Atlasia -vs- Militarized Forces of the IDS and the Pacific

[DemPGH]

Hello, members of the High Court:

This has been brewing for a while, and with recent conduct in and around the Pacific, we feel that the Court should determine how far regions can go in maintaining armed militarized groups. We hope that the Court will determine that these groups by kind are unconstitutional.

Following some high level discussions within the cabinet, on behalf of the administration I would like to file suit against the paramilitary forces that exist within the IDS and which we must also assume still exist within the Pacific, namely the:

IDS Militia

and the

People's Front of the Unorganized Territories

These organizations exist in violation of the Constitution, and as we have recently seen as the tumult in the Pacific reached critical mass, these organizations are dangerous and represent a destabilizing element within Atlasia. When respect for institutions exists it may be easy to overlook the existence of such armed groups, but with the recent illegal sabotage of the Pacific's government and the threat of "annexation," which also appears illegal and unconstitutional, we would like for the Court to make a Constitutional determination as to the legitimacy of these kinds of groups. If the Court finds these forces to be illegal, we would like them to be ordered to stand down and to be disbanded.

The basis for the lawsuit is 1.7.7 of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The President, the SoEA, and I believe the two organizations mentioned here violate this clause. The Court will have to determine.

[CatoMinor]

How is 'Armed forces' defined?  Police are armed. While I agree that the People's Front of the whatever is an illegal para-military force, the Imperial Guard is no different from any other national guard type organization. Its not meant to be some army rivaling the feds, but unless I am mistaken, simply for disaster relief and helping enforce the law of the region if need be.

[DemPGH]

How is 'Armed forces' defined?  Police are armed. While I agree that the People's Front of the whatever is an illegal para-military force, the Imperial Guard is no different from any other national guard type organization. Its not meant to be some army rivaling the feds, but unless I am mistaken, simply for disaster relief and helping enforce the law of the region if need be.

The militia is much more than a police force or a rescue ship, for lack of a better term. It's a regional army that was deployed with the capability to annex the Pacific and to protect the IDS' border - it contains officers and troop forces.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=173048.0
IDS Exec Order 001:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CatoMinor]

What may I ask is wrong with keeping extra security in parts of our ow region for the limited purpose of ensuring that the NM-AM's destructive trolling of the Pacific didn't cross over into the IDS? I see nothing wrong with simply keeping order and helping any refugees who might have fled the chaos of the anarchy that took over.

Also, New York City has a police force capable of waging full scale war with some of the smaller countries, does this qualify them as a standing army? I am sure some of our federal agencies are armed enough to hold their own against some nation's as well, do we count them as armed forces?

Clearly capability is not the determining factor, but rather the purpose. And our units are meant for nothing more than upholding IDS law and disaster response.

I ask that the court dismiss the IDS from this and instead focus on the PFUT.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Pacific maintains no armed forces.

[bgwah]

acknowleged...

[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, July 24, 2013.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Friday, July 26, 2013.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT on Wednesday, July 24, 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

Lot of quotes here. While I would accept the notion that a region or a state may certainly maintain something like an auxiliary police force, a region or state may not maintain an active force of armed citizens whose intent is to secure / protect territory or to fight battles or to maintain peace, much less fight the government as the per the Liberation Front. Combat responsibilities fall under purview of the Atlasian military.

On its own the IDS is perfectly free to maintain an organization whose intent and purpose is to provide relief from disasters. Such an entity, however, would hardly need to be a militia of armed citizens and officers.

Section 2 of the Southeast Militia Initiative clearly defines the IDS militia as an armed military entity, which, sans approval from the Senate, may absolutely not be maintained by the IDS:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The above, to be Constitutional, must be under control of the Atlasian government, not the IDS.

Neither armed force mentioned in this suit did any good during the Pacific crisis. Both only increased tensions and threatened violence when violence was not necessary. The Atlasian Senate and the Attorney General’s office acted quickly and appropriately to handle the Pacific crisis. Armed factions of civilians whose intent is to wage conflict should be relegated to the past by this Court, and ended.

Secondly, the People’s Liberation Front’s suit against the IDS was rejected by this Court on the grounds that the Court did not recognize the People’s Liberation Front as a legal entity; with this statement the Court stopped short of declaring the People’s Liberation Front unconstitutional during rejection of its case! I now ask the Court to declare the People’s Liberation Front tangibly unconstitutional. The Front should be disbanded, and the DOJ as well as the Pacific should have the authority to “arrest” those who refuse to stand down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

The highlighted passages below indicate actions that the Liberation Front is prepared to take that are illegal; the Front is made up of a renegade, armed group of rebels whose existence defies the Constitution and threatens the stability of the region. The actions described here are certainly sanctioned by neither the Senate nor the restored Pacific government, so the Front is a group of rogues capable of striking militarily. Further, I am concerned that the IDS militia may house revolutionaries and separatists - some fleeing revolutionaries from the Pacific, as noted. If a revolutionary cell has opened in the IDS’ militia, the chances increase that the Pacific crisis will spread, I think.

