Inks.LWC v. Senate of Atlasia

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

May it please the Court,

I wish to file a suit against the Senate of Atlasia regarding the Pacific Deconstruction Resolution.  I seek to challenge the resolution on the grounds that Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Third Constitution precludes regions from entering into agreements or compacts with one another other than "for purposes of handling Specific Issues which affect more than one Region but which do not affect the Republic of Atlasia as a Whole."  As the Senate has not noted any Specific Issue at the heart of its resolution, and no such agreement exists between the Pacific and Midwest addressing a Specific Issue, this resolution is in violation of the Constitution.

If the Court will hear this case, I will file a full brief.

I thank the Court for its time.

--Inks.LWC

[Adam Griffin]

I mean, I hate to say I told y'all so, but...

The whole "it's 2 regions but now it's 1 region but it's really 2 regions" plan seems oddly reminiscent of the Atlasian-Canadian Common Market Agreement. Hell, the main motivation for me to see that one through was for people to be able to live in Canada, but apparently we still can't even get that enforced because of all the "careful considerations" that went into it. I'd hate for this to end up like that. How sure can we be that it won't? It only takes one court case to find out, especially when there are vague concepts like "accord" (we could at least use the wording from the Article I Section 7 clause, which I could argue is not even applicable here).

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would urge the honorable Court to dismiss the case on the grounds that no legitimate reading of the constitution could yield a specific chronology which the Senate must follow. I would also note that the Consent process is not burdened by the Specificity; that specific clause refers to the compact itself which must be bound by mentioning the handling of "Specific Issues". 

[Oakvale]

This has been seen, we'll get back to you regarding certiorari shortly.

[Torie]

May it please the Court,

I wish to file a suit against the Senate of Atlasia regarding the Pacific Deconstruction Resolution.  I seek to challenge the resolution on the grounds that Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Third Constitution precludes regions from entering into agreements or compacts with one another other than "for purposes of handling Specific Issues which affect more than one Region but which do not affect the Republic of Atlasia as a Whole."  As the Senate has not noted any Specific Issue at the heart of its resolution, and no such agreement exists between the Pacific and Midwest addressing a Specific Issue, this resolution is in violation of the Constitution.

If the Court will hear this case, I will file a full brief.

I thank the Court for its time.

--Inks.LWC

Greetings Mr. Inks.  I would like to see a more formal petition for cert brief, that has a brief statement of facts, and just why there is not only errancy in the law or its application, but also that now is the time to clarify what the law is, least that errancy be repeated.  I understand that given the Atlasia jurisprudential system, cert is granted more than in systems with active trial and appellate courts, but given what is before me, I am kind of flying blind, not knowing, without doing my own research in the absence of some kind  of Brief, whether to urge my fellow Justices to grant the petition to hear the case, deny cert, or issue a per curiam opinion, without more. Those that oppose granting cert could file something too. One other Justice suggested I go this route with you.

The brief can be relatively brief (hewing to the actual intent I guess of the document, even though in reality "Briefs" are anything but brief, but covering the basics will assist I think in this process. Thank you.

[President Tyrion]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Noted! May I file such a brief via public post in this thread?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Noted! May I file such a brief via public post in this thread?

Sure, but remember this would be opposing the Court taking the case at all, so it is not only about the merits, although give the jurisprudential system in Atlasia, the merits would be more important than in systems with more, shall we say, "developed" lower courts. It is also about whether this case is worthy of setting precedent now, the odds that the issue would come up again, how it interplays with other laws, etc.   In the other place, Petitions for cert are often considerably more important, than Briefs arguing the merits after the Court has agreed to take the case.

I suggest however, that you await the petitioner filing something more formal, and then respond to that, unless of course, nothing in a reasonable period, say a week, comes forth, and then perhaps you might elect not to wait, and just file something.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Justice Torie, I have attempted to draft a brief per your request without going too deep into the substantive arguments, so that that step may be saved for if the Court grants certiorari.  If you would like a more detailed description of my arguments, I would be happy to provide them in an amended brief.

