Texasgurl v. Fritz and Fritz v. Ernest have raised many pressing issues as regards our Constitution. It is clear that the jurisdiction of the Court is overly broad and exceeds any of the norms of the real world as the Court demonstrated through ruling on the first case where the plaintiff lacked standing.

In the Second case the court had to address fundamental questions as to the supremacy of federal laws in relation to the Constitution. Whilst the Court was able to sidestep the issue, it is clear that the issue does need to be resolved. In the same decision, the Supreme Court nullified the majority of the federal laws in what it saw as its duty under Article III Section 2 Clause 2 to uphold the Constitution. As many have pointed out, this contradicts Clause 3 which forbids the usurpation of the Senate’s law-making authority. Clearly, this inherent contradiction must be resolved.

It is in this vein that I submit to the Senate the following amendments for their consideration:

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Authority Amendment[/u]

1. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution is hereby repealed.

2. No Court within the Forum, State, Regional or Federal, shall rule on a case unless the plaintiff shall have legal standing.

3. The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws.

4. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a law in the event that the law explicitly contradicts the Constitution.

----

Supremacy of the Constitution and Federal Law Amendment[/u]

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All other forms of law are inferior to it.

2. Amendments to the Constitution are for all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution.

3. All federal law passed by the Senate is superior to any law or Constitution of the various Regions and States, as long as the said law is authorised by the Constitution.

----

Article III Section 2 is so inherently plagued with flaws that the best decision is not to patch it up but to start on a blank piece of paper. It is therefore that I ask the Senate to repeal this section. Never again should a situation ever occur again where Courts rule for plaintiffs who lack standing - it is repugnant to Common Law and gives the Courts seemingly limitless authority; My new Clause 2 will stop it on this Supreme Court and any Court that may exist in the future.

Fritz v. Ernest also raised a point regarding the nullification of laws. Does the Supreme Court have sole power to nullify laws or can other authorities exercise these powers. The situation is unclear, though I would contend it does possess sole power, else the Union can be torn asunder by various authorities deciding to nullify laws and the introduction of five separate interpretations of federal laws. Should individuals or regions as a whole object to federal laws on a constitutional basis, then they should appeal to the Supreme Court as to avoid the legal anarchy of five separate interpretations. For this reason I ask the Senate to vest sole authority to nullify laws in the Supreme Court.

Given the Court’s willingness to strike laws already demonstrated, I am also mindful to remind them that the will of the people through their representatives is not something that should be lightly questioned, to do so invites allegations of judicial activism and a willingness to impose their own ideologies. I therefore ask the Senate to specify that their laws should only be nullified when they explicitly violate the Constitution.

My second recommendation must come in tandem with another amendment from the Senate that will clearly enumerate its powers. Since there are already discussions underway on this point, I will not add to the ocean of possibilities already on offer, but will instead contribute to any ongoing debate. My recommendation simply codifies the Supreme Law and ensures that the Amendments are considered as a part of it as in the real world.

The third clause of this recommendation seeks to provide surety to the Senate’s powers. It needs to be explicitly clear within the Constitution that the powers which belong to the Senate cannot be countermanded by the Regions or States, only supplemented. Therefore I ask that the Senate makes supreme over regional law any laws that it may pass in accordance with our Constitution.

I put these recommendations to the Senate and eagerly await their consideration of them.

[Colin]

This still doesn't answer the question of the power and role of the Senate. It does not define the powers of the Senate nor does it define the powers of the states.

[Peter]

This still doesn't answer the question of the power and role of the Senate. It does not define the powers of the Senate nor does it define the powers of the states.

If you actually bothered to read it (which you clearly didn't considering your response was within 3 minutes of my post), you would see that I will contribute to any debate in the Senate on the role of the Senate and the Regions, but I feel that producing yet another proposal is counter-productive considering the number already on offer.

[KEmperor]

I like everything in this latest post.  I fully support the restructuring of Court powers to conform with Common Law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Authority Amendment[/u]

3. The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws.

4. The Supreme Court shall only be able to nullify or void a law in the event that the law explicitly contradicts the Constitution.

It would depend upon how you want that interpreted.  During the arguments  (made via IM and I don't have a record of them) made to the SC in the Hollings case [yes I know that it was Fritz vs. Ernest, but using the name of Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings as a shortcut appeals to me]  I asserted my interpretation that under the Southeastern Constitution, the Governor has both executive and judicial power.  I also never denied the authority of review of my judicial decision by the Supreme Court in so far as the Atlasian Constitution was concerned.  Why am I mentioning all this?  Because I don't want inferior courts denied the power to order a stay of the carrying out of a law until such time as the Supreme Cort has had the chance to review that decision.  A literal interpretation of what you have here would prevent that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want this, I want it made absolutely explict in no uncertain terms that except in certain limited circumstances, no Federal law can be passed that forces the Regional governments to do anything.

If Regional governments have no final authority on any matters, then I see little point in having Regions in Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will agree that final decisions in sucjh cases should be the exclusve provenence of the Supreme Court, and I never asserted otherwise.  However, the ability of inferior courts to issue rulings that hold until reviewed by the Supreme Court is a feature of the US legal system that I would like Atlasia to retain.  Indeed, in the real world, the Supreme Court often conserves its time and energy by waiting until conflicting opinions are made by two or more of the Federal Circuit Courts before decinding to intervene in a case.

[Peter]

I am aware of your reasonings before the Supreme Court that somehow you are able to act as a Judicial Court of the Southeastern Region and therefore able to nullify the Law on your own authority.

This is specious for the following regions:

Your power as a judicial court (if it is there, I honestly don't care if it is or not) is established by the Southeastern Constitution, not by the Federal Constitution or by the Federal Senate. In the real world, only federal circuit courts have the authority to rule on the US Constitution, though the State Courts are required to uphold certain precedents of the federal courts that may relate to them. You are essentially a regional court, not a federal court, therefore you may not rule on the applicability of the federal constitution to this law under current arrangements.

Even if the above weren't true, which it is, the Constitution states in Article III Section 1 that "The Judicial Power of the Atlas Forum shall be vested in the Supreme Court"; Therefore all judicial power of the federal government is contained within the Supreme Court, you cannot assume some just because you want to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your power as a judicial court (if it is there, I honestly don't care if it is or not) is established by the Southeastern Constitution, not by the Federal Constitution or by the Federal Senate. In the real world, only federal circuit courts have the authority to rule on the US Constitution, though the State Courts are required to uphold certain precedents of the federal courts that may relate to them. You are essentially a regional court, not a federal court, therefore you may not rule on the applicability of the federal constitution to this law under current arrangements.

But the Federal law on which I ruled unconstitutionally negated Regional law.  As such I was interpeting the validity of Regional law and found that it was still valid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So long as a Federal law does not affect a Regional government, a Regional court can't rule on its validity.  But when that law compels the Regional governments to do something that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to compel, it is Unconstitutional.  Any such ruling of Unconstitutionality by a Regional court of course must be reviewable by the Supreme Court.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any and all appeals against a law on the basis that the Federal Government  has overstepped its powers must in the first instance be addressed to the federal courts, not the State courts, in the real world. The same legal principles apply here. The only federal court in existence is the Supreme Court, therefore your case against the Law in question should have been addressed to the Supreme Court from the very beginning, not the Courts of the SE region.

A decision by the Regional Courts that a law violates the federal constitution is simply illogical - by definition the only Constitution they are empowered to interpret is the Regional one. Therefore they are not procedurally competent to decide upon the Federal Constitution, which is what you tried to do.