Atlasia -vs- The Former Pacific

[DemPGH]

Greetings, Justices of the most high Court:

I am nearly prepared to bring a case against the so-named unincorporated territories a.k.a. the Pacific Region for violating the Federal Constitution on multiple counts. I will demonstrate that their newly enacted "Final Constitution" violates in its entirety our Constitution, and also that crucial parts of the Final Constitution are wildly unconstitutional for perhaps different reasons. In essence, there is a severe violation of Article IV Section 1 (IV.1) and the Supremacy Clause of IV.3. But there exist other, more singular issues into which I will delve in what is shaping up to be my twofold argument.  

Sometimes intricacies are merely ruses and smokescreens to mask illegal activity, and there could be no finer example than what has unfolded here. All that has happened is that the Pacific Region has been sabotaged - illegally, of course! But it is understandable because this action would surely have failed were it to have been attempted legally.  

The Final Constitution may be viewed here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175108.0

The 4th Constitution, which is the document that supposedly allows all this, can be found here: https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fourth_Pacific_Constitution

[bgwah]

Alright. I will bring this up with the other Justices and hopefully get back to you before the end of the week.

[opebo]

It seems the Private Message function is disabled, so I'd like to express my willingness to 'vote' regarding certiorari here to my fellow Justices.

[bgwah]

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 Wednesday, June 26, 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Friday, June 28, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT on Wednesday, June 26, 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]

The Attorney General's Brief

Firstly, The crucial question that is before the Court in this case is whether or not the Pacific / unincorporated territories may dissolve its own government in perpetuity, which the Final Constitution of the unincorporated territories makes clear is the objective. Indeed, as per the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution, which would override regional law, and as per IV.1 of the same federal document, a region may not dissolve its government in perpetuity (I copied and pasted):

IV.1.1-3 says of the federal Constitution says,

1.   The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, but no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
2.   Regions may establish elected legislatures for themselves to make proper laws and electoral procedures.
3.   Regions may establish judiciaries for themselves; However, if they choose not to, the federal Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all election disputes, but only insofar as Regional Law may provide. Any Region may vest all or part of its judicial power in the Supreme Court of Atlasia.

The Final Constitution of the unincorporated territories permanently bars these offices, saying this:

3.   Upon the passage of this Constitution, the prior Pacific Constitution shall be repealed in full, and all jurisprudence and judicial precedent related to it shall hereby be considered invalid.

4.   All statutes, laws, initiatives, executive orders, and other legal texts of the Pacific Region are hereby repealed and abolished.

5.   All regional offices are hereby abolished; the Region’s executive, legislative, and judicial authority shall not be vested in any person or office.

9.   There shall be no method to amend this Constitution in any manner; it shall remain unaltered in perpetuity.

Clauses 3-4 have a clear ex post facto effect that is unacceptable, but since clause 9 is the teeth of this constitution, it is blatantly antithetical to federal law, for federal law permits regions to maintain local governments (i.e., at minimum clause 5 should be struck down). Federal law also, and this is crucial, permits regions to fall into inactivity. The word “may” is crucial here. “May” indicates that if regions do not elect these offices they merely fall under purview of a federal body, but regions may absolutely not ban them from existing. It is that simple, justices of the Court.

As is clear, the Final Constitution bans the Pacific’s right to maintain a regional government, and so should be struck down in its entirety. In essence, a group of clever citizens attempted to ban the Pacific’s government because of inactivity – yet inactivity is Constitutionally permissible! This is the grandest of the ironies in this case.

Further, and secondly, the constitutional amendment process of the Final Constitution is illegal in saying:

 6.   Whenever the Atlasian Senate passes an amendment to the Federal Constitution, a referendum on its ratification shall occur. Ratification shall be an unannounced vote with no administrator, conducted by public post in the most recently posted thread in the Fantasy Elections board. Voting shall automatically begin at the exact moment the amendment passes the Senate, and shall conclude after one second.

This is an example of voter suppression at its most cleverly heinous: this is because it is not physically possible to navigate from the Atlasian Government to the voting booth to cast a vote under no proctor in one second. This is physically impossible and effectively bans voting, which is the Constitutional right of the citizens of the Pacific.

Thirdly, I would also like for the court to consider whether or not the Final Constitution is an overreach of the amendment process. The amendment process is designed to modify or alter passages in a text that already exists, not replace it altogether.

Thus, I ask the Court to strike down all of the Final Constitution of the unincorporated territories, and at minimum strike down clause 5 that bars local governments from existing.

