Junkie v. Atlasia

[Junkie]

I petition the Supreme Court to hear my case alleging that the Social and Economic Development Improvement Act is unconstitutional.  The Act, as signed into law, reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I contend that the Act is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 5, Clauses 4-5 as interpreted by this Court in an unanimous decision in Bono v. Atlasia II, 2005 Atl. S.C. 2nd 2 (2005).  I can prepare further briefing upon request of the Court.

[Junkie]

Do I need to provide more for the Court to grant cert?

[Franzl]

Do I need to provide more for the Court to grant cert?

You might want to PM one or more of the Justices....it's been so long since the last case in Atlasia that they might not be paying close attention.

[Sam Spade]

I see the post.  Let me notify the other justices.

[Sam Spade]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Saturday, August 21, 2010.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Monday, August 23, 2010.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Saturday, August 21, 2010, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[Purple State]

Vice President Blue will be arguing this case on behalf of the government.

[Junkie]

Vice President Blue will be arguing this case on behalf of the government.

Cool.  I must admit I was hoping for Badger, just out a sense of our shared profession.  Going against a former Justice will be very challenging.  I thus must get to work.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vice President Blue will be arguing this case on behalf of the government.

Cool.  I must admit I was hoping for Badger, just out a sense of our shared profession.  Going against a former Justice will be very challenging.  I thus must get to work.

Best of luck. I eagerly anticipate your reasoning.

[Junkie]

Best of luck. I eagerly anticipate your reasoning.

Thank you.  Same to you.

[Purple State]

Though this has nothing to do with the case, I know Chief Justice Spade will see it if I post here:

I. LOVE. YOUR. SIG.

That is all.

[Junkie]

Plaintiff's Brief

Statement of Facts

On July 21, 2010, President Purple State signed into law the Social & Economic Development Zone Improvement Act (hereinafter the SEDZI Act).  That act, as signed, states the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plaintiff alleges that said Act is unconstitutional as the Constitution does not expressly give the Senate the power to legislate changes in tax law in narrow geographic areas.

Question Presented

Is the SEDZI Act in violation of Article I, Section 5, Clauses 1 and 4 of the Constitution?

Statement of Law

In Peter v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl.S.C.2d 4 (2009), this Court stated "for the Senate to legitimately exercise power under the Constitution, such power must be expressly allocated within the Constitutional text itself."  Peter, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d citing Fritz v. Ernest, 2004 Atl. S.C. 6 (2004).  Article I, Section 5 delineates thirty different powers which the Senate may use to legislate.  Amendments have added an additional two powers.  These powers range from foreign and defense policy to taxation and public health.

At issue in this case is Clauses 1, which gives the Senate the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" while at same time requiring "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Regions of the Republic of Atlasia and the District of Columbia."  Also relevant is Clause 4 which states that the Senate has the to provide for "a single market where competition is free and undistorted."

In Bono v. Atlasia II, 2005 Atl. S.C. 2d (2005), the Supreme Court ruled the provision within the Community Revitalization Act that allowed for "adjusting tax rates is inherently unconstitutional."  Bono II, 2005 Atl. S.C. 2d.  In this decision, the Court found that tax rates that varied due to a geographic location was in violation of Clauses 1 and 4 of Article I, Section 5.  This Court ruled that Clause 1 "requires uniformity in our tax code so that wherever a taxed activity occurs, the tax will be the same."  Additionally, Clause 4 requires "a free and undistorted" market, thus making a legislation that gives tax breaks to a business based on geography unconstitutional.

Argument
A.   Section 3, Clause 2 of the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional as it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 1.
The SEDZI Act lays out very specific rules as to how a geographic area may be picked for the benefits under the Act.  One of the major benefits is found in Section 3, Clause 2 of the SEDZI Act, which suspends all sales and business taxes within the area for a period of 12 months.  This benefit is clearly in violation of this Court's ruling Bono II.  This court found such adjusting tax rates "inherently unconstitutional" as Clause 1 requires that "wherever a taxed occurs, the tax will be the same."  In this Act, the tax is not the same as the rest of Atlasia, as these specifically picked areas are free of business and sales tax for a year.

