North Carolina Yankee v. Atlasia

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am bringing suit today against the government of Atlasia over the Department Renaming Act, on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attempt on the part of the legislative and executive branches, through the legislative process, to alter the express terms of Article VIII, Section II, Clause I and Sections III and IV of the XV amendment, of the Atlasian Constitution. Thus, I shall establish that it is, by virtue of trying to alter the Constitution but not in accordance with the process to amend said consitution, that it is a violation of Article VII of the aforementioned government document.

[DemPGH]

I'll review, consult with the President, and represent the Government.

It can always be repealed later if you dislike it, I might add.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not bringing this suit as a matter of personal taste, but out of a concern for the proper and legal application of the Consitution's provisions.

Surely my long tenure in the Senate and thus the number of far more critical bills that I have disliked far more, yet I have not brought such a suit against (like the healthcare reform in 2009), should serve as a testament to my sincerity in this regard.

[DemPGH]

I am not bringing this suit as a matter of personal taste, but out of a concern for the proper and legal application of the Consitution's provisions.

Surely my long tenure in the Senate and thus the number of far more critical bills that I have disliked far more, yet I have not brought such a suit against (like the healthcare reform in 2009), should serve as a testament to my sincerity in this regard.

That's odd, because you had from 28 February to 18 March to register any complaints against it, but you never raised a single objection. In fact, you often had your own input into how the departments should be renamed and offered some jokes.

Be that as it may, I will show that the Dept. Renaming Act does not in any way alter the Constitution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am not bringing this suit as a matter of personal taste, but out of a concern for the proper and legal application of the Consitution's provisions.

Surely my long tenure in the Senate and thus the number of far more critical bills that I have disliked far more, yet I have not brought such a suit against (like the healthcare reform in 2009), should serve as a testament to my sincerity in this regard.

That's funny, because you had from 28 February to 18 March to make arguments against it, but you never raised a single objection. In fact, you often had your own input into how the departments should be renamed and offered some jokes.

Be that as it may, I will show that the Dept. Renaming Act does not in any way alter the Constitution.

That is because I didn't review the Consitutionality of it at the start and I admit that was an error in judgment on my part, and it was in fact after I had closed the vote that the concern occurred to me. My intent at that point was to then bring the matter to the attention of the President, but was not able to do so before he signed it. I therefore urged him to have you review the matter yourself. In the meantime, I did my own analysis and came upon the conclusions that I shall indeed present to the Court should it take the case. It would be a further disservice for me to withold my concerns, simply because I hadn't first considered the proper format of the reform in question. I would also remind you, since you deemed it necessary to inform myself on the Senate's powers of repeal, that the Senate also possess the power to amend legislation during debate and that there have been instances were bills were transformed from legislation to Consitutional Amendments. As such, partaking in the debate and offering up of alternative options doesn't imply necessarily a stamp of approval for the format, which one could expect to be changed later if the concern arises. It did, but too late to amend the legislation. Even beyond that, realization being a discriminating affair, the notion that the proper application of the Consitution should suffer perpetually because the concern hadn't been realized at the time deemed proper by the Government's representative, would serve to render void the concept of Judicial Review, by virtue of creating so restrictive a standing requirement as to render it impossible to apply such. Ironically, we have no standing requirements at all, as no doubt your boss should be aware. Furtermore, I refrained from titling this as a Senator North Carolina Yankee v. Atlasia for a reason. I am not suing as a Senator who didn't like the outcome of a bill, which you seem to be implying, but as a citizen of Atlasia, who like any such citizen, has of right an interest in ensuring the Constitution is thus followed.

I must say that it is disappointing to see you put my motivations on trial as if daring to ensure that the matter is cleared up by the highest judicial authority, is somehow a personal slight to yourself. What is the purpose in having a Supreme Court, if its use be discouraged by the demeanor and attitude of the Attorney General. Lastly, in terms of trying to undermine my position by deligitimizing my motivations here, the case you have presented is weak, I must say. Surely, I am not so base to 1) sue because I don't like the deskplate, when I have had far bigger fish to fry legislatively and have not done likewise, and 2) that if were I so base as to sue on matters of taste that I would take on the deskplate as opposed to the what the person sitting behind it is doing. It is not by taste that I bring this case, but by concern for the law.

[DemPGH]

Office of the Attorney General

7 April 2013

Brief

Justices,
I move that this lawsuit not be heard.

The plaintiff is arguing that the Senate has illegally altered the Constitution by making old executive  departmental names congruent with new departmental names. This lawsuit is without merit.

1) The federal Constitution in 1.5.28 grants the Senate power to create and assign duties to executive departments, which surely must include what those departments are called. I believe this is what we are talking about.

