Imperial Dominion of the South (IDS) vs Atlasia

[Torie]

The Petition is under discussion. Just thought I would provide that update.

[Torie]

The Court has granted the Petition for Certiorari, with all Justices concurring.  My brother Justices have graciously given me permission to pose a few questions in conjunction with the granting of this Petition, which I request that the Briefs of the parties address in addition to whatever else the parties choose to address.  One of my brother Justices will outline a Briefing schedule and date for oral argument in a separate announcement, along with a more "official" looking grant of the Petition.

The issues that I request be briefed include:

1.  How did the regions come into being, and with the current boundaries and composition of states?

2.  How did the states within regions come into existence in the first instance, and assume their current names?

3.  Does the federal government have the power to create states and/or name then under the Constitution?

4.  Does the Constitutional provision proscribing the Federal government from requiring the Regions to take or not take any action, potentially conflict with any other provisions of the Constitution, and/or is in "tension" therewith, such that this Court should engage in some balancing test to reconcile such conflict?   Are  federal laws in other contexts not subject to being construed as requiring the Regions to take or not take some action from time to time?  If so, how does one distinguish those contexts from the context of the Statute being challenged here?

5. What is the penalty for a region abolishing the name of an existing State. Is it anything other than the Federal government not recognizing such name for Federal purposes, and if so, does the law being challenged really require the Regions to not take an action, that would subject the subject Region to some actual penalty as opposed to merely being symbolic?

6. What is the legislative history of this Statute? Was there any commentary as to the motivation for its passage, and intent as to what it was intended to accomplish and its scope?

7. If the language proscribing the Regions from abolishing the existing name of states is found to be in violation of the Constitution, is the first sentence of the Statute mandating that the Federal government recognize as valid additional names of an existing state subject to serverability, and being upheld as a "stand alone" provision that is not essential to make the Statute as a whole operational, or was it not intended to be passed except as part of a “package deal” as it were?

8. Is there any reason for the Court to deem this matter is not "ripe" unless and until a Region attempts to abolish the name of an existing state, e.g., because there may be some hypotheticals where the context of such a law would cause the result of the Court to vary based on the particular set of facts presented, in which event the Court should on its own motion, find that its grant of this Petition was improvidently given?

[Torie]

Thank you for that most helpful Brief Jbase. I guess the provenance of the Regions, and their number and perimeters, is that they just sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus as it were - all a riddle within a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

[Torie]

Where are all the Senators that voted for this Bill?  None have any interest in defending the Constitutionality of what they did?  If so, why don't they just repeal it ASAP, to save us some work!

[Torie]

Imperial Dominion of the South (IDS) v. Atlasia

Junior Associate Justice Torie delivers the opinion of the Court, with Chief Justice Bgwah and Senior Associate Justice Oakvave concurring.

The Court finds for the Petitioner, Jbase, on behalf of the IDS region, and holds that the Atlasian statute known as the State Name Recognition Act of 2013 violates Article 1, Section 6, Clause 7 of the Atlasian Constitution, and is thus void and of no force and effect.

While it may be true that the Federal government has the power to annex and name new states and append them to regions, the text of the above referenced Clause 7 specifically proscribes the Federal government from requiring regions to act or not act:

7. No law requiring any action to be taken or to be not taken by a Region shall be passed, except to preserve the rights of the Senate or of the People enumerated under the Constitution.

Such proscription includes the act of requiring regions to eschew passing legislation abolishing state names within their jurisdiction, which is precisely what the State Name Recognition Act of 2013 in relevant part in fact does:

1. … Regions may not abolish the existing names of states.

The Court notes that it is not aware of any other provisions of the Atlasian Constitution of relevance here that might cause the Court not to be otherwise constrained by the clear and specific and plain meaning of the language at issue here.