Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[Napoleon]

Do you wish to submit an amicus brief arguing about the interpretation of the title of the case, Lewis?  There is a respondent listed there.

The obvious thing to have done would have been to issue an injunction restoring the previous Constitution until this trial's over. Hey presto, you have a respondent.

I do differ with you on the one second rule. That's a default ban on voting, and I have a great deal of trouble understanding why you do not acknowledge that. And it's actually fraudulent to say one has one second to vote and under those conditions with no official thread or administrator. That's voter fraud.

It's really simple: The XVIIth Amendment is not a democratic document (nor... well... how do I say this as politely as I can without actively lying... not something that can be used to demonstrate the intelligence of anyone involved in drafting it), and does not protect against this. In a nutshell. There was a reason why the duration of constitutional referenda was fixed before it.

It is not a criminal activity to pass, by due process, unconstitutional laws. Never has been, never will.

No, but performing the duties of a Cabinet. Ofricer is and we could get Xahar that way.

[DemPGH]

We are now past the deadline for all briefs and no extensions have been requested; no respondent has emerged. The orchestrators of the Pacific episode seem to have vanished. That's probably because it really, really is that indefensible.

At this point I think if the Court is willing to wipe out Clauses 5 and 9 that the Court simply lay waste to the entirety of the final constitution - that is completely strike it down, and if, as per the other lawsuit, it is determined that the final constitution was not ratified properly, or that someone was derelict of duty perhaps in doing so, that the Court simply void the final constitution. In either case, I think the government should be granted complete victory in this case and that the Court use its discretion to determine whether or not the 3rd or 4th Pacific Constitution should apply.

I thank the justices for their time.

[Хahar 🤔]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

[opebo]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

[Хahar 🤔]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

That applies to situations where a defendant has been named and failed to appear, not situations where the litigant expects someone to appear to claim the title of defendant.

[opebo]

With all due respect, I don't think that lawsuits work by filing a suit and then waiting for a defendant to emerge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_judgment

That applies to situations where a defendant has been named and failed to appear, not situations where the litigant expects someone to appear to claim the title of defendant.

Thank you for your amicus brief, stranger.

[bgwah]

I have some questions for the Attorney General.

You're saying the keyword here is "may."

It sounds like you acknowledge that a region may choose to not have a governor or legislature. Is the problem here that the Pacific Council has tried to make the abolition of these offices permanent? That according to Article IV of the Third Constitution, regions also may choose to have a governor or legislature, and that the regional constitution in question prevents this, thus conflicting with the federal constitution? And if so, why wouldn't that mean that only the parts of the regional constitution making such changes permanent?

As for the amendment process, the federal constitution does not specify a time limit for public votes. Article VII of the Third Constitution merely says each citizen must approve the amendment. One second may not seem like enough to accomplish this, but how much time is? You won't have every citizen vote after a week, either. And the Constitution does say regions get to determine this time limit. I'm not entirely sure I understand you argument here.

[DemPGH]

I have some questions for the Attorney General.

You're saying the keyword here is "may."

It sounds like you acknowledge that a region may choose to not have a governor or legislature. Is the problem here that the Pacific Council has tried to make the abolition of these offices permanent? That according to Article IV of the Third Constitution, regions also may choose to have a governor or legislature, and that the regional constitution in question prevents this, thus conflicting with the federal constitution? And if so, why wouldn't that mean that only the parts of the regional constitution making such changes permanent?

Thanks for the question(s).

Yes, absolutely - the central problem is that the final constitution permanently bans the Pacific region from maintaining a government, which is the Pacific's Constitutional right. That is a baseline violation of IV.1-3 of the federal Constitution. So. . .

1) The federal Constitution says they can have those offices.
2) The Pacific's final Constitution says they cannot.
3) Result is conflict.
4) The Supremacy rule means the federal Constitution prevails, and so
5) The Pacific can ban nothing in perpetuity, most assuredly its own government.

As to the final question above, I'm not sure I follow it - why wouldn't what mean what?. I just don't follow it through, sorry.