2) Amendment XV establishes heads of offices, and their responsibilities - nothing more. The Department Renaming Act does not in any way alter the responsibilities of any of these people, the departments themselves, or anything related to what they do.

3) Line 5 of the Department Renaming Act says: "Any references to the old names of the offices or departments concerned in previous law shall remain considered references to the offices and departments, under their new titles." So the Act even grants congruence between the old names and the new names. The full text of this Act may be viewed here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Department_Renaming_Act

4) The plaintiff, in fact, is the one attempting to circumvent the legal process, not the Senate, since the act in question may always be repealed.

5) The plaintiff had in excess of two weeks to register any complaints he had in regard to the Act in question, yet he seemed to find nothing wrong with it save its blandness. The entire debate history may be reviewed here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=170026.0

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course this alone does not exonerate the Department Renaming Act, but it seems strange that the PPT would await until passage to even consider the Constitutionality of a piece of legislation over whose passage he just presided. I really cannot believe that he waited over two weeks to consider the legality of the document that he just ushered through the Senate.

6) Again, we are not talking about an alteration to the Constitution, we are not talking about any substantive changes whatsoever to the Constitution. Rather, we are talking about executive departments and moreover, their names, which the Senate clearly has Constitutional power to affect.

I'll await any questions.

Regards,

DemPGH, Atty. Gen.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Honorable Justices of the Court -

Response Brief to the AG's Motion that the Case Not Be Heard

There are severe errors contained in the brief presented by the Attorney General pertaining not only to the facts of my case that I am seeking to present, but also to the nature, motivations and reasoning behind it. Since this is only a response and not full brief advocating for my position, I will constrain myself to a point by point response to what he has stated, if such is so in order.

This notion of "making old department names congruent with new ones", has absolutely nothing to do with what I am arguing. It is an at best flawed summary of the bill in question, which seems to insinuate that the bill merely correct some inconsistencies where offices were being referred to by different names in different places, which was not happening and was not the objective of the bill. The bill changes the names of the Departments and the "Principal Officers of the Executive Departments", and then provides for the applicability of the previous references. This fifth clause seems to be source for what the Attorney General thinks is the source of my legal suit, but that is incorrect. My suit is concerns the Constitutionality of Clauses 1-4.

1. The Federal Constitution does indeed grant such powers to the Senate to create Executive Departments, as provided by Article I, Section 5, Clause 28. It is not my contention to challenge that, rather I seek to have it upheld in its full entirety, which seems to be ignored. It is my contention, and if this case is heard, I will seek to establish that the unlimited authority of the Senate to alter or abolish Exeuctive Departments as established, no longer applies to the offices in question by virtue of the text of Article VIII, Section II, and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution over legislation derived from the Senate, as well as the limitations placed on the all section 5 powers in the very text of Article I. That instead the unlimited authority is replaced with a limited authority, that at not point can legally ontradict the express terms of the Constitution on the matter, which I contend this bill in fact does.

2. Amendment XV is a secondary consideration to my overall case. It is ironic that the Attorney General makes the contention that the Senate can change the names, but not the duties. For if the case is heard, I will seek to establish just the opposite. That in fact the Senate has more flexibility over responsibilities assigned, then over the names.

3. Line Five is completely irrelevant and serves only to make the first four functional. My suit concerns the Constitutioanality of the first four and has never centered around line five. However since line five makes the previous four functional, it probably falls if the other four do not stand up to Consitutional muster. This emphasis on line five originated with the Attorney General, in his initial response to my recommendation that he review case, not in anyway on my end.

4. If I had cause to dislike this so much to repeal this, then I would in fact seek to do so. However, it is doesn't arise from my disagreement with the choices in the bill, that I seek this suit. On the contrary, this suit is out of a concern that a certain amount of clarity be achieved on the matters in question and that the Constitution be followed. The Attorney General is putting on his presumptious hat once again and assuming that 1) I voted no because I hated the bill so much, and 2) I thus am suing because I didn't get my way. That is utterly ridiculous, as there have been numerous bills since I took office in 2009, that I have been on the losing end of a vote on, bills of far greater import then this and that I disliked far, far more, yet I have declined to sue over them. Perhaps the Attorney General should have considered that possibly I was motivated by the fact that those bills were Constitutional and am likewise motivated by the contrary opinion in this case. Not to mention that, as PPT, something which the Attorney General seems to also want to harp on, that I wouldn't know that it only takes seven votes to propose an Amendment and sent it to Regions for ratification and thus since this bill had in fact seven ayes in support of passage, that therefore suing as a attempt to make up for not getting my way, would be entirely Quixotic. I franky take offense at the accusation that I would start using the Supreme Court to commence with the tilting at windmills. I do in fact, respect the Supreme Court as an institution and that is thus the reason I have refrained from seeking redress before it, until this concern came about.

