Windjammer vs Hifly
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:53:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Windjammer vs Hifly
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Windjammer vs Hifly  (Read 1545 times)
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 26, 2014, 05:35:25 PM »
« edited: September 26, 2014, 05:42:20 PM by windjammer »

I'm filing a lawsuit against Hifly. (Mideast Supreme Court)

The election of a temporary speaker was invalid. Indeed, according to the Mideast Constitution:
Article 3
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Hifly basically declared himself Speaker of the Mideast Assembly without any vote:
The speaker seems to have taken a vacation, so therefore I nominate myself as a temporary speaker until the next elections.


Seeing no objection, the motion is carried.

I believe this is a violation of the Article 3 of the Mideast Constitution because the Mideast Assembly didn't choose his own speaker, hifly did. So according to me, the election Hifly as speaker is invalid.

Considering the election of Hifly as speaker is invalid, I believe that any actions Hifly made as speaker should be declared invalid too

So I believe that the Mideast Right to Life Act and Promotion of Marriage in Education Act (if this bill becomes law), shall be struck down, because Hifly administered these 2 bills and he didn't have the authority to do that.


xCitizen Windjammer
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2014, 09:58:03 AM »

The Court was busy over the weekend, and logged on to Atlas to find this suit just now.

This matter may be delayed, or at least complicated, by the fact the Defendant is on Mod Review at the moment. The Court will seek to investigate this matter and issue a timeframe for arguments (or other preliminary order as needed) sometime tonight.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2014, 09:48:56 PM »

The Court had an attack of Real World last night, but is ready to issue a few preliminary rulings:

First, regardless of any other aspect of Plaintiff's suit, Governor TJ's veto of the Promotion of Marriage through Education Act renders that portion of the suit moot, and is accordingly dismissed. The balance of this matter will relate to the passage of the Mideast Right to Life Act.

Second, any postings in this case by any party must have PM'd notice sent to opposing counsel and the Court. Likewise any PM'd communications to the Court must cc the other party.

In any postings/briefs/arguments/motions/etc., citation of any legal authority must include a link to same the first time it is cited.

Finally, the Court will not make any ruling adverse to the Defense without adequate chance to respond once this whole mod review thing is settled.

The Court will pose the following questions to Plaintiff to begin:

1) Did the Assembly accede by silence to Hilfy's self-nomination and ratification? Should the Assembly's lack of activity negate Hilfy's unopposed volunteering? At what point was there objection in some form by the Assembly?

2) Even assuming this, how is negating the statute an appropriate remedy?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2014, 04:07:45 PM »

Chief Justice Badger,

1) Assemblyman Hifly exactly gave 9 hours for objection. That's clearly not enough to consider the Assembly acceded by silence to Hifly's self-nomination and ratification.

The speaker seems to have taken a vacation, so therefore I nominate myself as a temporary speaker until the next elections.


Seeing no objection, the motion is carried.

Chief Jjustice Badger, I would like to point out that speaker DC Al Fine wasn't inactive, there were just no new bills introduced in the Mideast Assembly thread.

2) Chief Justice Badger, the ME Speaker is extremely important in the process of the law. He decides the time of debates, how long shall the vote last... Hifly basically used this position to basically reduce the time of debate:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Hifly

Debate shall be open for approximately 24 hours.

According to the constitution, Article III, Section 1, clause 3
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Mideast assembly legally chose DC Al Fine as speaker, considering that hifly illegally declared himself speaker, eveything Hifly did as speaker is a violation of Article III, Section and Clause 3 of the Mideast Constitution, the right of the Assembly to choose its own officers.

That's why I believe the Mideast Right to Life Act should be struck down, because hifly illegally administred that.

Best regards,
Windjammer
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2014, 08:13:41 PM »

The Mideast Government believes that it, rather than Hifly is the appropriate party for the defense in this case as the law in question was signed and is enacted statute. Its defense falls logically on the government rather than upon Hifly as an individual.

