CheeseWhiz vs. the Senate of Atlasia

[CheeseWhiz]

I would like to challenge the Senate interpretation of “its numbers”

Article VII, Section I of the Atlasia Constitution states:
“The Senate, whenever two-thirds of its number shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution”

“Two-thirds of its numbers” was accepted to mean the full Senate in this thread.

The Amendment did not have the approval of two-thirds of the full Senate.  The Senate interpreted the Section to mean two-thirds of its present numbers, which is not specified in the Constitution.  Colin Wixted’s inactivity does not remove him from being part of the full Senate.  Therefore to pass through the Senate the Amendment would need one more vote.

[Peter]

Injunction

The Supreme Court of the Republic hereby orders that all Regional public polls open on the Amendment to repeal the Balanced Budget Requirement are to be locked as soon as practicable and that no further Regional public polls on the Amendment are to be opened until otherwise ordered by this Court. The validity of votes cast prior to this injunction shall not be affected. The time that elapses between the issuance of this injunction and the issuance of the Court's final ruling shall not count towards the one-week limit stipulated for public polls on constitutional amendments. All votes cast whilst this Injunction remains in effect are void.

This case effectively hinges on a technical issue regarding the meaning of the phrase the "number" of the Senate - we believe there is merit to various interpretations of the phrase and we hope to issue a final determination of its meaning as soon as possible. However, leaving open public polls on an Amendment that may be unlawfully being voted upon and allowing the opening of further public polls would be damaging to the legitimacy of the Court's decision if we were to rule its passage in the Senate illegal. Should we rule its passage from the Senate to be legal, all votes already cast will stand and voting will recommence as soon as possible.

A hearing of this case is ordered as soon as possible.

It is so ordered.

The Chief Justice announced the Injunction and  Opinion of the Court, in which Justices Ernest and Emsworth joined.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Speaking on behalf of the Senate, let me say that I am not suprised by this development, but that does not mean that it does not disturb me.

As a body, the Senate has always been of the opinion that, unless specified otherwise by the Constitution, we have the right to make our own rules and our own procedures. I worry that this right is about to be infringed by the Court. And I expect it to be; the Court has form for this sort of thing.
But this does not mean that the Senate is going to take this lying down. I do not think that this elected legislative body should give up it's rights to an unelected and fundamentally unaccountable court without a fight.

[CheeseWhiz]

Speaking on behalf of the Senate, let me say that I am not suprised by this development, but that does not mean that it does not disturb me.

If you think I'm just doing this because I don't like the bill, you're wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no problem with you making your own rules and regulations, but I do believe you did something that was against the constitution.  Otherwise I wouldn't have taken it to the courts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then, good luck, Al!

[Peter]

Who will be defending Atlasia?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who will be defending Atlasia?

Don't think there's anyone who's a) actually capable of attending the hearings and b) not compromised over this in some way (example: it would obviously be totally inappropriate for Atlasia to be defended by the Attorney General) and c) actually capable of not making a total fool of themselves.

Could be wrong.

[Peter]

I am willing to take a written submission from you if you wish to submit one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am willing to take a written submission from you if you wish to submit one.

Well if no one else decides to do it, then I guess I'd have to

[The Duke]

Who will be defending Atlasia?

Don't think there's anyone who's a) actually capable of attending the hearings and b) not compromised over this in some way (example: it would obviously be totally inappropriate for Atlasia to be defended by the Attorney General) and c) actually capable of not making a total fool of themselves.

Could be wrong.

Unlesss the hearing is via AIM, I could probably do it depending on when it is.

[Emsworth]

Unlesss the hearing is via AIM, I could probably do it depending on when it is.

You could put your argument into writing and post it on the forum.

[The Duke]

Essentially, my argument is pretty close to Al's.  I think this is a political question, and the Constitution has given the authority to make the detrmination on Senate rules to the Senate.  Further, I think it is a political question because it isn't prudent for the court to intervene.