5. It is not that I didn't consider it at all, but that I didn't consider it, "thoroughly in depth" enough to come to the conclusions I began to express concerns over when I recommended that the matter be reviewed.  I stopped at Article I, Section 5, Clause 28, like the Attorney General is doing, through the course of the debate. It is only by chance that I began to reconsider when I remembered the decision by Senator Nix to transform his bill that he was crafting in committee, into a Constitutional Amendment out of a practical concern that some portions of the reform required such and thus produced what became the XV amendment. This process of realization began litterally as a I was making the post counting the votes and transmitting it to the President. By the time I could take a closer glance, even before I could even post the official notification in his thread that the bill had been passed, the President had signed the bill.

6. The Attorney General is failing to take note of that the fact that in Article I, Section 5, at the very top, there is a limitation placed on every one of the expressed powers of the Senate, "save where otherwise limited by the Constitution". It also fails to account for the differentiation established between the origination of the creation authority for an office (namely those established by the Constitution as opposed to legislation by the Senate), as established by precedent, a precedent that all the current Justices had a connection with and should thus be familiar. The connection between which, and this case, I shall seek to establish should the Justices be inclined to hear this case.

I therefore respectfully ask that the honorable Justices take this case, to provide clarity on the Constitutional provisions in question and to ensure that the Constitution is being adhered to.

I will be glad to answer any questions posed by the Justices.

Well Regards,
North Carolina Yankee

[Ebowed]

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 5:00AM EDT on Saturday, April 13 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00AM EDT on Monday, April 15, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00AM EDT, April 15, 2013, 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.

[DemPGH]

While awaiting the PPT's brief, I would like to invite current and former Senators as well as executive officers to strongly consider filing single or joint statements / briefs. In the debate I see no concerns expressed about the bill beyond aesthetic, so whether positive or negative, the perspectives of the individuals who actually debated and affirmed this bill would be helpful, I'm sure. If the Senate would now like its bill to be struck down, that would simplify things a bit.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

B. Timeline of Relevant Events:
January 11, 2013, 02:27:38 pm: Then Senator Oakvale introduces Department Renaming Act into the legislation Introduction Thread
February 28, 2013, 06:06:37 am: As PPT, I introduced the bill to the floor of the Senate for debate.
March 16, 2013, 04:32:58 pm: With no amendments having been adopted, again as PPT, I brought the bill to a final vote.
March 20, 2013, 07:59:02 pm: Finally as PPT, I certified the final vote result with seven ayes, one nay, and one not voting, with one seat vacant; and thus I transmitted the bill to the President for his signature or veto.
March 20, 2013, 08:04:09 pm: President Marokai Blue signed the bill.
March 20, 2013, 08:04:17 pm: Official Notification of the bill's passage is posted in the White House Thread, seconds after the bill had been already signed.
March 20, 2013, 08:10:04 pm: I raised the first question of constitutionality.
March 21, 2013, 07:29:38 pm: I posted a recommendation to the President to have the Attorney General review the matter.
April 06, 2013, 02:31:58 pm: This suit was brought.

Questions Before the Court

              1. Are the Departments of External and Internal Affairs deriving their legal existence from Article VIII, Section II of the Third Constitution ratified in 2010, as opposed to the Cabinet Restructuring Acts of 2006 and 2009, passed under the authority of the Senate's Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28 powers, which was also present in the Second Constitution?
              2. Are the names for said offices among the express terms of the said Article VIII, Section II and/or Amendment XV to the Constitution?
              3. Is the Department Renaming Act thus unconstitutional?

I am operating on some given assumptions in posing the questions as such. These involve taken for granted doctrines that are well established, such as that of the supremacy of the Constitution over legislation and that the Constitution may only be amended by express procedures in Article VII, by a special grant of authority in Article itself, or perhaps some subsequent amendment, none such has been adopted at present.

Case Arguments

Part I. Constitutionally Derived Executive Departments.
A. First off, it is important to establish that that an Executive Department can in fact be so deriving its authority.

         1. If passed through the proper means of amending as established by Article VII, anything can be changed or added to the Constitution save for something that is expressly prohibited in that Article from being altered. Such an example would include the requirement in the RL Constitution that any amendment depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate requires that states' consent. At one point there was also a prohibition on abolishing the slave trade prior to a set day in 1808, contained therein as well. In this case we should look to the convention procedures in the Second Constitution for any such limitation on the matter as they would have governed the adoption of the Third Constitution. As can be seen there were no limitations present on its use.

