Ruling: Bono vs. Atlasia

[The Duke]

Here's my own view.  The Constitution allows us to provide for "to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement."  To me, this allows any type of social insurance and the court interpreted the Consitution too narrowly.  But the real prblem is that the Constitution, by being vague and imprecise, allows them this latitude.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for this disaster.  We wrote that Constitution, we all signed it, and now we get mad when the loopholes get exploited.  Don't get mad, get it fixed.

[John Dibble]

Here's my own view.  The Constitution allows us to provide for "to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement."  To me, this allows any type of social insurance and the court interpreted the Consitution too narrowly.  But the real prblem is that the Constitution, by being vague and imprecise, allows them this latitude.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for this disaster.  We wrote that Constitution, we all signed it, and now we get mad when the loopholes get exploited.  Don't get mad, get it fixed.

LOL. But yeah, can't blame us for how it was written.

But, clause 17 doesn't really apply to this bill in the way we interpreted it. Unwed preganancy isn't unemployment, and certainly not retirement, and it would be a stretch to call it a disability. But you say it should mean ANY type of social insurance? I could understand extending it to some other types of social insurance, but ANY? Doesn't fly in my book.

One thing mentioned in the case was about Clause 16. "To provide humanitarian relief of the distress caused by unpredictable events of natural or man-made origin."  Now, as you know KEmperor and I interpreted this as referring to disasters - Texasgurl had a broader interpretation, of course. One thing she mentioned was 'what if a woman gets pregnant and afterwards loses her job?'(though, I mentioned this was not really a relevant question, since the bill applied to the general case of an unwed or teenage pregnancy, not any particular circumstance beyond that) - well, that certainly would count as distress that was not necessarily predictable, but if we used that it would be easy to extend this logic even further it goes to 'what if someone loses their wallet?'  Now, that would make some sort of "Wallet Loss Relief Bill" constitutional, which would be just plain silly. But, even so, regardless of that, the general case of pregnancy is not an unpredictable event - if you are a woman and you have sex, you might get pregnant. Chances are pretty good, so even if that clause did apply to such things as getting fired, the bill itself would be applied to too broad a case - it applied to women who came into a bad income situation or were in it in the first place.

[12th Doctor]

Yes it does.

The only part of the bill that pertains to the regions is Article 2.  Article 2 is only a response to the bill past by Migredel that stated that no CHIP program was to reard the fetus as a human being.  i wish the Supreme Court Justices would acctually pay attention to the comings and goings of the government.  If they cannot do this, perhapes we can appoint some competent justices who can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell the states(which are part of the regions) what to do with their money. If this was not your intent, that's too bad, but you wrote it in this manner. For this section to be constitutional(disregarding constitutional questions on CHIP programs) you can not require the states to resume their funding for these programs at any level.

You are more than free to write a new version of this bill, but it must conform to the limits imposed on the Senate by the Constitution.

At this point I would like to ask if the justice is stupid or simply not paying attention to what I have to say?

As I stated, the section is meant to repeal the law that was passed prior that disallowed any state from including fetus care in there CHIP programs.  I simply stated that those rates should be restored prior to what they were at before that law was passed.  Whether those rates be $0 or $1,000,000 I don't really care, nr does the bill dictate what shall be done after this restoration.  If the justices were nto trying to find excuses to bring my bill down, they would have picked up on that fact.  That is sloppy work on thier part, not on mine. 

[Gabu]

A lack of specification will inevitably lead to interpretation, which will inevitably lead to unbreakable disagreement as people of different ideologies apply their own interpretations.  I personally respect the decision of Justices John Dibble and KEmperor, even if I don't agree with it.  They did their job: interpreting the Constitution.  If you disagree with their interpretation, that does not mean that their interpretation was wrong.  What we need is to fix the problem of the Constitution's vagueness, not to attack the judges who had to deal with that vagueness.

[12th Doctor]

A lack of specification will inevitably lead to interpretation, which will inevitably lead to unbreakable disagreement as people of different ideologies apply their own interpretations.  I personally respect the decision of Justices John Dibble and KEmperor, even if I don't agree with it.  They did their job: interpreting the Constitution.  If you disagree with their interpretation, that does not mean that their interpretation was wrong.  What we need is to fix the problem of the Constitution's vagueness, not to attack the judges who had to deal with that vagueness.

I damn well think that their interprietation is:

a) WRONG

b) politically motivated.

The assumption is that Atlasia started out as the United States, with the same programs in place.  If their interpreitation is correct, hundreds of programs, including things such as student grants which are specifically targeted toward a certain group.

This is wrong, and I think it is dishonest of them to claim that their was no political motivation behind this ruling.

[John Dibble]

Yes it does.

The only part of the bill that pertains to the regions is Article 2.  Article 2 is only a response to the bill past by Migredel that stated that no CHIP program was to reard the fetus as a human being.  i wish the Supreme Court Justices would acctually pay attention to the comings and goings of the government.  If they cannot do this, perhapes we can appoint some competent justices who can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell the states(which are part of the regions) what to do with their money. If this was not your intent, that's too bad, but you wrote it in this manner. For this section to be constitutional(disregarding constitutional questions on CHIP programs) you can not require the states to resume their funding for these programs at any level.