Surely, Respondent will point out that requirement in Clause 1 states "all duties, imposts, and excises" shall be uniform throughout Atlasia, but fails to include the word "taxes."  It could be argued that this omission allows the Senate to allow for uneven tax rates.  Such a ruling would allow the Senate to impose a 90% income tax in one region, such as the Northeast, while limiting that same rate to 5% in the Pacific.  Obviously such a law would be unfair and open to political and personal grudges.  It appears this Court wanted to avoid such a result by ruling that any tax must be universal throughout Atlasia.
 
Thus, Section 3, Clause 2 of the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional. 

[Junkie]

B.   Section 3, Clause 2 of the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional as it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4.

As noted above, Section 3, Clause 2 provides for the suspension of all business and sales taxes in specifically designated areas.  This type of benefit was also held to be unconstitutional in Bono II, as it violates the "free and undistorted market" phrase of Article I, Section 5, Clause 4.  In Bono II, this Court was very specific in ruling that the Senate cannot pass laws that undermine their responsibility to provide for a single market where competition is free and undistorted. 

Section 3, Clause 2 violates this Clause of the Constitution in two ways.  First, by providing tax benefits to only certain geographic areas, the Senate is creating multiple markets and not a "single market" as required by the Constitution.  Second, competition is clearly not free and undistorted when businesses in a certain area are not subject to business taxes and customers are not subject to sales tax.  In effect, the Senate punishes business's outside the area based on criterea outside their control.  These businesses outside the SEDZ could suffer loss of profits, as businesses in the zone could offer lower prices as a result of no business tax.  Additionally, the lack of a sales tax could influence customers to frequent these areas in order to avoid a sales tax.

Thus, Section 3, Clause 2 of the SEDZI Act is again unconstitutional.

C.   Section 4 of the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional as it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4.

Even within these zones, there does not exist a "single market" where competition is free and undistorted.  Section 4 of the SEDZI Act creates "Atlasia Works."  This allows for businesses which want to expand to apply for assistance by having new employees with 80% of their salaries subsidized by the Federal Government.  However, such assistance is limited to businesses with 3 or less locations.

This is also clearly in violation of the "single market" requirement of Clause 4.  First, businesses outside the zone are again penalized for their geographic location in violation of this Court's ruling in Bono II.  Additionally, even inside the zone, competition is not free and undistorted because such federal assistance is only limited to businesses with 3 or less locations in the zone.  If McDonald's only had two locations in the zone, they would qualify for this federal subsidy, while a locally owned burger joint with four locations would not.  The ruling in Bono II is very clear, the Senate must provide for a single, free and undistorted market.  Section 4 of the SEDZI act creates multiple market that are neither free nor undistorted.
 
Thus, Section 4 of the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional.

D.   Bono II is well establihed case law.

Many might argue that the SEDZI Act is a good law that will help impoverished areas in hard economic times.  It is and it probably would.  Plaintiff takes no issue with the intention or the effect of the Act, only with its constitutionality.  The Constitution is very clear in limiting the Senate's powers.  This Court was very clear in Bono II that those specifically delineated powers make a law such as the SEDZI Act unconstitutional.

Bono II was a wide ranging decision covering almost all aspects of Atlasian law.  This Court was well reasoned and unanimous in its rulings regarding Clause 1 and 4 of Article I, Section 5.  That ruling has remain untouched for 5 years (which is either 5 years or 70 years depending on how Atlasian time works).  Long time unanimous rulings of the Court should only be abrogated when they were clearly wrong on the law.  Not because the composition of the Court has changed or because the Act in question is good. 

There have been many amendments to the Constitution and is currently a Constituional Convention.  That is the forum through which changes to the Constitution should be made.  To overule Bono II only because we all agree the Act is "good" would create a politicization of the Court nomination process.  No longer will we look for the "best" justice, instead we will be looking for the justice that agrees with us so that we can finally overturn some ruling we disagree with.  Such a process would turn the law and the legal process on its head.

If the authors and supporters of the SEDZI Act want this act to survive, they need to change Constitution not wait until they have a friendlier court.

Conclusion

For these reasons, I ask this Court to rule that the SEDZI Act is unconstitutional.