         2. The Constitution grants the authority in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28 to the Senate to create Executive Departments, and as has been held in precedents such as Jas v. Inks.LWC, 2008 Atl. S.C.2d 5 (2008) and Ebowed v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (2009), the Senate has basically unlimited authority to regulate, alter and abolish such Departments thus created, through the necessary and proper clause. However, it too is limited by an express prevision in Article 1, Section 5, namely the line “The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution-”. It must be remembered that clause 28 is just that, a clause, a piece of a larger statement and in this case the full statement clause 28 should be read as this: “The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution- To create the Executive Departments as it may deem necessary and to assign duties to their officers”. It is not a universal grant of absolute power thus over everything involving Executive Departments, should a provision of the Constitution become involved, but is instead a grant of absolute authority only over those that it does in fact have control over through Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28, that were created and remain under said creation authority.

        3. This Court has recognized this “constrained” grant of absolute authority in prior precedent. Namely that of Ebowed v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (2009), in which the Court held that a constitutionally created executive office in the Game Moderator was not subject to the Senate's Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 powers, since the office originated in the Constitution as opposed to legislation past under Article I, Section 5, Clause 28, which basically invoked the above mentioned restriction “save where otherwise limited by the Constitution”, though the court didn't refer to that clause in its ruling. The court did say that the Senate could delegate authority and power to the office though, that could it amend the constitution to achieve the desired aims of the Game Moderator Removal Act of 2009, or that it could transform the office into an executive Department and thereby increase its authority over said office, which the Senate had not done in that case. [/quote]

to be concluded

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Conclusion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

          2. The departments in question were first created by the Cabinet Restructuring Act and the Cabinet Restructuring Act of 2009, respectively. Which of course fell under the the Senate's Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 powers to be sure and both followed the language standard, which the court actually derived from the former.
         3. So why are we here then? The answer is Article VIII, Section II of the Third Constitution, which was ratified along with the same said document and went into effect on October 24, 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The purpose of this section is clear, it is to carry over previously established Executive Departments, that much is clear as established by the section title. But the section title is no limitation on the instrument by which the end is achieved, just what that end is. In this case, the wording “hereby established” was used, those invoking the creation language from Ebowed v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (2009), which is posted above. Why use this term when they could have said “These Executive Departments shall be continued as previously established, under this Constitution:”, instead of “These Executive Departments are 'hereby established:”? Why is it even necessary to have Section 2, Clause 1 of Article VIII, in light of Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 4, which basically broadly engages in the former action, by grandfathering in legislation (I should note that it is limited as well to, “not inconsistent with this Constitution”). Though it should be noted that Clause 4 was incorporated as a reversing of a previous version that would have wiped the slate clean (See Fourth Constitutional Convention, Page 9), which met with opposition and was thus tossed. So then perhaps the first part of Section II was planned as a means to exempt the Departments from an expected legislative restart, however it was not altered after the legislative restart was removed from Section I; An oversight, perhaps? Still it is present and the instrument by which they carried over the Departments is thus present. In this case the instrument they selected for the carrying over of the Departments was that of elevating the authority creating it to the Constitution. Now they may not have intended for that result, but it is the clear language presented in article VIII and it is that of carry-over by means of Constitutional creation, instead of just a note that they are carried over as “previously established” or nothing at all, thus leaving it up to Section 1, Clause 4, which was transformed into a legislative grandfather clause, to govern.

Part I Summary

Therefore, unless that same, absolutely clear language standard is somehow non-applicable to the Constitution or all the sudden Constitutional Supremacy is somehow not to be applied here, these Departments are, in fact, deriving their creation authority from the express provisions of Article VIII, Section II and thus the Constitution. Also, the Senate can't elevate their control over such by transforming them so, as the court held in Ebowed v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (2009) with regards to the Game Moderator, since they are already Executive Departments, Executive Departments arising from the Constitution.

Part II. The Executive Department Names

           1. As it pertains to the names, we get into some degree of vagueness to be be sure in that there is no clause stating "The Department shall be called:", but the names of both of these offices are contained in the same Article VIII, Section II, as well as in Amendment XV, and thus are amongst the express terms of the Constitution. If the Departments exist outside of Article I, Section 5, Clause 28, then the Senate may not legislate contrary to the express terms of the Constitution establishing these offices. The Senate might possibly be able to legislate new responsibilities and such as the court held that the Senate could do in Ebowed v. Atlasia, 2009 Atl. S.C.2d 2 (2009), with regards to the Game Moderator, but it can't contradict the terms the Constitution established regarding these Departments. That would include their creation, the names, and the responsibilities and obligations of the Departments listed in Article VIII, Section II and Amendment XV.