Brief for Petition of Writ of Certiorari

Statement of Facts

Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Third Constitution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[1]

On February 4, 2014, the Senate of Atlasia passed the Pacific Deconstruction Resolution, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[2]

At no point have either the Pacific Region or the Midwest Region drafted any Treaty, Alliance, Confederation, Agreement, Compact, or accord to combine their governing bodies.  At no point in time did the Senate note that its consent had been given for the purpose of handling any "Specific Issues" that affected the Pacific and Midwest, but not the nation as a whole.  In fact, no Specific Issue was noted by the Senate in its resolution.

Issue Presented

Is the Pacific Deconstruction Resolution unconstitutional as a violation of Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Third Constitution, where the Senate gave consent to the Pacific and Midwest Regions to combine their governing bodies without noting a Specific Issue for which the accord will be entered into to resolve?

Brief Answer

Because the Senate granted blanket consent to the Pacific and Midwest Regions to enter an accord to combine their governments, without noting or discussing a Specific Issue for which the accord will our would be formed, the resolution at issue is unconstitutional.  Furthermore, even if the Senate had noted an issue, as will be discussed below, the only plausible issue for which the accord could have been formed is not an issue that does not affect the nation as a whole, further making the resolution unconstiutional.

For these reasons, there has been an error in the Senate's application of the law.  A merger of two regions' governments will have a major impact not only on the regions part of the accord themselves, but the other regions of Atlasia and the nation as a whole.  Because the Senate gave blanket consent for a governmental merger between the two regions, without noting any Specific Issue that the merger would address, the Senate has not only violated the Constitution but sets a dangerous precedent for the future.  The Constitution set limits on when regions can enter agreements with other regions, and by ignoring the boundaries of these limits, the Senate has encouraged future violations of this provision; such violations, including the present violation, strip the federal government of its duly held power.

Because there has been a flagrant disregard for the Constitution, which has a major impact on the regions and nation as a whole, Plaintiff petitions this Court to grant a Writ of Certiorari.

--Inks.LWC

[Torie]

Thank you Mr. Inks. That was very helpful. Odd that the term "Specific Issues" is capitalized, suggesting that it is a defined term of art, but alas, it is not defined. It must have been a stylistic preference of the era in which the document was drafted.

I did invite oppositions to the petition to grant cert, so I will wait a couple of days for whatever may be filed, before having a conference on this matter with my fellow Justices.

[DemPGH]

Dear Justices,

I'll take questions (as it is hard to argue against cert in Atlasia), but at this moment this is what I have to say: CLEARLY the special issue is inactivity, and it is NOT required to be exclusive; as well, 1) the Senate is neither required to provide a rationale or blueprint for granting permission to form an "alliance," whatever that even is (it is not defined), 2) nor is / are the region(s) seeking such permission required to provide a rationale or blueprint.

The Constitution is the ultimate say in all matters. So if any merger is truly unconstitutional, then THAT is the time to bring a suit. That's the gist of what I have to say at this point in time, rendered succinctly.

That is why this case should not proceed at this moment.

X Atty. DemPGH

[Torie]

Thank you PGHDem for the additional Brief. Just to give everyone notice, I plan to open discussions on this matter with my fellow justices tomorrow, so this is the last day to file something if one wants it to be considered in connection with such discussions. Thank you.

[President Tyrion]

I will just keep it simple.

Is there value to hearing this case?

In a word, no. If the court rules in favor of Inks, regional merger negotiations will continue. If they receive the proper support, the approved negotiations would prompt a Senate vote. If the court does not rule in favor of Inks, regional merger negotiations will continue. If it receives the proper support, the merger will occur.

The only reason to hear this case is political, since the only difference in outcome would be to have the Senate forced to approve the finalized merger. As such, the only difference would entail a difference in the composition of the Senate, a political process. It would take a great deal of judicial activism, thus, to grant cert, as the court would essentially be tacitly approving a politicization of the process by a party, who, in the classical sense of the term, lacks standing.

[Torie]

This matter has gone to conference.  Thank you, and to those in particular who took the time to draft briefs for our consideration.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's now been over a week since I filed for a writ of certiorari.  Will a decision be coming soon?  I'll be out of town this weekend, so if possible, I'd like to have my brief filed before then if hte court is going to hear this.

[Oakvale]

The decision on whether to hear the case will be posted shortly, Inks. We've been discussing it in some detail. Thanks for your patience.

[Torie]

Inks.LWC v. Senate of Atlasia

The Supreme Court of Atlasia, having considered the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by the Petitioner, Inks.LWC, hereby denies certiorari.