Under certain circumstances, I would be willing to be lenient in the case of the IDS, but not wherein they may house revolutionaries, and most certainly not with regard to the Liberation Front.

I am available for questions.

Regards and a lovely evening,
-DemPGH, A.G., V.P.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[bgwah]

I will only have phone access to the forum over the next few days, so please pardon any slowness on my part here.

[Velasco]

The Attorney General's Brief

Further, I am concerned that the IDS militia may house revolutionaries and separatists - some fleeing revolutionaries from the Pacific, as noted. If a revolutionary cell has opened in the IDS’ militia, the chances increase that the Pacific crisis will spread, I think.

Under certain circumstances, I would be willing to be lenient in the case of the IDS, but not wherein they may house revolutionaries, and most certainly not with regard to the Liberation Front.

I am available for questions.

Regards and a lovely evening,
-DemPGH, A.G., V.P.

Did you take that rumour about a revolutionary cell seriously? I didn't hear about them after I echoed certain funny stories in those days of confusion and that People's Front has never been a real threat for anybody

I'm more concerned with the fact that the existence of those militias could be taken in advantage to unilateral invasions of foreign territories. Months ago, a former legislator proposed to invade and annex some frontier states in Mexico. It's easy to imagine that such action at the South Region's own risk might have caused a diplomatic crisis or a war between the Republic of Atlasia and our southern neighbours. But that's not all, the former top executive regional authority (for some strange reason it is called emperor) commented to me that time ago someone invaded the Mexican territory at his own peril, without at least bear the regional authorities in mind. I guess the aforementioned adventurer was commanding one of the unorganized militias existing. That's why I'm trying to pass a bill in the South Legislature called "South East Militia Dissolution Act" which aim is to finish, once and for all, with those paramilitary groups created under the umbrella the South East Militia Initiative.

[bgwah]

I have normal internet access again.

So is the issue here nomenclature, basically? He says its like police, you say its like an armed force? Based off the terms the SE uses, I can see how one might see it that way.

I will be interested to see the SE's official response.

[Dereich]

I have normal internet access again.

So is the issue here nomenclature, basically? He says its like police, you say its like an armed force? Based off the terms the SE uses, I can see how one might see it that way.

I will be interested to see the SE's official response.

Finding someone to give our official response is a challenge right now. The Emperor has limited internet access and we in the legislature are busy discussing the same issue with Velasco's bill; none of us really want to argue the issue here if we're about to change it anyway through legislation. But you're right about it in many ways coming down to the name; nomenclature arguments are in vogue right now in our lovely Imperial Dominion of the South.

[Bacon King]

On a point of semantics, the IDS Militia is composed of several unique components. There's obviously no issue with the National Guard, for example. The question at hand quite clearly pertains to the Regional Guard. The Atlasian Senate has implicitly allowed regions to maintain such "regional guards": the last Senatorial reference to the subject was an authorization of force which included the Regional Guard. This matter-of-fact recognition of their existence obviously means the Senate consents to their existence, so there is no Constitutional issue here.

Furthermore I note that the Attorney General's concern over the personal beliefs of members of the Militia is utterly irrelevant to the Constitutional issues at hand, and at any rate is nothing more than inadmissible hearsay which I must demand be stricken from the record.

[DemPGH]

JULIET: What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Indeed. In order for the IDS' regional militia to be Constitutional, IMO, it would have to disarm it and call it the disaster assessment team, the disaster relief team, etc., but the operative phrase is "disarm it," and send its officers home or make them foremen.

[Bacon King]

JULIET: What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Indeed. In order for the IDS' regional militia to be Constitutional, IMO, it would have to disarm it and call it the disaster assessment team, the disaster relief team, etc., but the operative phrase is "disarm it," and send its officers home or make them foremen.

Since they have the consent of the Senate, why would they have to disarm anything? And shouldn't substance have priority over nomenclature?

[DemPGH]

Edit: Mr. Kingman, I am aghast! I am told that R.15 predates the Third Constitution, so its relevance is in question. But, the purpose of R.15 is not to grant authority to the Southeast to maintain that, plus the Southeast Militia Initiative, even so, violates R.15. Why? Because of this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is in direct violation of the federal law Mr. Kingman cites, so of course this regional militia should be ordered to stand down and disband.

Further passages like this. . .

You must be logged in to read this quote.

. . . really demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that we are dealing with a full-fledged military force under the operation of the Southeast, which defies the federal Constitution. As I said, this organization is far more than an auxiliary police force, and it's more than nomenclature. Changing the names of offices and personnel will not alter what this entity is.



In all humility and friendliness,
DemPGH

[Bacon King]

Whether R.15 and the Southeastern Militia initiative are legally compatible is irrelevant. The purpose of this case is to determine whether the existence of the Southeast Militia itself is compatible with the wording of the Constitution. The Constitution requires that Regional Militias receive approval of the Senate to exist. R.15, the last Federal action on the subject, refers to the Regional Militia in such a way that obviously demonstrates the Senate acknowledges and approves the existence of the Southeastern Militia, so therefore it meets are Constitutional requirements to legally exist.