The Mideast Government requests that if the Court is to consider striking statute on the basis of Hifly's allegedly invalid Speakership, the Plaintiff must file suit against the regional government rather than Hifly personally.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2014, 07:58:22 AM »

The Mideast Government believes that it, rather than Hifly is the appropriate party for the defense in this case as the law in question was signed and is enacted statute. Its defense falls logically on the government rather than upon Hifly as an individual.

The Mideast Government requests that if the Court is to consider striking statute on the basis of Hifly's allegedly invalid Speakership, the Plaintiff must file suit against the regional government rather than Hifly personally.

I thank the parties for their patience over the weekend. The Court will review Plaintiff's argument 2 posts above in more detail within the next day or two depending on real life time constraints.

Although this accordingly may be putting the cart before the horse depending on the Court's assessment of Plaintiff's claims, the Court is inclined to find whether the named party for the Defense is either Hifly individually in his challenged role as (then) Speaker, or the Region as a whole as suggested by Governor TJ, is not determinative regarding the issues raised. The Court is also therefore inclined to allow some liberality with the Defense choosing the role of responding.

Therefore, it is SO ORDERED that the current named Defendant Hifly advise whether he wishes to continue arguing/defending this matter himself, or wishes to accept the Governor's "motion"/offer to argue the matter (either himself or by such other counsel he may designate under the discretionary powers of his office) on behalf of the Region as a whole. The Court notes, however:

1) It expects an answer from Defendant Hifly, either within this thread and/or via PM to the Court and parties (for purposes of this ruling to include Governor TJ) within 48 hours of this post;

2) IF Hifly wishes to delegate arguing this matter to the Region, the Court further expects that the decision regarding who will argue for the Defense--i.e. Governor TJ or other counsel appointed by the Governor--to be announced by that point. The Court anticipates Hifly and the Governor will coordinate accordingly before notifying the Court and Plaintiff of their decision; and

3) If Plaintiff has any objection to the Court's tentative decision in this matter, notwithstanding the Court's inclination a change in the specific named Defendant doesn't affect the validity of Plaintiff's suit, it must be likewise posted within 48 hours of this post. Even if the Defense should announce it's decision before any timely objection is lodged, the Court will still consider and rule on any such objection by Plaintiff. (The Defense is free to respond to any such objection as it wishes). Likewise, if Plaintiff doesn't object to the proposed substitution of the named Defendant in this matter, the Court requests he state so at earliest convenience.

SO ORDERED:
X Justice Badger
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2014, 10:22:26 AM »

Chief Justice Badger, Governor TJ,
I object to Governor TJ's demand.
If former speaker DC Al Fine had administred this bill, I believe this bill would have been constitutionnal.
This is the actions made by Assemblyman Hifly: declaring himself as speaker, and then administering bills that make this bill illegal.
I'm not attacking the Mideast, I'm attacking Hifly's actions that, according to me, should result to the invalidation of Mideast Right to Life.

However, if Assemblyman Hifly wishes to be represented by Governor TJ, or if Ggovernor TJ wished to write an amicus brief (I thank his activity as governor), I'm not objecting to that.

But fundamentally, I'm filing a lawsuit against Hifly, not against the Mideast Government.

Best regards,
Windjammer
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2014, 01:12:50 PM »

The Court has considered the argument of Counsel as well as the PM'd request of Hifly to have this case argued by Gov. TJ. While mindful of Plaintiff's objection, the Court sees no material detriment on Plaintiff's claim by permitting the Region to be joined as a defendant (NOT, though, "substituting" Hifly as a named defendant).

Therefore it is SO ORDERED that the Mideast Region is joined as a Defendant to this cause, and that counsel of record for both Defendants is, until further notice, Gov. TJ. The court assumes Defense Counsel has paid his Bar dues in full; otherwise there's a jar at the end of the Court's bench marked 'Bourbon Fund'. Grin

The Court will seek to review the merits of this case tonight, and would ask Defense Counsel to respond to respond to Plaintiff's argument by 8:00 PM EST tonight, or otherwise post notice of requesting more time which, if needed, the Court is inclined to grant.