           2. In place of the Senate's unlimited Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 power over Executive Departments as it pertains to these Departments, is instead an authority restricted only to the following”
                      a. Those areas not covered in the express terms, such as new responsibilities.
                      b. An express grant of power to change a specific aspect of the terms contained similar to such that exists in clauses 3 and 4 of Article VIII, Section II dealing with election law, or such as is contained in the end of Amendment VI. No such grants are present in Article VIII, Section II, or in Amendment XV, in relation to these Departments, and thus certainly no such grant over the names of said Departments.

           3. It should be noted that in the prior Constitution, Article VIII contained the following clause in Section II:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was how bills such as the Game Moderator Reform Act of 2009 were passed even though they altered the constitution. This extra-Article VII, amendment process was dropped in the Fourth Constitutional Convention and therefore is not present in the current Constitution. Were it still present, it would be an express authorization for the Senate to pass the Department Renaming Act, even if the Departments in Question don't arise from the Article I, Clause 5, Section 28 authority.
          4. Just as one final note as well, there are no special provisions in Article VII exempting Article VIII from its requirements.

Conclusion

It is therefore my contention that both of these Departments arise from the text of Section II of Article VIII of the Constitution, and thus are deriving their existence outside of the Senate's Executive Department creation authority, established by Article I, Section 5, Clause 28. With the names occurring in text of Article VIII, Section II, and Amendment XV, they are thus part of the express terms of the Constitution and in the absence of the Senate's unlimited authority to create, alter or abolish Executive Departments in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28, as it pertains to the Departments thus established in Article VIII, Section II, the Department Renaming Act is therefore unconstitutional and I thus respectfully ask the Court to rule as such, for the reasons here established.

I thank the Justices for their time and will gladly take any questions. [/quote]

[DemPGH]

The attorney general would like to start by commending NCY for a nice statement. The attorney general had to do a little thinking.

Office of the Attorney General

14 April, 2013

Part I

First, I would like to begin by offering some context to VIII.2 of the federal Constitution as well as Amendment XV. What has happened is, the Senate in concert with VIII.2 in the past has created several executive departments that require secretaries or heads: in this instance, External Affairs (given equivalent name Dept. of State) and Internal Affairs (given equivalent name Dept. of Treasury). The responsibilities of these departments (External and Internal) and their secretaries were encoded in the Constitution, then, to clarify and serve would-be Atlasians (Amendment XV). Any would-be Atlasian who wishes to join a department, so long as he or she is eligible, may consult the record in the Constitution for what he or she may be expected to do in those offices. The responsibilities as defined are certainly crucial and remain unaltered. The question is whether or not the Senate has the power to create equivalent names for those departments. I think it does.

Allow me to start with VIII.2; this portion of the Constitution clearly codifies the said departments, not their names: “These Executive Departments are hereby established: Forum Affairs, which shall be made up of the Census Bureau and the Department of Federal Elections; External Affairs; and Internal Affairs.” This mentions nothing of their names, which is crucial, only their capacities to exist as departments. The “old names” were merely synonymous with the offices themselves, but at this time the Senate has decided to apply actual designations that better represent what the said offices do. The Senate can surely do this.

The Senate, then, is well within its purview to assign equivalency or alternate names to those departments – because the names are separate from the offices themselves. The Constitution codifies definitions and responsibilities, none of which are altered in the Dept. Renaming Act. Amendment XV, then, exists not to amend any laws but rather to define the roles of any would-be interested office holders. So to recap, VIII.2 and the Senate create the offices, and only the offices, while Amendment XV defines the role(s) of the office-holder(s). Thus, as the Department Renaming Act exists, it merely creates alternate designations for the offices already created and defined, linking the offices to the new names via line five (5) in the Department Renaming Act, which reads, "Any references to the old names of the offices or departments concerned in previous law shall remain considered references to the offices and departments, under their new titles." The Department Renaming Act does not alter any content therein whatsoever. It only provides more definitive designations to those departments.

So in following, allow me to define the term cosmetic.

cosmetic |käz’metik|
adjective
affecting only the appearance of something rather than its substance.

This is all we are talking about: a cosmetic update of the department designations in which the old names, synonymous with the offices themselves, and the new names are merely made congruent (i.e., Internal = Treasury, External = State). The plaintiff believes that the names are inextricably attached to the offices, and as I have demonstrated, this is not the case since only the departments were created, not their designations. The designations, the names, in fact, were never created.

Secondly and finally, a brief review of legislation is necessary alongside further clarification of Ebowed vs. Atlasia in order to show that the Dept. Renaming Act, as a cosmetic application, is entirely Constitutional. To be Continued. . .