[Sam Spade]

Couple of questions:

1) You point to A1, S5, C4 as rationale for the invalidity of these provisions.  Are there any other portions of the Bono v. Atlasia II opinion with which you intend to buttress your argument?  Are there any other clauses in A1, S5 that invalidate these provisions?

2) Let us assume, for the moment, that A1, S5, C4 does not invalidate these provisions.  Where do you think the Senate finds the power to legislate these provisions?  If not, then why not?  If so, then are there any other provisions of the Constitution which limit the Senate's power to legislate under said provisions.

[Ebowed]

In your assessment of the legal soundness of Bono vs Atlasia II, are you suggesting that no amendments to the constitution since the decision may alter the scope of the restrictions that the decision imposes on the federal government in its legislative affairs?  I find it unnecessary to provide examples of legal decisions that were overturned after decades of precedent, as I feel the defendant would be aware of them.

Under your interpretation, would legislation establishing a federal minimum wage (such as F.L. 33-9) be a violation of A1 S5 C4's requirements for a free and undistorted market?

Do you define any statute outlining the provision of aid to "those in employment" would then not also permit efforts to stimulate employment?

[Junkie]

Very good questions from the Court.  I would ask for at least until tomorrow as I am on my way to a wedding.  Thank you in advance.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have an appointment with a dentist in the afternoon. My full defense will be ready to be posted after I get home from it, but I may run over the time limit by a few hours. Sorry for that, Justices.

[opebo]

Noted.  Thank you Mr. Vice President.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My defense of the SEDZI Act as follows, point by point in response, followed with my own thoughts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Junkie points out for my benefit, it specifies the power of the Senate to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" but clearly, perhaps deliberately, avoids mentioning that all taxes must be uniform throughout the country. Such a thing would be virtually impossible, as a literal interpretation of that wording would potentially find all targeted tax breaks in favor of certain businesses, certain incomes, etc, in violation of this clause. Such things aren't done with malice, they are done in a very specific and targetted fashion.

As with the SEDZI Act, in fact. There are clear requirements, which are as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Junkie is correct, in my view, when he says that such a clause in the constitution was meant to prevent unfair and unfounded tax hikes on one region, or state, but not another. But the benefits of a Social & Economic Development Zone do not brazenly benefit one region but not another, they kick in only when several requirements, listed above, are met. Is a poor neighborhood, the majority of whom receive food stamp benefits, in violation of A1, S5, C1, just because it is in a concentrated area within one particular region?

Are the "rust belt" manufacturing companies that receive tax benefits for manufacturing companies receiving unconstitutional benefits, because the manufacturing companies are more strongly concentrated in certain areas of the Mideast Region?

The requirements for a creation of a SEDZ are fair, and specific. They're not based on geographic location, merely living standards and economic standards. If the law said "the Mideast Region will receive more SEDZs than the Northeast Region," Junkie may have a case to make about the benefits of the law being unfairly applied, but these benefits are universal across the country in the Zones, as these conditions can be met anywhere. It is by mere coincidence if more SEDZs are created in a certain region than another.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I include these together as they both reference the same part of the Constitution.

Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing in the SEDZI Act unfairly burdens businesses within a single market to compete with others. Tax benefits within the SEDZ are universal, and wage subsidization is provided on a limited basis to all that fit within the preconditions.

Indeed, the tax benefits are designed to improve competition within areas that have been economically depressed and left behind. I would even go so far as to argue that this clause does not mandate "a single market where competition is free and undistorted" as it is merely within a Section regarding the powers of the Senate, being one of many.

We all miss an important word: "To provide an area of Freedom, Security and Justice without internal frontiers, and a single market where competition is free and undistorted."

I see no requirement there, what I do see is the power of the Senate to create, should it choose to do so "an area of Freedom, Security, and Justice without internal frontiers," and "a single market where competition is free and undistorted." I would certainly argue that the creation of an area where the economy is lifted up fairly, where jobs are secured and growth is encouraged, and individuals are helped from their dire straits, is "an area of Freedom, Security, and Justice."