I am available for questions should the justices have any.

DemPGH, A.G. and V.P.-elect

[Хahar 🤔]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

[CatoMinor]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

[Napoleon]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

The President is responsi ble for this, so maybe he should feel an obligation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

The President is responsi ble for this, so maybe he should feel an obligation.

I have no desire to defend it, since I loathe what certain people have been up to, here.

[Napoleon]

Being that the former pacific has abolished its Gov't, should the court just appoint someone to defend it?

The President is responsi ble for this, so maybe he should feel an obligation.

I have no desire to defend it, since I loathe what certain people have been up to, here.

But you could appoint someone. (Admittedly that didn't work last time)

[opebo]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

I would like to explore this - if we find that the action of 'abolishing itself' is not constitutional, is not the government of the Pacific still in fact extant, and thus eligible for the role of respondent?  I would like to read both sides argument on this question.

[minionofmidas]

Amicus Brief

Para.s 3 and 4 do not have any ex post facto effect. I am in fact rather mystified as to why the Attorney General thinks so. The previous Constitution is repealed, all Pacific acts are repealed; no precedents from when they existed can be used for future cases. None of this is attempting to change the (legal situation in the) past.

The Constitution merely states that regions 'may' have these divers functions, it does not require them to. The Pacific is acting within its Constitutional rights to abolish them. Similarly, there is of course nothing that can be considered unconstitutional or even particularly controversial about para.s 1, 2 and 8.

Paragraph 6 is also clearly constitutional. The Atlasian Constitution is quite clear about giving the regions the right to set the voting time as long as they damn well please. Nothing in there bans a voting time of one second.

OTOH, the Attorney General is quite correct in stating that paragraph 9 is in violation of the federal constitution IV 1.1-3, which protects future residents' of the unincorporated territories right to reestablish a Governor, legislature etc should they ever be stupid enough to wish to do so.

Furthermore, paragraph 7 is unconstitutional. The constitution requires "approval by public referendum wherein each citizen shall vote by public post". Each citizen. If a region requires an amendment to be passed by popular referendum, and any citizen did not vote in the referendum, then the amendment can not be adopted by that region. Note that this also applies to the so-called "18th Amendment", which was never in fact adopted.
In the unlikely case that the SC is willing to let this piece of utterly moronic amendment-drafting slip and accept the 17th amendment as intended instead of as written (couldn't have happened in the golden days. Such a court decision, that is, not the bad drafting itself), it is highly dubious whether a tied vote can be redefined as an 'approval'. That seems to be doing some violence to the English language.

[minionofmidas]

cont.d

The Court should probably, just to remove any lingering confusion, explicitly deem nul and void this attempt at reestablishing government in the unincorporated territories, as it did not come from the citizens of the region, and also on account of the unconstitutional language in paragraph 8.

[Хahar 🤔]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

I would like to explore this - if we find that the action of 'abolishing itself' is not constitutional, is not the government of the Pacific still in fact extant, and thus eligible for the role of respondent?  I would like to read both sides argument on this question.

All actions are constitutional unless ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court may reestablish the former Pacific government if it so rules, but without any decision to the contrary, the constitutional amendment abolishing the region is valid; therefore, there is no Pacific government to respond.

At the very least, I suggest that the period for the respondent to file a brief be delayed until it is clear who the respondent is.

[Napoleon]

Who exactly is respondent in this case?

I would like to explore this - if we find that the action of 'abolishing itself' is not constitutional, is not the government of the Pacific still in fact extant, and thus eligible for the role of respondent?  I would like to read both sides argument on this question.

All actions are constitutional unless ruled otherwise. The Supreme Court may reestablish the former Pacific government if it so rules, but without any decision to the contrary, the constitutional amendment abolishing the region is valid; therefore, there is no Pacific government to respond.

At the very least, I suggest that the period for the respondent to file a brief be delayed until it is clear who the respondent is.

[minionofmidas]

Huh? You what, Napoleon? The way the case is setup at current, there is no respondent. That needs fixing.

[opebo]

cont.d

The Court should probably, just to remove any lingering confusion, explicitly deem nul and void this attempt at reestablishing government in the unincorporated territories, as it did not come from the citizens of the region, and also on account of the unconstitutional language in paragraph 8.

There's been no case brought before us regarding the issue to which you refer.

Huh? You what, Napoleon? The way the case is setup at current, there is no respondent. That needs fixing.

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.