[DemPGH]

Office of the Attorney General

14 April, 2013

Part II

The 2006 CRA (Cabinet Reform Act) created Forum Affairs, External Affairs, and Justice while the 2009 CRA (Cabinet Reform Act) created the office of the SoIA. This clearly falls under 1.5.28 and was done according to proper protocol because what was being created was an office, a post. There exists agreement between the Second Constitution, the Third Constitution, and these acts in both establishing offices and then defining the roles of the people who head them. In line with Ebowed vs. Atlasia, Congress created secretaries to run External and Internal Affairs (now respectively State and Treasury), so if they are legislatively created, which they are, Congress can surely change their designations, but I must presume not the content of their offices unless – unless Congress has discovered a limited and unique way to make “back door” changes to the Constitution in, of course, limited fashion. But thankfully, since we have legislatively created offices with secretaries to run them, we have offices that fall under purview of 1.5.28 of the federal Constitution.

Further, Ebowed vs. Atlasia makes very plain that the Game Moderator position and office are both “Constitutionally created,” evidently different from the other executive departments, and in order for Congress to be able to treat the Game Moderator position like any other executive department, Congress must, among other options, transform it into an executive department. This suggests that, as I suspected, Congress has broad power under I.5.28 to affect its executive departments.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Decision_Text_-_2009_Atl._S.C.2d_2_(Ebowed_v._Atlasia)

In conclusion, I have shown that Internal and External Affairs are legislatively created offices codified in the Constitution, codified as offices only, that under 1.5.28 and Ebowed vs. Atlasia Congress has broad power to affect its executive departments, and that, most importantly, the Department Renaming Act is only a cosmetic application that provides more precise designations for what the said departments do. It is not an alteration in content or substance. It is legal.

I shall await any questions.

Regards,
DemPGH, A.G.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I commend the Attorney General for his response as well.

Based on what I have seen in previous cases, I am I believe able to compose a response brief. Since my previous one was so long, I will for sake of time and length try to avoid repeating what I said there and just that which is relevant to the AG's points, if such is so in order as I believe it to be.

Response Brief

1. I don't doubt that such a change, as is presented in the Dept. Renaming Act, is by its very nature a cosmetic change.  However, whether or not the Senate has the authority under Article 1, Clause 5, Section 28 to affect these Departments as it had in the past, is probably the key determinant of this ability, as it pertains to these Departmnets. Without such, it would likely require an express provision granting such authority, none such is present.

2. In the previous Constitution, it contained similar "establishment" languaged indeed. But the previous Constitution contained an express authorization to the Senate to alter Article VIII, Section 2, something which was removed during the Fourth Convention and thus does not appear in Article VIII, Section II in the Third Constitution. It was under this provision that the Senate was able to pass both Cabinet Restructuring Acts and then have them be incorporated into said Article. However, the present Constitution does not possess that authorization and upon its ratification, the new version took over and thus possessed both Constitutional Supremacy and the inability to alter said Article outside of Article VII's provision.

3. As long as Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 is governing them, then of course the Senate can do whatever it wants with the Departments, however in cases where the said clause doesn't apply it loses such abilities as the Senate would have under said clause. Otherwise the first line in Article 1, Section 5, “The Senate shall have the power save where limited by other provisions in the Constitution-”, would thus be meaningless. The Senate still has some power in those situations to be sure, but only over those areas where it is expressly authorized or over areas not covered in the express terms. The Attorney General contests that establishment languaged doesn't create the name, just the Department. I would attest that language of Article VIII runs contrary to that assessment. The Constitution doesn't say "Three Deparments are hereby established and their powers are x, y, z,", in which case the AG would be right. However the "establishment language" standardized in Ebowed v. Atlasia combines the two actions into one statement. For instance if it had said "Three Departments are hereby established...There names shall be 1, 2, and 3" then the situation then would be the same as it is now with the names occuring in the express language and then I would assume the AG would aggree with my point about the names being part of the express terms. "The following Deparments are hereby established: External Affairs, etc" uses not a set of a responsibilities but of a set of names to distinguish them apart and then proceeds to list the responsibilities. It is a combination of establishing the Departments and Establishing the names in one statment, as opposed to using a two.

4. As I said in my appellate brief, both of these Departments were created by the Cabinet Restructuring Acts, under said Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28, when the Second Constitution was in place. These provisions were then incorporated by Article VIII, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Second Constitution into Article VIII, Section 2. However said provision was removed and upon ratification of the new Constitution, transformed Article VIII into like that of any other Article as I said in point 2, above. Upon ratification, said Article's language establishing these Departments would supercede any legislative authority, and as I have already shown, there is no prohibition in the Second Constitution's Convention provisions that would have prevented Executive Departments from being incorporated into a future Constitution derived from said process.