Both parties are free to respond to the other's arguments and supplement their own. Freely until the Court renders a decision please note the Court may pose questions to either/both sides. If additional time is sought to respond (we all gotta sleep sometime) at any point in the argument, please note so and the Court will, again, likely grant it.

As always, please PM opposing counsel (now just TJ for the Defense) and Court whenever a post is made in the thread, and further note the Court's order to link Anny authority the first time it is cited by a party (if multiple posts are made citing the same authority, one link the first time cited is per missable, but repeatedly linking in each post will not be in any way frowned upon).

SO ORDERED
X Justice Badger
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2014, 07:17:04 PM »

Gov. TJ hasn't been active on the Forum since last night, so the Court will sua sponte extend the time to respond until a reasonable period after he's returned from real life.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2014, 09:56:20 PM »

I apologize for the delay in responding. I will have the Defense's response submitted shortly. I thank the Court for allowing me a few extra hours.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2014, 10:50:12 PM »

Your Honor,

The Mideast Region agrees with the Plaintiff that 9 hours is not the ideal length of time for objection in Hifly’s pronouncement that he had taken the Speakership. However, as the Plaintiff has stated, the Mideast Constitution specifically grants the Assembly the power to choose its own officers, including a Speaker:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given the explicit delegation of this power to the Assembly by the Constitution, the Defense believes that in order for the Court to rule Hifly’s Speakership invalid, the process by which he took the Speakership must not only be non-ideal, it must be expressly forbidden by either the Mideast Constitution or statute.

The Mideast Constitution has no further instructions on how a Speaker must be selected other than that the power to do so belongs to the Assembly. Thus we must consider the statute the Mideast has relating to Speakership in The Mideast Assembly Procedure for Legislative Debate and Voting and The Amendment to Add Codified Informal Procedures to the Mideast Assembly Procedure for Legislative Debate and Voting. The former discusses the duties of a Speaker but has no prescribed method for electing one. The latter contains a detailed discussion for the selection of a Speaker at the beginning of a term but it contains no mention of a prescribed procedure for replacing a Speaker in the middle of a term. Thus we conclude from the statute on the books that there is no law detailing the exact procedure that must be used to select a Speaker during the middle of a term.

However, regardless of the procedure, we must also consider whether Hifly’s assumption of the Speakership was indeed recognized by the Assembly since the Assembly retains the Constitutional authority to choose its own Speaker. Here, we find unmistakably that the Assembly did indeed consider Hifly its Speaker. Nearly two weeks passed between Hifly’s announcement that he assumed the role of Speaker and not a single Assemblyman objected. On the contrary every Assemblyman cast at least one vote on a bill administered by Hifly in his capacity as Speaker. If the other Assemblymen believed such votes to be out of order, they would have needed to say so at some point in the entire remainder of the term. As the Assembly has the power to choose its Speaker and the Assembly recognized Hifly as its Speaker in every action taken by him in that capacity, the only logical conclusion we can come to is that Hifly was indeed the Speaker of the Assembly.

Furthermore, the Mideast Region holds that even if Hifly were not validly the Speaker of the Assembly at the time of the Mideast Right to Life Act's passage, the bill would remain valid. The Mideast Constitution states:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of whether or not Hifly acted with accordance to legislative procedure, the Mideast Right to Life Act was demonstrably passed by a majority vote of the Assembly. Perhaps if the Plaintiff were feeling ambitious he may attempt to argue here that the legislation was not passed by a majority vote because the vote was allegedly conducted by an invalid Speaker. If so, I would refer him back to The Mideast Assembly Procedure for Legislative Debate and Voting. While it contains a number of duties of the Speaker, nowhere does it mandate that voting on legislation must be administered by the Speaker. If the Assembly were to so choose, it could have any of its members administer votes, or even a non-member. The procedure only mandates that voting take place in a separate thread for each bill rather than the Mideast Assembly Thread.