Normally, the lack of lower court adjudication of this matter, would cause us to be inclined to hear the case, but in this instance the denial is based on the same reason as a trial court would dismiss the case, to wit, that the matter is not yet ripe for adjudication, and may never be ripe. No law has been passed, merely a consent by the Senate authorizing the Pacific and Midwest regions, “the privilege of entering an accord, for their mutual benefit, to combine their governing bodies and, if so desired, to craft and implement one body of law for their joint lands”  (hereinafter referred to as the “Senate Consent”).

If and when any such law or laws are passed by the subject regions (hereinafter referred to as a “Regional Compact”), at that point, and only at that point, would adjudication as to the Constitutionality of such a Regional Compact be ripe.  To consider the matter now, without having before the Court the specific contents of such a Regional Compact, would involve adjudicating hypotheticals, and in the nature of premature declaratory relief, which is neither wise from the standpoint of lacking a specific set of facts to consider as to how the law would apply to that set of facts, potentially leading to flawed jurisprudence, nor does it respect jurisprudential economy, given that if no Regional Compact law is passed, the matter will never be subject to litigation. 

If the Court were prepared at this time to find that the Senate Consent failed to authorize any Regional Compact that would pass Constitutional muster, the Court may have reached a different result.  However, this Court is not prepared to make such a finding. The Constitutional clause, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 (FN 1)  otherwise authorizing  the Senate Consent  does not facially require a specific proposed Regional Compact to be before it as to which to consent, as opposed to authorizing such Regional Compacts in advance. Nor does the subject clause facially require that the Senate Consent be to an elucidated “Specific Issue.” 

FN 1.    Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 reads as follows:  No Region shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation, save that with the Consent of the Senate they may enter into Agreements or Compacts with other Regions for purposes of handling Specific Issues which affect more than one Region but which do not affect the Republic of Atlasia as a Whole.

While the authorizing Constitutional clause for the Senate Consent does require that any such Regional Compact “not affect the Republic of Atlasia as a Whole,” and arguably the combining of  “governing bodies” and/or the implementation of “one body of law for their joint lands” might entail affecting the Republic of Atlasia as a whole in a manner beyond the authority of the Senate to consent to, in the absence of any such Regional Compact to examine, that issue cannot be adjudicated now.  For example, it may be that whatever Regional Compact is adopted, if any, solely affects the regional legislative bodies, in a manner sufficiently limited that has no overall substantive federal impact, as opposed to the Senate itself (e.g., if the Regional Compact actually combined two regions into one, thereby affecting the composition of the Senate and/or the total number of Senate seats), which would have more of a federal impact (and may for that matter be otherwise in violation of the Atlasian Constitution).  We prefer to make such judgments only in the context of such a Regional Compact actually being before us to consider, for the reasons stated above. (FN2) 

FN 2.   It is a rule of statutory interpretation for the Courts to strive to construe the meaning of such statutes in a manner that renders such statutes Constitutional, so even if the Senate Consent is subject to being interpreted as authorizing unconstitutional Regional Compacts, we interpret the Senate Consent as implicitly requiring that any such otherwise authorized Regional Compact not affect the Republic of Atlasia as a whole when coordinating in some manner their respective governments. 

Moreover, even if the Senate Consent were interpreted as so authorizing unconstitutional Regional Compacts, the “blue penciling” of the Senate Consent and reducing its scope to authorizing solely Constitutional Regional Compacts, or a finding that its overbroad scope is harmless error to the extent that whatever Regional Compact is fashioned stays within the scope of what would be Constitutional, are additional jurisprudential tools commonly used to preserve that portion of a statute that is Constitutional, in a manner similar to the application of a severability clause. 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby denies the Petition for Writ of Certioriari.

The opinion of the Court is delivered by Junior Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justice Bgwah and Senior Associate Justice Oakvale concurring.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I thank the Court for its time.

[bgwah]

The opinion of the Court is delivered by Junior Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justice Bgwah and Senior Associate Justice Oakvale concurring.

Confirmed.

[Oakvale]

The opinion of the Court is delivered by Junior Associate Justice Torie, Chief Justice Bgwah and Senior Associate Justice Oakvale concurring.

Confirmed.

^ Yes.