5. As for the clarification on Ebowed v. Atlasia, we must be mindful of a provision in Article VIII, Section I that grandfathers in all legislation and past precedent, "where it doesn't conflict with the said new Constitution". Ebowed v. Atlasia was ruled in 2009, a year and half before the Third Constitution went into effect, and thus while Article VIII, Section II, Clause 5's special provisions regarding the Senate's ability to alter Section II of Article VIII was still in force. Its presence gave the Senate's Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 powers a direct pipeline to Article VIII's text. Thus the presence of said clause likely was a factor in governing the "transformation ability" that the Court held that the Senate had over the Game Moderator. Since that has been subsequently removed; however, it means that the treatment of Executive Departments were be slightly different now since the Constitution itself is different. Ebowed v. Atlasia's guidance therefore applies in large measure, especailly with regards to offices, Departments, etc, arising from the Constitution like its primary focus was all about, but where a conflict arises with the new Constitution, the Constitution shall win out and this is just such an example. At the time, the only such office deriving its creation from the Constitution, was the Game Moderator, since Article VIII could be altered legislatively, but that was changed with the removal of said clause 5 from Article VIII, Section 2. I did not dwell on this matter at length because when I first started composing my brief, I didn't know as much about the history of the now removed clause 5 and it was thus tacked on afterwards. I also didn't think it essential since by its very nature, this case centers around a subsequent change to the Constitution superceding prior actions and thus certain parts of Ebowed v. Atlasia would be superceded as well based on the provisions that differ. Finally, I didn't thing elongating such would be appropriate considering how long it already is.

Finally, while I respect the Attorney General's viewpoints entirely, I must disagree that he has refuted my contention that said offices arise not from legislation passed under Article 1, Clause 5, Section 28, but instead from the express provisions of Article VIII, Section II. Until that is the case, I don't see how these are "it's" (meaning the Senate's) Departments as of October 24, 2010. In my opinion, them being so would either require the nufflication of restriction on the Senate's ability (the first line in Section 5 of Article I), Constitutional Supremacy, the reading into Article VII of the Second Constitution a restriction that is not present, or some combination of the above.

There may in fact be some authorization for the Department Renaming Act to be Constitutional; outside of Article I, Section 5, Clause 28. I gave a list in my brief of ways in which such could be, or could have previously been authorized, none of which are presently operative, however. I don't hessitate to say that some other power may exist, but it is not something we have covered in this case at present, as I see it. If the Court finds such a power, well then that is what we have the court for, and then we will have achieved the clarity I desire.

I thank the Court and the Attorney General once again, and will of course take any questions.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I apologize for not reducing the size on that as promised, but apparently there is something happening in RL in Boston and I have to get offline.

[DemPGH]

As this is, in my opinion, a very good and interesting debate, and since the initial briefs are all in, I'd like 24-36 hours or so to see if I can find anything new. I still think there is a difference between the Senate changing the Constitutionally encoded responsibilities of executive departments and merely changing their names. For example, during the 2006 debate on the CRB (Cabinet Restructuring Bill), Ebowed said: "I must say that we should not alter the duties of the Vice President at the same time, as it would actually be beyond the allowed constitutional scope of this bill." So to me, a difference between the reshuffling of the departments / offices and their duties is acknowledged throughout that debate, and it is clearly a legislative act (which is how they got there in the first place!). Congress, I am prepared to say, though, would need to make an amendment to be ratified in order to alter the duties of executive department secretaries and offices enshrined in the Constitution, not reshuffle them, consolidate them, or change their names, which to me would be in the Senate's purview. But if I add nothing in the next 24-36 hours, the defense will rest.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=45066.0

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There also appears to be a double negative in point number 5 that I didn't have time to correct, yesterday. Stupid Fing Terrorists!


Anyway, I don't have any objections to an extension as requested by the Attorney General. My goals here has been clarity on this matter and if something else is turned up, thne it will only help achieve my goals. I would point out that it was Thursday when I found out about clause 5 and its removal.

Speaking of clause 5, my response to the quote from the honorable Chief Justice from back in 2006, would be that the Constitution was different then and Clause 5 made Article VIII, Section II, "legislatively alterable", which upon said clause's removal in 2010, changed the nature of the Article section to that of any other Article Section in the Constitution. The Vice President is not in any way present in Article VIII. Though technically, Clause 5 could have been abused by using it as blank slate though to add stuff into Section II of said article, at the time. Which may have been a primary reason why the former President (Purple State) sought for and achieved its removal in 2010. Obviously though, the one best able to say what guided the Chief Justice's thinking on the matter, would be the Chief Justice himself. 