Even if the Court were to rule Hifly’s Speakership invalid, which it wasn’t, the appropriate remedy would be to hold in Legislative Contempt, not to invalidate a statute duly passed by the Assembly with a majority vote and signed by the Governor.

In summary, the Defense believes that Hifly’s Speakership was valid and that even if it were not valid, the Mideast Constitution requires that the Mideast Right to Life Act remain in force because it was passed by a majority vote of the Assembly and signed by the Governor and is an otherwise constitutional piece of legislation.

Thank you for your time your Honor.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2014, 08:03:39 AM »

The Court asks Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's arguments; to-wit:

1) Hifly's self-selection of himself as Speaker, while "not ideal", doesn't violate and Mideast constitutional or statutory provision;

2) The Assembly, by its subsequent action (or inaction) gave de facto ratification of Hifly serving as Speaker;

3) The Assembly ultimately passed the Mideast Right to Life Act by a majority vote which was subsequently signed by the Governor, so the appropriate remedy would be for the Assembly to hold Hifly in contempt, not vacation of the Act itself.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2014, 08:31:43 AM »

Governor TJ, Chief Justice Badger,

1) It violates the constitution.  Article III Section 1, Clause 3: "The Assembly shall have the power to choose its own officers, including a Speaker, and judge the qualifications of its members." They chose DC Al Fine as their speaker, Hifly's self nomination is basically a violation of the right of the Assembly to choose their own Speaker because he wasn't chosen by the Assembly. So, Hifly's self-selection of himself as Speaker, I believe, violates the Mideast Constitution.

2) Chief Justice  Badger, I believe the Mideast Constitution is clear, the word "choose" is used. When someone chooses something, this is made "openly". If they wanted to choose Hifly as their own speaker, they have to say that openly.

3) Chief Justice Badger, the Speaker is an important figure in the Mideast. The Speaker is the second in line for the Governor's succession, and most notably, he has the FULL powers to make his own rules: the time allowed for debates, the time allowed for the vote,... This is an important office, that has a DIRECT influence on the laws. And hifly used basically this position to skip the debates and to quickly pass this law before the end of this session. This law would have probably been different if an another person more respectful of debates would have allowed more time for debates for this bill. The Speakership is an important office which is shown by the abuses made by Hifly as speaker: allowing only 24 hours for debates, allowing only a 24 hour vote,... That's why I believe that if the "nomination" of the speaker is illegal, everything that has been made by this person should be illegal as well, because the Speaker has a big influence on the debates, bills currently debated in the Mideast Assembly.

Best regards,
Windjammer
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2014, 08:59:11 AM »

Governor TJ, Chief Justice Badger,

1) It violates the constitution.  Article III Section 1, Clause 3: "The Assembly shall have the power to choose its own officers, including a Speaker, and judge the qualifications of its members." They chose DC Al Fine as their speaker, Hifly's self nomination is basically a violation of the right of the Assembly to choose their own Speaker because he wasn't chosen by the Assembly. So, Hifly's self-selection of himself as Speaker, I believe, violates the Mideast Constitution.

2) Chief Justice  Badger, I believe the Mideast Constitution is clear, the word "choose" is used. When someone chooses something, this is made "openly". If they wanted to choose Hifly as their own speaker, they have to say that openly.

3) Chief Justice Badger, the Speaker is an important figure in the Mideast. The Speaker is the second in line for the Governor's succession, and most notably, he has the FULL powers to make his own rules: the time allowed for debates, the time allowed for the vote,... This is an important office, that has a DIRECT influence on the laws. And hifly used basically this position to skip the debates and to quickly pass this law before the end of this session. This law would have probably been different if an another person more respectful of debates would have allowed more time for debates for this bill. The Speakership is an important office which is shown by the abuses made by Hifly as speaker: allowing only 24 hours for debates, allowing only a 24 hour vote,... That's why I believe that if the "nomination" of the speaker is illegal, everything that has been made by this person should be illegal as well, because the Speaker has a big influence on the debates, bills currently debated in the Mideast Assembly.