[DemPGH]

Lewis T, that's a good brief - I won't fight about the ex post facto comment unless the Court seriously considers it. I find it beyond the outer limits to simply wipe out every legal document and statute that ever existed - and replace it with nothing. As this whole final constitution is an abuse of the amendment process, so is that a drastic abuse of the repeal process. I felt like I had to call it something, at least acknowledge its egregiousness, and since nothing like that would happen in real life I was unsure what to call it. So I said it had an ex post facto effect.

As to the ninth and fifth clauses - I don't see that we differ on that, not appreciably anyway. I'm saying this: regions are free to have no offices - or not fill them, but they may not bar them from existing. There is a very noticeable difference between not filling a position and not being allowed to fill it because it ceases to exist. The fifth and ninth clauses together ban for good the existence of a local government.

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.

As to who is the respondent here, I don't see how there can be one unless it's one of the individuals who voted on this, who, pending the outcome of these two cases, I will investigate for the possibility of criminal behavior.

[DemPGH]

cont.d

The Court should probably, just to remove any lingering confusion, explicitly deem nul and void this attempt at reestablishing government in the unincorporated territories, as it did not come from the citizens of the region, and also on account of the unconstitutional language in paragraph 8.

I would like to request an injunction against the activity cited here pending the outcome of the two related cases concerning the final constitution and pending Senate action re: the Pacific.

[Хahar 🤔]

How exactly can you file suit against nobody?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How exactly can you file suit against nobody?

The AG is suing the Government of the Pacific, which it would argue still exists.

[DemPGH]

How exactly can you file suit against nobody?

The AG is suing the Government of the Pacific, which it would argue still exists.

Yes, but also if need be the final constitution, which could certainly be construed to be "the government."

How exactly can you file suit against nobody?

That would be an interesting argument for you to make. "No one can be sued." Why? "Because the government of the Pacific has been banned from existing, which robs people of their right to address it now and in the future, and which contradicts the guarantee of IV.1-3 of the federal Constitution that the Pacific citizens have a right to elect a government." Well who did that? Oh, you did. Or didn't you? Hmm, the kinds of questions that can lead to subpoenas and investigations! Most especially with regard to the other case going on.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

It has been requested that I submit one, so here goes -- (significantly shortened from planned original version due to a change of mind)

Amicus Brief
The purpose of this brief is to address two claims made with respect to the ongoing

1 · that the Final Constitution of the Pacific Region of Atlasia is currently the supreme law of the area in question
If the ratification, passage or implementation of the FCPRA was in any conventional way illegal, this idea can, of course, be dismissed easily.
But what if this is not the case? What would have happened when the FCPRA went into effect? Well, according to Clause 4:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As it is glaringly obvious that the FCPRA itself falls under this definition, there are exactly two possibilities:
  (a) that such a contradiction makes impossible the adoption of the FCPRA in the first place, or
  (b) that the FCPRA's adoption resulted in, at exactly the same time, its own repeal.
In either case, the FCPRA does not currently hold any power.

2 · that the constitutionality of certain portions of the FCPRA is at all relevant
If option (a) above is true, this is trivial.
If option (b) is true instead, Clauses 6 and 9 (among others) never actually went into effect. That is, the relevant clauses were technically in effect for an infinitely short period of time, and thus citizens' right to vote, choose their own government, &c. were never in actuality infringed upon.


I strongly recommend that the Court base its conclusion on option (a) above and thus order an immediate return to the Fourth Constitution.

cont.d
The Court should probably, just to remove any lingering confusion, explicitly deem null and void this attempt at reestablishing government in the unincorporated territories, as it did not come from the citizens of the region, and also on account of the unconstitutional language in paragraph 8.

I would like to request an injunction against the activity cited here pending the outcome of the two related cases concerning the final constitution and pending Senate action re: the Pacific.

I have no objection. The justification was predicated on option (b) above, while I now believe option (a) to be more likely.

[DemPGH]

Person is saying that the final constitution repeals itself via Clause 4 because it uses the word "All." I would add that the final constitution does not exempt itself. It does say that it is unalterable, but Clause 10 is what puts it into effect - one second after passage. Clause 4 could be construed to allow the FC to repeal itself after the one second that it goes into effect! Oh my god. Hey, try it. Not sure if it warrants its own separate request or not since it does diverge from my argument.

Since the 4th Constitution brought about this fiasco, is it best to reinstate that, or try for the 3rd? And that's a question that does pertain to my argument. I suppose we can deal it or the Court can as this unfolds.

[minionofmidas]

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.