The fact that R.15 passed the Senate under the Second Constitution is irrelevant, because Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 4 of the current Constitution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

R.15 has not been superceded. R.15 is not inconsistent with the Third Constitution. Therefore it remains in full force, and thus validates the Constitutionality of the IDS Militia.

[DemPGH]

Here's the text of R.15, the emergency resolution to authorize force against incursion (defined as an emergency resolution):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two problems, chiefly: 1) this does not offer consent to any region to maintain an independent military force: acknowledgment is not approval - especially considering that the situation that brought about R.15 was an emergency situation that was not within a time of peace, and, worse, 2) the Southeast Militia Initiative specifically forbids its regional militia from being directed by the President or the military of Atlasia. So it actually violated R.15. That's because it is a stand-alone force operating with a standard code of military justice under control of the Southeast, which would be unconstitutional.  

Now I.7.7 of the federal Constitution says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This means that a specific approval is required, and since R.15 refers specifically to a time of threat, which has long passed, the regional militia cannot be construed as having senatorial consent to exist now.

[bgwah]

The debate over the SE has been quite informative, but I'm curious about drj's group. I don't really see how it violates the part of the Constitution you have referenced as the organization is not formed by a regional government. It appears to just be one random person.

[DemPGH]

Well, I would say that in hindsight I probably should have filed against this paramilitary group when I filed against the Final Constitution since there was so much about all this that lacked clarity at that time.

Basically, this is my reasoning: The Final Const. "established" the unincorporated territories, which no longer exist; the unincorporated territories, by way of one of the Pacific Councilors (drj), established the paramilitary group in question. As such it was an illegal paramilitary group established by a regime in the Pacific that no longer exists. The Pacific has sort of inherited the problem. So lest it be commandeered it should be declared illegal, in my opinion.

In the words of the former Councilor who founded the group, acting on behalf of the regime of the unincorporated territories:

In response to the imperialistic and unconstitutional aggression upon the people of the unorganized territories in the western half of Atlasia, We, the People of the unorganized territories, found this organization for our mutual protection and self-defense. The People's Front will serve as an army of defense and liberation for the people of the unorganized territories who have democratically decided to overthrow the oppressive yoke of the ancien regime.

So, a former regime that was the Pacific (kind of like an anti-government) created it. Now it could also be a matter for the Governor, the Pacific, or the federal govt. to directly address, so we'll await the decision before deciding how to proceed.

[Bacon King]

1. R.15 implicitly gives the consent of the Senate. Why would they give an order to something that they did not allow to exist?

2. The fact that R.15 violated the Southeast's Militia Law is irrelevant to this case. The question at hand is whether the Southeast Militia has the consent of the Senate, and R.15 proves it does. At most, the only thing that could have been rendered unconstitutional here was the specific clause denying the Federal government control of the Regional Guard, and even then only if the President directly activated the Regional Guard and even then only for the duration of the referenced crisis which has long since passed. There's nothing unconstitutional happening if there's no actual denial occurring.

3. Your argument regarding the Pacific militia defeats itself. If the Unincorporated Territories were a distinct entity from the Pacific Region, then drj's status as a former Pacific Councillor is irrelevant and thus there are no ties between the region and the militia. And if you consider the Unincorporated Territories to be the same legal entity as the Pacific Region, then drj lost office as Pacific Councilor the moment my Final Constitution was passed because it abolished his office, so thus there are still no ties between the region and the militia.

[bgwah]

Whether R.15 and the Southeastern Militia initiative are legally compatible is irrelevant. The purpose of this case is to determine whether the existence of the Southeast Militia itself is compatible with the wording of the Constitution. The Constitution requires that Regional Militias receive approval of the Senate to exist. R.15, the last Federal action on the subject, refers to the Regional Militia in such a way that obviously demonstrates the Senate acknowledges and approves the existence of the Southeastern Militia, so therefore it meets are Constitutional requirements to legally exist.

The fact that R.15 passed the Senate under the Second Constitution is irrelevant, because Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 4 of the current Constitution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

R.15 has not been superceded. R.15 is not inconsistent with the Third Constitution. Therefore it remains in full force, and thus validates the Constitutionality of the IDS Militia.

Could you please elaborate upon the bolded sentence?

[bgwah]

bump...

[Bacon King]

My apologies! Missed your comment.

R15 is not inconsistent with the 3rd Constitution because no part of it is unconstitutional under the Constitution's requirements, so it was therefore fully adopted as a part of Atlasian statute. Since it is still valid, it justifies the existence of the Regional Guards, militias, etc.

[bgwah]

Unless one views it as an armed force prohibited by the Constitution, in which case it would be inconsistent and thus no longer in force, no?