Best regards,
Windjammer

Regarding this last point, Counsel, doesn't the lack of objection by other Assembly members--including Franzl whom, the Court will take judicial notice of the fact he was on record as adamantly opposing this Act--of Hifly assuming Speakership or allegedly rushing votes speak volumes? If the legislature ultimately ratified the Act by majority vote without objection to Hifly's role or pacing debate, wasn't this fundamentally an act of legislative democracy that, at worse, was somewhat clumsy and rushed, but not per se illegal? What authority do you rely on in your argument this crossed the line into the latter (illegality)?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2014, 10:16:39 AM »

Chief Justice Badger,
Assemblyman Franzl voted in this thread, indeed. I would have done the same thing than him, whatever my opinion of this bill is, even if I would have believed the election of Hifly as  speaker would have been invalid. Why? Simply because I'm not the authority who determines if a law violates the constitution or not, the authority, this is Chief Justice Badger. So the fact that Assemblyman Franzl voted in this thread doesn't mean that this makes the election of Hifly constitutionnal. Sometimes, victims ignore themselves that someone abuses of them.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that I don't believe that a speaker who would decide only 24 hour for debate and 24 hour for a vote would make this law illegal, I gave that as an example of why the  Speaker in the Mideast is an important figure who is decisively able to influence debates by his important powers. That's why, I believe, that if an election of a speaker is overturned, everything he made as speaker must be overturned too. The speaker is an important officeholder. We can't separate the speaker from the process of the laws. And just to point out again that the Assembly has the right to choose its own speaker. Only the Speaker has the authority to open threads for the discussion of the bills. Not someone else.  That's why I believe the Mideast Right to Life bill should be struck down, not becaus of its content or anything else, but because it was administered by someone who didn't have the power to administer this bill.

And for the record, yes I believe that allowing only 24 hour for debate in order to skip the debates is a violation of the democracy. Democracy= by the people. The Mideast elected 3 Mideast Assemblymen: Hifly, Franzl and DC Al Fine. Allowing 24 hours for debate avoids any amendment proposal,... Assemblyman Franzl was indeed extremely opposed to this bill. Does that mean he wouldn't have tried to propose amendments? Like deleting the anti abortion parts of this law, or even simple transform the 16 week into a 20 week ban? I'm not going to try to overturn this law on this basis that debates should have been longer, because even if this is anti-democratic, that's not unconstitutionnal, what is according to me unconstitutionnal is declaring himself as speaker without any agreement, and using the prerogatives of this function where the personal wasn't elected or chosen.

Best regards,
Windjammer
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2014, 05:50:31 PM »

The Defense would like to have 5 more hours to type a response to the Plaintiff's latter statements.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2014, 06:16:11 PM »

The Defense would like to have 5 more hours to type a response to the Plaintiff's latter statements.

Granted.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2014, 10:01:06 PM »

Your Honor,

The Defense would like to address a couple points that that the Plaintiff has made in his statements today.

First the Plaintiff suggests that Franzl could have expressed his disapproval of Hifly’s Speakership, however cryptic, by voting ‘Nay’ on the legislation in question. As the Court has pointed out, Franzl gave an alternative reason for voting ‘Nay’: that he disagreed with the bill. The Defense would like to further note that, although they are not listed in this case, there were two additional bills and a constitutional amendment passed under Hifly’s administration as Speaker prior to the Right to Life Act. On two of these, Invalid Preference Amendment to ME Consolidated Election Statute and The Governor’s Budget, Franzl cast an ‘Aye’ vote under Hifly’s Speakership, which he was supposedly in opposition to. If the Court were to rule that all bills passed under Hifly’s Speakership were not validly passed, then the effects would clearly go beyond the Right to Life Act. More importantly, however, this conclusively demonstrates that Franzl’s ‘Nay’ vote cannot be misconstrued as a vote against Hifly’s Speakership when he in fact gave his tacit approval for it by voting ‘Aye’ in the other two bills.