[DemPGH]

Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on something being "constitutionally created" and therefore untouchable since the Constitution cannot create anything. The Senate and the President create it, and then put it there to inform would-be applicants. And I'm actually not correct on something: 1.5.28 actually does give the Senate the power to change the responsibilities of its executive depts. Nowhere does it say that they are dependent on an amendment, a referendum, or that because they are "constitutionally created" they are untouchable. The Senate simply has the power to deal with its exec. depts. as it sees fit. Thankfully, the Dept. Renaming Act does not alter anything aside from the dept. designations.

An interesting hypothetical: let's say the Senate and the President created a Surgeon General position (S.G.), which I actually do not think would be a bad idea. Then the Senate encoded some responsibilities to the S.G. Then a year or so later the Senate decided to change "Surgeon General" to "Physician General" (P.G.). That would be unconstitutional since the S.G. was "constitutionally created"? That's really odd, I think. Because these are exec depts., I do not think they are untouchable in the sense that the Constitution "as law" is. In other words, these departments are not to be understood as "law." It seems irregular to encode job descriptions or names of departments into a constitution as law. Rather, they are merely informative.

Another hypothetical: What if the Senate and the President wanted to ax one of the departments? Would they have to amend the Constitution?

Well, I think the Court is going to just have to sort this out. I'll still be happy to answer any questions, though, as I think we have happened upon a real knot here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But Mr. AG, you have answered your own question. If the President and Senate create, it is implied it is done so by legislation and thus falls under the Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28 authority. I would point out that the DOJ is absent from the Third Constitution and thus is completely under the Senate's Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28 powers. It was there previously, but under the Second Constitution, and thus in the presence of clause 5's special authorization.

I understand your concern with the idea of something being Constitutionally created, and thus beyond the ability of the Senate to alter, when normally it would be completely under Senate authority. All it is though, is constitutional supremacy at work, plain and simple. A change to the Constitution trumps legislation, hence how these Departments become "Constitutionally Created" (think in terms of authority of the creation as opposed to the creation itself, since the creation by Constitution trumps legislation, it is "created" by the more powerfull one as opposed to the one that came first) in my opinion. The same Supremacy thus prevents changes legislatively to the express terms established in relation to the matter, save where expressly authorized.

As for axing those three that are in the Constitution, yes an amendment would be required. Those that aren't like the Moderator General, DoJ, or the hypothetical Surgeon General, then no, an amendment wouldn't be necessary.

[DemPGH]

Nothing else to add at this point; it depends upon how broadly 1.5.28 is to be interpreted, and whether or not additional names added retroactively to Interior / Exterior - i.e., Treasury and State - could be considered informal changes under 1.5.28. I think this is permissible, but if the Senate is judged to have overreached, perhaps the same bill could be treated as an amendment sent to the regions for ratification. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If the AG has nothing more to add, then neither do I at this point. It is still my contention that said Departments arise at present from Article VIII, Section 2, Clause I as opposed to legislation passed under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 28, and that the Senate thus lacks the authority to alter the express terms of Article VIII, including the names established therein, through the legislative process and therefore, the Department Renaming Act is unconstitutional.

[Ebowed]

Hey guys, my sincerest apologies for the inexcusable delays here; I can assure you all that we have been discussing this case and will get back to you as soon as possible.

[bgwah]

The Supreme Court has come to a unanimous decision in favor of North Carolina Yankee.

At issue is whether the Senate has the authority to rename departments as they have attempted to do via the Department Renaming Act.

In coming to this decision, the Court took into consideration Articles I and VIII of the Third Constitution.

Senator NC Yankee claims that the Department Renaming Act is in violation of Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution, which explicitly establishes and names several departments. The Court agrees --- the Constitution takes precedence over statute.

While it is true that Article I, Section 5, Clause 28 grants the Senate the authority to create new departments, it does not grant them the authority to rename or remove the departments outlined in Section VIII.

Thus the Supreme Court rules the Department Renaming Act unconstitutional.

So say we all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

An expected ruling, I think, considering the unfortunate text of Article VIII.

My Administration thanks the Court for their time and consideration.

[DemPGH]

While it may not have had anyone on the edge of their seat, this one was a sleeper case and Yankee did a good job. This case indeed establishes some rules for the future. The departments being encoded in an amendment was simply insurmountable. My personal feeling is that while this bill was not substantively debated really at all by the Senate (and instead was just rammed through), it skirted the line - I wasn't sure that it crossed the line, but the justices have wisely ruled that it did. I wish quite easily in retrospect that the Senate had had the same debate that the justices have had.