[The Dowager Mod]

The court will be setting a very dangerous precedent by even agreeing to hear this.
The senate will not stand idly by while our right to function as we see fit is usurped

[Brandon H]

I have no problem with the Senate making their own rules for Senate Procedure, but this is an interpretation of the Constitution. If an Amendment were passed changing this Clause to read "a two thirds vote" rather than "two thirds of its number" then I would view things differently.

As previously mentioned in this thread, I would not be the best person to serve as the defendent in the case. Given that a Constitutional Amendment Procedure goes from the Legislative Branch to the general public and bypasses the Executive Branch (which then resulted in an injuction by the Judicial Branch), I believe CheeseWhiz vs. the Senate of Atlasia would more accurately reflect that parties invovled in this case.

[CheeseWhiz]

I have no problem with the Senate making their own rules for Senate Procedure, but this is an interpretation of the Constitution. If an Amendment were passed changing this Clause to read "a two thirds vote" rather than "two thirds of its number" then I would view things differently.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, Brandon.  Now, um, what am I suppose to do?  I’ve never been in a court case before, so you guys are gonna have to help me along.

[Brandon H]

Peter would be a better person to answer this than me, but I believe he will schedule a hearing at which time each side would present its case. All parties should be preparing their case.

[CheeseWhiz]

Peter would be a better person to answer this than me, but I believe he will schedule a hearing at which time each side would present its case. All parties should be preparing their case.

Oh...  Thanks!  I'll start preparing

[Gabu]

As our number is now clearly nine, is this case still necessary?

[The Dowager Mod]

Well since the court and their buddies the Libertarians are set on trying to usurp the senates powers i bet it's still "necessary".

[Brandon H]

Unless the NE Governor appoints someone very quickly. This is a good question. Does the vote now become valid since there are only 9 Senators or is the first vote invalid and a revote is required?

This could remove the injuction for this particular case, but I believe this is a question that should still be settled as it will probably come up again in the future.

[Gabu]

This is a good question. Does the vote now become valid since there are only 9 Senators or is the first vote invalid and a revote is required?

Technically speaking, if the court ruled in CheeseWhiz's favor, we could just say that the voting never actually ended until the expulsion of Colin Wixted, at which time it ended with the "aye" voters winning.

[Emsworth]

Unfortunately, it is not so simple. Colin was expelled by a vote of 5-1, which is a two-thirds majority of those voting but not a two-thirds majority of the whole Senate. Thus, the meaning of "two-thirds of its number" would still have to be resolved anyway.

Just to note: this Court has still not made an official ruling as to whether we are entitled to deal with this case, or whether this is a question for the Senate alone.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[quote author=Emsworth link=topic=32637.msg736308#msg736308 Colin was expelled by a vote of 5-1, which is a two-thirds majority of those voting but not a two-thirds majority of the whole Senate.[/quote]

Is anyone actually challenging that vote? If not, then I don't see what that has to do with anything for the time being.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is anyone actually challenging that vote? If not, then I don't see what that has to do with anything for the time being.

I just checked, and apparently, the vote for expulsion needs a two-thirds vote, like a Constitutional Amendment.

Sigh...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is anyone actually challenging that vote? If not, then I don't see what that has to do with anything for the time being.

I just checked, and apparently, the vote for expulsion needs a two-thirds vote, like a Constitutional Amendment.

Sigh...

Yes, I know that. Not the point though.

[Gabu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is anyone actually challenging that vote? If not, then I don't see what that has to do with anything for the time being.

I just checked, and apparently, the vote for expulsion needs a two-thirds vote, like a Constitutional Amendment.

Sigh...

Yes, I know that. Not the point though.

Well, you declared that Colin had been expelled with a 5-1 vote, while the Constitution mandates that it must be a two-thirds vote for expulsion.  Hence, Colin hasn't actually been expelled yet.