I have some questions for the Attorney General.

As for the amendment process, the federal constitution does not specify a time limit for public votes. Article VII of the Third Constitution merely says each citizen must approve the amendment. One second may not seem like enough to accomplish this, what how much time is? You won't have every citizen vote after a week, either. And the Constitution does say regions get to determine this time limit. I'm not entirely sure I understand you argument here.

It's not enough time to even physically cast a ballot, which surely must violate the 17th amendment! If there is not time to physically cast a ballot, then the protocol is in violation of the 17th amendment. I mean, the 17th amendment assumes that one will actually be able to cast a ballot. One second is egregious enough to be seen as in violation here of the 17th.

So how much time is "long enough"? In the vast majority of cases in Atlasia, voting times are about 72 hours - I think that should be considered a general measuring stick to be considered.

[opebo]

The Court unanimously rules in favor of the plaintiff and that the most recent constitution -'the Final Constitution' - violates IV.1-3 of the federal Constitution and is thus invalid.  The Court orders the voiding of said 'Final Constitution' and the restoration of the Fourth Pacific Constitution. 

[DemPGH]

My thanks to the Court for a timely and decisive ruling that leaves few, if any, ambiguities as to the illegitimacy of the "final constitution." It is my quite realistic hope that a vigilant leadership in the Pacific may avoid further chaos!

[bgwah]

This was technically a 2-1 decision, as I was not convinced the entire "final" constitution should be thrown out. The court was unanimous in striking down sections 6, 7, 9, and 10.

While I was convinced the permanence in sections 9 and 10 was in violation of Article IV of the Federal Constitution, in that the citizens of those states may form a regional government if they so choose, I also believe a region has the right to choose a minimal form of regional government. While those who attempted to abolish the region did so in a deceptive way, I believe the abolition of those offices and laws should have continued until formally undone by the people of the Pacific.

---

As for sections 6 and 7, the Court found the amendment ratification process in violation of Article VII of the Federal Constitution. A recent amendment to Article VII was, quite frankly, poorly written and poorly thought out, and this is the second time this year we have had to take a look at it.

For the public referendum method of ratifying an amendment, Article VII says that each citizen must vote. While a region may choose the time length of their ratification voting booth, it is the court's opinion that it is impossible to have each citizen vote in one second. The court has decided that 72 hours is the absolute minimum acceptable time frame to allow each citizen who wishes to vote the chance to do so. It is also the court's opinion that a tie-vote is not an acceptable way to ratify an amendment. Given the vagueness of Article VII in its current form, it is the court's opinion that the intention was a simple majority vote of those voting for or against is required for an amendment to be ratified via public referendum.

[DemPGH]

Thanks for your statement, bgwah - I've added it to the Wiki entry for this case.

My goal was to gut this thing and then hope as a bonus that what little remained the Court would see fit to do away with on principle - because the bulk of it had been arrived at unconstitutionally. I kind of sort of expected, though, that a skeleton of the FC might remain, and that the onus would be on the Pacific to clean up the little that remained. However, I am very grateful for the 2-1 ruling against all of it.

Clearly, 5, 9, and 10 put together are egregiously unconstitutional, so I was confident that that would be overturned, and I thank the Court for recognizing that, and also Lewis for chiming in.

I'm also VERY glad that the Court accepted my argument surrounding the 17th Amendment. The only problem with the 17th Amendment is that it assumes that people will be rational and just do their damn jobs. Then again, its sponsor is that sort of guy, I think. So I think we have some precedence to go forward with here regarding this interpretation of the 17th.

In all, this was an interesting episode, and in the Wiki entry I also included a copy of the FC for the sake of reference and posterity.

[Ebowed]

The Court unanimously rules in favor of the plaintiff and that the most recent constitution -'the Final Constitution' - violates IV.1-3 of the federal Constitution and is thus invalid.  The Court orders the voiding of said 'Final Constitution' and the restoration of the Fourth Pacific Constitution. 

I concur, for the record.