You are more than free to write a new version of this bill, but it must conform to the limits imposed on the Senate by the Constitution.

At this point I would like to ask if the justice is stupid or simply not paying attention to what I have to say?

As I stated, the section is meant to repeal the law that was passed prior that disallowed any state from including fetus care in there CHIP programs.  I simply stated that those rates should be restored prior to what they were at before that law was passed.  Whether those rates be $0 or $1,000,000 I don't really care, nr does the bill dictate what shall be done after this restoration.  If the justices were nto trying to find excuses to bring my bill down, they would have picked up on that fact.  That is sloppy work on thier part, not on mine. 

Allowing restoration and forcing it are two different things. I interpreted the wording of that bill as forcing it.

And once again, it was you who wrote the bill - we can't read your mind, don't act like we can. You did not expressly write your intent or reasons for that into the bill(nor do I believe was it discussed in the debate of the bill), so we were forced to make an interpretation. As I said, you wrote it, not me, don't blame me if I don't interpret what you write in the way you intended it to be so.

[Gabu]

I damn well think that their interprietation is:

a) WRONG

b) politically motivated.

The assumption is that Atlasia started out as the United States, with the same programs in place.  If their interpreitation is correct, hundreds of programs, including things such as student grants which are specifically targeted toward a certain group.

This is wrong, and I think it is dishonest of them to claim that their was no political motivation behind this ruling.

Well, of course you think their interpretation is wrong.  Likewise, they think it's right.  What makes the both of you think those things?  Your ideology and beliefs.  Because of this, zero is the amount of agreement that you and they are likely to ever get on matters such as this.

When a statement is vague and requires interpretation, of course their ideology is going to come into play.  It has to.  They have nothing else to go off of.  Their job is to read the Constitution, and only the Constitution, and consequently make a decision based off of the Constitution.  A liberal is going to interpret a vague section in a liberal way and a conservative is going to interpret a vague section in a conservative way.  It's unavoidable, really.

The solution, as I said, is to resolve the ambiguity to prevent them from having to make that interpretation.  If it's a clear-cut "yes" or "no" answer, that's the only time at which ideology will not come into play.  Asking someone to interpret something while disregarding what they believe in life is asking for an impossibility.

[Peter]

Here's my own view.  The Constitution allows us to provide for "to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement."  To me, this allows any type of social insurance and the court interpreted the Consitution too narrowly.  But the real prblem is that the Constitution, by being vague and imprecise, allows them this latitude.  We have no one to blame but ourselves for this disaster.  We wrote that Constitution, we all signed it, and now we get mad when the loopholes get exploited.  Don't get mad, get it fixed.

I completely disagree. The Constitution in this particular clause was neither vague nor imprecise; In fact what caused the Court to have to rule so narrowly was the fact that the Constitution was too precise because it was so specific in listing what was authorised.

[KEmperor]

This is wrong, and I think it is dishonest of them to claim that their was no political motivation behind this ruling.

Think about this.  If I were making politically motivated rulings, why would I have struck down your law?  It has caused me to lose your support.  If I were making politically motivated rulings I would have ruled in your favor.

[minionofmidas]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.

I don't honestly think any decision this Court will make could beat Harry v. M. Justices may have let ideology affect their judgement, but certainly the Court's reasoning stands up to a basic credibility test in that it has basis in the Constitution even if its not the correct interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the author insisted on removing the phrase "general welfare" from what is in the real US constitution. So I would strongly dispute that the Constitution authorises the federal government to act in the common good on matters outside its specifically enumerated powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean like the migrendel court?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a big opponent of the "spirit" of the law interpretations that people try to put on the Constitution. It is either legal or its not, there's no grey area where you claim the "spirit" of the law.

Well, this decision does just that.

[The Dowager Mod]

Although i obviously do not agree with the ruling in this case i do support my colleagues right to make that decision 100%.
I think the personal attacks are unnecesary and unhelpful.
Everyone needs to just move along and maybe fix the problem in the new constitution.

[John Dibble]

Although i obviously do not agree with the ruling in this case i do support my colleagues right to make that decision 100%.
I think the personal attacks are unnecesary and unhelpful.
Everyone needs to just move along and maybe fix the problem in the new constitution.

Thank you Texasgurl, I appreciate your words. Even if we disagree with eachother, having a mutual respect is important.

[KEmperor]

Although i obviously do not agree with the ruling in this case i do support my colleagues right to make that decision 100%.
I think the personal attacks are unnecesary and unhelpful.
Everyone needs to just move along and maybe fix the problem in the new constitution.

I thank you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Everyone needs to just move along and maybe fix the problem in the new constitution.

Speaking of which, I have called for proposed additions to the list of enumerated powers of the Senate in the approariate thread of the Convention in light of this ruling.  If you are a delegate, propose something, if you aren't go bug a delegate with your idea.