States I think you are lieing to us that you gave up after the Supreme Court Case and that was all that this whole nullification thing was about. The first quote is your nullification of recall elections:
My next act will be to nullify any southeastern law for "recall elections" in the Southeast region. No petition for any sort of recall will be recognized by the southeast government.
That is all.
Notice the date, May 1st, 2005, this is approximately one day after the court gave its decision on the StatesRights v. Atlasia case. Here is the exact quote of the decision:
In the case of Atlasia v. StatesRights, we find there are two main issues to be addressed:
Firstly, does the Governor of a region have the power to nullify a federal law, if he believes it to be in violation of the Constitution? We find the answer to be unequivocally no. Article III, Section 1, Clause 3 says that “The Supreme Court shall be the sole body in the Forum with the authority to nullify or void federal laws.” The regional governments do not have the power to do this. This also extends to Southeastern Magistrate Jake’s action to prohibit the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 states that “This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land…” No region may take any action that contradicts a federal law. Therefore we rule Jake’s actions unconstitutional, and we strike his order prohibiting the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples.
Second is the issue of whether the Marriage Equity Act itself is constitutional. Article I, Section 5, Clause 5 states that the Senate has power “To establish uniform rules of…Marriage and Divorce…throughout the Republic of Atlasia.” Article VIII, Section 1, Clause 5 states that “All Legislation and Judicial Rulings not inconsistent with this Constitution passed prior to the Adoption of this Constitution shall remain in full force, unless superceded by subsequent legislation or Judicial Rulings.” Clearly the Senate is granted the power to legislate with regard to marriage, and all laws passed under the old Constitution are valid under the new one, as long as they don’t conflict with it. It is not the place of this Court to define marriage; that power lies with the Senate itself. The Senate is granted the power to define marriage as they see fit, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Therefore, we find the Marriage Equity Act constitutional, and the actions of both the Governor and the Southeastern Magistrate to be unconstitutional. However, since the Marriage Equity Act is a federal law, and the power to regulate marriage is a Federal power, a region may decide to opt out of issuing marriage licenses altogether, and allow the federal government to be the only licensing agency within its borders. The federal government can not force the regions to take part, though they may if they wish to do so. The regions may choose whether or not to issue marriage licenses, but if they choose to do so they must issue all valid federal licenses."
--This decision is certified by Justices KEmperor, John Dibble, and Ernest.
This shows that then Governor StatesRights did not stop his actions after the court case but actually intensified them. His standing down of his actions only came one May 2nd, 2005. Other examples of this are the closing of the courts about 7 hours after the court verdict:
Announcement
Beginning at 12:01 PM CST May 1st, 2005, The Southeastern Regional Courts will close officially until further notice. All pending court cases and appeals are postponed to a date to be determined later.
I ask the Governor for a stay on all pending executions to allow any last minute appeals to be heard when the courts open again.
-Jake
Southeastern Magistrate
Also this is evidence. The suspension of Habeas Corpus by Magistrate Jake on 1 May, 2005:
In my capacity as whatever position can allow me to do this, I place former Governer Harry under arrest. If they courts reopen, he can have his trial. Until that point, he can rot in jail.
I'm sorry, but are you suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Yes, for the time being. But, of course, I don't have the authority to arrest him, do I?
I hope this is enough evidence to show that States was not going to just stop when the decision was put out. He actually continued to escalate the conflict and he continued to stand his ground for another two days after the decision was put forward.