The subsidies in the SEDZI Act are also provided in a colorblind way, and perfectly in line with Clause 1 of the 22nd Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sustaining of jobs within a Social & Economic Development Zone, whether indirectly (through tax benefits to businesses) or directly (through wage subsidization) can only be interpreted, in my view, to be a protection for those in employment, whether they be newly employed or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not see why this should be grounds for dismissal of the law. Many real-world years have passed since the Bono cases, and in Atlasian time, that's decades. Our society is constantly evolving, our laws always changing, our Constitution is amended and stricken, and as such things deserve constant re-evaluation, and court cases decided eons ago should not be grounds for immediate dismissal of laws passed today.

A court's power of review cannot constantly be held tied by it's past decisions, of Justices that have long since passed.


In short:

1. The implementation of tax breaks to a specific area are met based on preconditions and standards that are identical, in terms of how they are implemented, to other federal benefits and tax hikes. Nothing specifies one section of the country over another, unlike what Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 is written with the intent to prevent.

2. I do not believe that Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 is necessarily written as a requirement, nor do I believe that it is one statement, but rather, two separate powers.

3. The beginning of Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution says "The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution." The 22nd Amendment certainly grants the power to the Senate to protect public health and commerce by making policy to help those in employment, and would certainly limit the broad and outdated interpretation of A1, S5, C4.

That is why I believe the SEDZI Act is entirely within the realm of the Constitution.

[Junkie]

Couple of questions:

1) You point to A1, S5, C4 as rationale for the invalidity of these provisions.  Are there any other portions of the Bono v. Atlasia II opinion with which you intend to buttress your argument?  Are there any other clauses in A1, S5 that invalidate these provisions?

2) Let us assume, for the moment, that A1, S5, C4 does not invalidate these provisions.  Where do you think the Senate finds the power to legislate these provisions?  If not, then why not?  If so, then are there any other provisions of the Constitution which limit the Senate's power to legislate under said provisions.

1.) In regards to the first part of this question, I do not believe that any specific part of Bono II applies.  Those sections deal with interpretations of clauses dealing with the Senate's power in terms of foreign policy, land ownership, items of commerce, etc.  However, the entire decision does stirctly apply the limits of Senate power to what is strictly expressed in the Constitution.  In that way, it could be argued, that the other parts of the decision buttress the strict intrepretation of the Senate powers.  However, I would argue that it is not I that is alleging that Article, Section 5, Clause 4 (and Clause 1) invalidates this act but rather this very Court in Bono II.  This Court was very specific in its ruling that business tax cuts for businesses in a specific geographic region are unconstitutional.

2.) With respect, I will deal with the second part of (1) and all of (2) together.  I do not believe that there are any other clauses of Article 1, Section 5 that invalidate this act, other than I do not believe that there are any other clauses that validate this Act.  Since the Senate is limited to what is specifically delineated, the absence of any power in this regard invalidates the act.  As far as the tax breaks, that can only be dealt with under Clause 1, which has already been intrepeted by this Court to make an act such as this unconstitutional.

As far as the Atlasia Works, an arguement could be made that the subsidizing of workers could be regulated as an "item of commerce" as allowed under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 9.  I do believe this to be a stretch as (a) this does not really deal with fixing standards and (b) Bono II has already ruled that employment is not an item of commerce under this clause (which I must point out was the only part of the decision that was 2-1)

In your assessment of the legal soundness of Bono vs Atlasia II, are you suggesting that no amendments to the constitution since the decision may alter the scope of the restrictions that the decision imposes on the federal government in its legislative affairs?  I find it unnecessary to provide examples of legal decisions that were overturned after decades of precedent, as I feel the defendant would be aware of them.

Under your interpretation, would legislation establishing a federal minimum wage (such as F.L. 33-9) be a violation of A1 S5 C4's requirements for a free and undistorted market?

Do you define any statute outlining the provision of aid to "those in employment" would then not also permit efforts to stimulate employment?

1.) With respect, I am stating that no amendment to the Constituton effects the limitations this Court held that Article I, Section 5, Clauses 1 and 4 imposed on the Senate.  The only amendment that appears even close, would be the 22nd Amendment.  However, it does not appear to me that this Amendment would at all change this Court's ruling in Bono II.

2.) I agree with this court in Bono II that Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 does not invalidate a federal minimum wage act such as F.L. 33-9.  In fact, this court stated that it was "absurd" to argue that Clause 4 prohibited the Senate from legislating in this regard.  However, I would point out that, all though not at issue in this case, this Court did rule that such an act was in violation of Article I, Section 5, Clause 9 made such an act unconstitutional.