Furthermore, whatever political plight Franzl may have faced, he was not abused by Hifly. The notion of comparing his lack of a voiced opposition to Hifly’s Speakership to the victim of abuse failing to turn in their aggressor is completely absurd. If anyone in this discussion had legitimate grounds  for claiming to be slighted, it was not Franzl but DC al Fine, who actually lost the Speakership. Indeed, he voted in favor of the Right to Life Act.

The next point the Defense would like to address is more of a clarification than a disagreement. The Plaintiff has stated that he believes allowing only 24 hours for debate and 24 hours for a vote on a bill is a violation of democracy in his opinion even though not forbidden by law. The Defense would like to point out to the Court the Mideast Statute regarding the matter:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the Plaintiff’s complaints, allowing only 24 hours for debate, is directly within the guidelines for legislative procedure. While the final vote was shorter than the suggested length, it had a majority regardless, and the statute says the guidelines are subject to the discretion of the Speaker. Thus allowing less than the suggested debate time is irrelevant to the facts of this case, whatever the Plaintiff’s beliefs on democracy may be.

The final point the Defense would like to address is the Plaintiff’s assertion that:

Only the Speaker has the authority to open threads for the discussion of the bills. Not someone else. 

The relevant Mideast Statute says:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It says that The Speaker must create such a thread. It does not say no one but the Speaker may create such a thread. If the Plaintiff were correct in his assertion that Hifly was not the Speaker, then the logical course of action would be to hold DC al Fine, who he believes to have been the rightful Speaker, in legislative contempt for failing to follow the law requiring him to open a thread for the Right to Life Act. Nowhere does the law state that if the Speaker fails to perform such a task no other member of the Assembly may open the thread in his stead. It is the difference between requiring someone to perform a specific act and forbidding anyone else to perform said act.

In conclusion, the Defense maintains that Hifly was validly the Speaker of the Mideast Assembly and even if he weren’t the Right to Life Act would still be constitutional by every explicit procedural requirement in both the Mideast Constitution and Statute. Furthermore, if Hifly’s Speakership were found to be invalid and every bill passed under his administration invalid, the Court must strike down the other two bills linked from here as well as the Assembly Expansion Amendment. While the Plaintiff’s philosophical views on the meaning of democracy are admirable, I ask the Court to consider the relevant statues and the Mideast Constitution when making its decision, and neither the Plaintiff’s personal opinions nor mine concerning the meaning of democracy.

I thank the Court for his time and with that the Defense rests.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2014, 10:13:26 PM »

The Court is ready to decide.

The closest thing to an objection to Hifly's running the Assembly as Speaker was as follows (including Defendant's response):

I understand that it may be desirable to get as much done before this session ends, but we've almost always had more than one day for debate on bills.

I understand, but in an Assembly with only 3 members and with predictable voting patterns it's usually not necessary to have long debate, especially as the session comes to a close.

The Court will reserve comment on the propriety or wisdom of even appearing to rush legislation through, regardless of how "predictable voting patterns" are believed to be.

That said, the exercise of legislative democracy in this case, as previously suggested by the Court, was at worst clumsy, but not illegal. The Court adopts as it's ruling Defendant's argument herein:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=199392.msg4328036#msg4328036

The Court rarely adopts a party's argument, en toto, but in this case the argument closely mirrors the Court's ultimate assessment of the facts and law, and frankly, I'm tired and want to go to bed. Tongue

The Court finds for the Defense. Nevertheless, I genuinely commend the parties on a well-argued case from both sides. Cheesy

Court is ADJOURNED.

X Justice Badger
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2014, 11:51:40 PM »

Thank you for the ruling, Judge Badger!
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2014, 12:46:11 PM »

Thank you Chief Justice Badger and Governor TJ.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 13 queries.