Plea to the President

[12th Doctor]

Mr. President

Gov. Statesrights is clearly acting in violation of the Constitution of Atlasia.  I therefore as that no action less than sending in the National Gaurd to keep the doors of Federal Court Houses open to gays be taken by this administration.

Sincerely,

Sen. Christopher Supersoulty

[KEmperor]

A bit premature, I ask you let the Court do it's work first please.  Should the Governor refuse to comply to the Court's order, then you would be correct in taking these steps.

[A18]

Yeah, except it's clearly not. The law was not constitutional, period.

[12th Doctor]

A bit premature, I ask you let the Court do it's work first please.  Should the Governor refuse to comply to the Court's order, then you would be correct in taking these steps.

The Honorable Governor knows fullwell the implications of the Federal Law.  He has choosen to defy those implications.  If you ask me, he has made his statement, and is not likely to back down, regardless of the ruling of the court.

Why waste time in delaying the justice and rights afforded to the citizens of Atlasia?

[12th Doctor]

Yeah, except it's clearly not. The law was not constitutional, period.

How is it that any part of the Constitution can possibly unconstitutional?

[A18]

If it was repassed, it would be constitutional. The point is that it was not constitutional after the first limitation on federal power, thus making the law dead.

[KEmperor]

A bit premature, I ask you let the Court do it's work first please.  Should the Governor refuse to comply to the Court's order, then you would be correct in taking these steps.

The Honorable Governor knows fullwell the implications of the Federal Law.  He has choosen to defy those implications.  If you ask me, he has made his statement, and is not likely to back down, regardless of the ruling of the court.

Why waste time in delaying the justice and rights afforded to the citizens of Atlasia?

We must work within the system Super.  I'm afraid that takes time.

[John Dibble]

If it was repassed, it would be constitutional. The point is that it was not constitutional after the first limitation on federal power, thus making the law dead.

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court in the first place. Instead, he took unilateral executive action.

[12th Doctor]

A bit premature, I ask you let the Court do it's work first please.  Should the Governor refuse to comply to the Court's order, then you would be correct in taking these steps.

The Honorable Governor knows fullwell the implications of the Federal Law.  He has choosen to defy those implications.  If you ask me, he has made his statement, and is not likely to back down, regardless of the ruling of the court.

Why waste time in delaying the justice and rights afforded to the citizens of Atlasia?

We must work within the system Super.  I'm afraid that takes time.

I feel that using the instruments that we have established to defend liberty at home and abroad is always well with in the Democratic system.  A system and process that the Governor obviously does not respect.

[A18]

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

[Sam Spade]

This is an unnecessary and rather caustic plea.

The court must be given time to discuss the case and render its decision, which I trust it will at the earliest possible moment.

[Peter]

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

What do they have to do with the Atlasian Constitution?

[12th Doctor]

At anyrate, regardless of the final ruling on this bill, it is currently the law and under the provisions of that law, we must act to defend the rights of those in question.

[John Dibble]

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

It's arguable as to whether the power of judicial review is really granted to the U.S. Supreme Court - I'm not arguing otherwise - but the Atlasian Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

[A18]

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

It's arguable as to whether the power of judicial review is really granted to the U.S. Supreme Court - I'm not arguing otherwise - but the Atlasian Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

I'm not even defending StatesRights. I'm just pointing out that (A) the law should have been void upon the limitation of federal power, (B) the new constitution has not yet taken effect, and (C) it remains up for debate whether the fed is supreme over the states until it does so.

On grounds of C, I don't see how a 'region' can be denied the right to enforce the constitution.

[Sam Spade]

If it is indeed unconstituational, then he should have brought the issue before the Supreme Court

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might disagree.

It's arguable as to whether the power of judicial review is really granted to the U.S. Supreme Court - I'm not arguing otherwise - but the Atlasian Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

I'm not even defending StatesRights. I'm just pointing out that (A) the law should have been void upon the limitation of federal power, (B) the new constitution has not yet taken effect, and (C) it remains up for debate whether the fed is supreme over the states until it does so.

On grounds of C, I don't see how a 'region' can be denied the right to enforce the constitution.

Philip may have a point here with (A) and possibly (B), (C) is pointless with the Powers of the Senate clause.  As for me, I'm going to let the Courts determine what is our best course of action here in this instance, since it is very much within their sphere to determine.

[A18]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

[KEmperor]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

Phillip, I already explained this to you in another thread.  The ultimate authority resides in the people.  The people ratified this amendment, by a large margin even.  Therefore they gave the power to the Constitution by your own standards.

[PBrunsel]

Send troops then, it'll be Reconstruction all over again.

[Sam Spade]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

The Powers of the Senate constitutional amendment and the Supremacy of Federal Law and the Constitution amendment refute your point quite easily.

The only valid argument presented is whether these amendments apply to previous legislation, since we had a Supreme Court case before the amendments which declared pretty much every law unconstitutional then because of the lack of the these two amendments above.

Follow?

[John Dibble]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

The Powers of the Senate constitutional amendment and the Supremacy of Federal Law and the Constitution amendment refute your point quite easily.

The only valid argument presented is whether these amendments apply to previous legislation, since we had a Supreme Court case before the amendments which declared pretty much every law unconstitutional then because of the lack of the these two amendments above.

Follow?

Would you mind telling me the name of the case, so that I can brush up on it? Will probably need it for the trial.

[KEmperor]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

The Powers of the Senate constitutional amendment and the Supremacy of Federal Law and the Constitution amendment refute your point quite easily.

The only valid argument presented is whether these amendments apply to previous legislation, since we had a Supreme Court case before the amendments which declared pretty much every law unconstitutional then because of the lack of the these two amendments above.

Follow?

Would you mind telling me the name of the case, so that I can brush up on it? Will probably need it for the trial.

I recommend you read up on Fritz v. Ernest.  Similar actions led to the current Powers and Supremacy Amendments.

http://www.progressnj.com/atlaswiki/index.php/Fritz_v._Ernest

[A18]

No, C is not pointless, it's the most important part. Maybe you don't understand. You can't just edit a document that isn't the supreme law of the land to say it is an expect people to listen. It has to be given that status by the authority presently holding it.

The Powers of the Senate constitutional amendment and the Supremacy of Federal Law and the Constitution amendment refute your point quite easily.

The only valid argument presented is whether these amendments apply to previous legislation, since we had a Supreme Court case before the amendments which declared pretty much every law unconstitutional then because of the lack of the these two amendments above.

Follow?

I thought I just got through explaining those amendments should be considered meaningless, because they were approved by a national popular vote.

How can popular sovereignty be good enough? For everything, there is a fitting process. There has to be a specific regional function; a vote performed not by the federal government, but by the region.

[Peter]

I thought I just got through explaining those amendments should be considered meaningless, because they were approved by a national popular vote.

The Constitution specifically mandates that all amendments are ratified by the People themselves.

[A18]

I thought I just got through explaining those amendments should be considered meaningless, because they were approved by a national popular vote.

The Constitution specifically mandates that all amendments are ratified by the People themselves.

Yeah. That doesn't mean it's the supreme law of the land.

Here in Virginia, an amendment is ratified by the people themselves. That doesn't mean we can pass a constitutional amendment that says our laws are supreme over the fed, and expect to be taken at all seriously.