3.) I am sorry I do not understand the question, your Honor.  With a little bit of clarification I will try to answer it.

[Junkie]

I would like to point out that I was writing my answer to the Court's question at what appears to be the same time that the Vice President was writing his response.  I would have posted earlier, but had to read a bed time story.  My responses were written before reading opposing counsel's brief.  When I went to post, I saw the warning that someone had posted.  I decided to post because I thought that it was important that I answer the Court's questions.  I did not include responces to the Vice President brief, because I do not think that would appropriate without the Court's permission.

I am willing to answer any questions.  I just did not want anyone to think I was ignoring counsel.  If the court or counsel wants me to respond, I would be willing to do so.  Counsel has been fair and courteous and I wanted to make sure I was the same.

[Ebowed]

So you would be inclined to agree with the potential conclusion that the power delegated to the Senate "[t]o fix standards of weights and measures and of such items of commerce as it deems needful throughout the Republic of Atlasia" (A1 S5 C9) expressly prohibits the establishment of a minimum hourly wage?

My last question is in reference to the text of the 22nd amendment, which states in part that the Senate shall have the power "[t]o protect the Public Health and commerce by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of those in employment."  I was simply wondering if you would define the terms used in this statute in an especially narrow manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am tempted to question this sort of argument as being undermined with an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.  Additionally, as the Vice President pointed out, nothing in the SEDZI Act requires the provision of aid to people solely on the basis of their geographic location.  There is always going to be an arbitrary cut-off in order to determine who is eligible and who is not eligible for any government program.  How else is the government to determine areas that are desperately in need of financial investment if it is to ignore the employment and other relevant statistics there?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I would like to point out that I was writing my answer to the Court's question at what appears to be the same time that the Vice President was writing his response.  I would have posted earlier, but had to read a bed time story.  My responses were written before reading opposing counsel's brief.  When I went to post, I saw the warning that someone had posted.  I decided to post because I thought that it was important that I answer the Court's questions.  I did not include responces to the Vice President brief, because I do not think that would appropriate without the Court's permission.

I am willing to answer any questions.  I just did not want anyone to think I was ignoring counsel.  If the court or counsel wants me to respond, I would be willing to do so.  Counsel has been fair and courteous and I wanted to make sure I was the same.

I've no problem with having a short little back and forth if you'd like.

[Sam Spade]

I would like to point out that I was writing my answer to the Court's question at what appears to be the same time that the Vice President was writing his response.  I would have posted earlier, but had to read a bed time story.  My responses were written before reading opposing counsel's brief.  When I went to post, I saw the warning that someone had posted.  I decided to post because I thought that it was important that I answer the Court's questions.  I did not include responces to the Vice President brief, because I do not think that would appropriate without the Court's permission.

I am willing to answer any questions.  I just did not want anyone to think I was ignoring counsel.  If the court or counsel wants me to respond, I would be willing to do so.  Counsel has been fair and courteous and I wanted to make sure I was the same.

I've no problem with having a short little back and forth if you'd like.

Neither do I as I am busy as heck right now.

[Badger]

Vice President Blue will be arguing this case on behalf of the government.

Cool.  I must admit I was hoping for Badger, just out a sense of our shared profession.  Going against a former Justice will be very challenging.  I thus must get to work.

Thanks Junkie. I'm as flattered as I am busy. Another time I hope.

[Junkie]

I would like to point out that I was writing my answer to the Court's question at what appears to be the same time that the Vice President was writing his response.  I would have posted earlier, but had to read a bed time story.  My responses were written before reading opposing counsel's brief.  When I went to post, I saw the warning that someone had posted.  I decided to post because I thought that it was important that I answer the Court's questions.  I did not include responces to the Vice President brief, because I do not think that would appropriate without the Court's permission.

I am willing to answer any questions.  I just did not want anyone to think I was ignoring counsel.  If the court or counsel wants me to respond, I would be willing to do so.  Counsel has been fair and courteous and I wanted to make sure I was the same.

I've no problem with having a short little back and forth if you'd like.

Sounds good to me.  How do you want to do it?