Jerusalemcar5 v. Atlasia (I think, not sure of the correct title)

[jerusalemcar5]

The Supreme Court has been allowed to slack off lately so here goes:

I hereby am suing the government of Atlasia for illegally instating the Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill and move for the bill to be declared invalid.  I believe it is a violation of Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution which states "Upon reconsidering the Bill, if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number, it shall become Law."  Since 6 is not 2/3 of 10, the bill did not in fact override the veto and is therefore invalid.

I precipitate arguments that at the time there were only nine senators since Yates had resigned.  According to Article 1, Section 4, Clause 4, "If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term."  Now the Constitution does not specifically state when such a person will take office, but Article 1, Section 4, Clause 7 states, "Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared." I believe this implies that Speed of Sound took office immediately after Governor DanielX declared him Senator at 3:08 PM on June 15th.  At 4:16 PM on June 15th Senator Master Jedi declared the Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill law. 

I believe that Master Jedi illegally delcared it law when it had only 6 votes to override instead of the required 2/3 which was 7.

I thank the Court for its time.

[Jake]

Senators take office when they swear themselves in. That much is established. Dismiss this.

[jerusalemcar5]

Senators take office when they swear themselves in. That much is established. Dismiss this.

Oh well.

Unfortunately, I could not find where it was stated that one must swear in  in order to be a valid senator.  If you provide a link, I'd be quite appreciative.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Senators take office when they swear themselves in. That much is established. Dismiss this.

Oh well.

Unfortunately, I could not find where it was stated that one must swear in  in order to be a valid senator.  If you provide a link, I'd be quite appreciative.

Article V Section 1 Clause 6.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jake]

Burn.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is still the open question whether the number of Senators went from 9 to 10 when Speed of Sound was appointed or when swore the oath,  If it is the former, then Jcar5 has a case.

[Jake]

I would assume that to cast a vote (or at least be eligible to cast a vote), and by being eligible count as a 10th senator, he must be sworn in and by eligible to discharge his duties.

[jerusalemcar5]

In response to all of this I am saying that Speed of Sound was a non-voting senator upon his appointment, but still a senator, so I am continuing with my case.

[MasterJedi]

I ask that this case be dismissed based on the grounds that for a Senator to be a Senator and vote then they must swear in. Though SoS had been appointed he had not sworn in yet and was not eligible to vote when the Bahrain free trade bill passed meaning that there were only 9 Senators left and 6 Senators voting Aye out of those 9 is a 2/3 majority.

Ernest has already pointed this out and I don't believe that there is a point to hear the case to see if he became a Senator when he was appointed or when he swore in.

[Jake]

He was Senator-designate, not Senator, from the time he was appointed to the time he swore himself in. It's pretty clear he was no more a Senator than you or I.

[jerusalemcar5]

Like Ernest says, there remains a case to be heard because the constitution only says that in order to excercise one's powers, not become the officer itself, one needs to swear in.  The Constitution implies that an appointed or elected person immediately becomes senator at the date and time stated,.

[Jake]

Ok, simply taking the office doesn't make one eligible to carry out the powers of Senator. One of those powers is being counted as a voting member of the Senate, which Speed of Sound was not at any point during the debate, vote, or veto override of the bill in question. As such, he is not counted in the number of Senators eligible to vote, and 2/3rds of the remaining Senators is 6.

[TomC]

OK- I'll get with the other justices and discuss the potential case. I believe Colin may be out of town, so that may slow things down. Hopefully not too much.

[MasterJedi]

OK- I'll get with the other justices and discuss the potential case. I believe Colin may be out of town, so that may slow things down. Hopefully not too much.

Colin will be gone until June 25.

[TomC]

Emsworth and I decided to hear the case. I believe, based on past cases, the defendant is the Senate of Atlasia. I'll open a thread. Actually, let's just continue here.

[TomC]

I have two questions. First, to the plaintiff, so you are to have us believe that Speed of Sound should be counted in the number in determining the composition of the Senate for voting purposes even though he hasn't taken the oath which grants him the power to vote? I'm not convinved that these are mutually exclusive- gaining the power to vote and being counted in the number of possible voters. Are you claiming there is no relationship there?

To the defendant, I ask, is it constitutionally relevant that during the original vote and at the opening of the override vote, there were ten senators in office?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it may please the court, I would like to file an amicus curiae.

[TomC]

I don't have a problem with that. Any objectiions?

[MasterJedi]

No problem here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The question before this court rests upon the issue of when does a person become a Senator and thus a part of "its number".

The Constitution itself lends credence to the proposition that a Senator need not be sworn to be counted as part of its number.  The first sentence of Article I Section 3 Clause 2 reads, "The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office."  This clearly implies that membership in the Senate can be held prior to the required swearing of the oath.

Additional evidence is provided by the circumstances of District Senators.
In the case of a class B Senator elected as a result of a special election, the Constitution provides in the second sentence of Article I Section 4 Clause 7 that "Those elected in special elections to the Senate shall take office as soon as the result of their election has been formally declared."  Since this event is distinct from and prior to the sewaring of the oath required by Aticle V Section 1 Clause 6.  This is additional evidence that under our Constitution persons may hold the office of Senator prior to being sworn and thus count as part of the number.

This however is not sufficient in and of itself to answer the question before this court.  Article I Section 4 Clause 4 states that "If a vacancy shall occur in a Class A Senate seat, then the Governor of that Region shall appoint a person to fill the remainder of that term."  However the Constitution is silent as to when that person takes office.  Article I Section 4 Clause 7 spells out when those elected in ordinary elections and special elections take office, but not when those who have been appointed take office.

A reasonable interpretation is that the appointment constitutes a type of special election with but a single vote being cast.  However this leaves open the question of what constitutes a formal declaration.  Clearly under Article I Section 4 Clause 6 of the Constitution it is the perogrative of the Senate to answer this question, but it has failed to so do. In the absence of the Senate providing such regulation the question before this court is: "Is it sufficient that the Governor announce in the thread he has established for Regional business that he has appointed a Senator, or must such an announcement be made in a Senatorial thread ere it be considered 'formally declared' as required by the Constitution?"  Having provided this conundrum for the Justices and parties to consider, I end this brief here as to go further would step beyond the realm of fact and reasonable interpretation to that of opinion.  Such opinion could be shaped by appeals to precedent, but I have no interest in trying to locate those possible precedents, and therefore leave that task to others.

[TomC]

The question before this court rests upon the issue of when does a person become a Senator and thus a part of "its number".

The Constitution itself lends credence to the proposition that a Senator need not be sworn to be counted as part of its number.  The first sentence of Article I Section 3 Clause 2 reads, "The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office."  This clearly implies that membership in the Senate can be held prior to the required swearing of the oath.

I read this the other way. That to  constitute a quorum, a majority of senators must be sworn in; implying that you must be sworn in to be counted as a voting senator. It implies if only four senators have sworn themselves in, you could not have a quorum, but if eight senators have sworn themselves in, you could achieve a quorum. I realize we aren't talking about a quorum here, but what constitutes a 2/3rds majority. However, it seems being sworn in is a part of figuring out the "number" of the Senate, doesn't it?

[jerusalemcar5]

The question before this court rests upon the issue of when does a person become a Senator and thus a part of "its number".

The Constitution itself lends credence to the proposition that a Senator need not be sworn to be counted as part of its number.  The first sentence of Article I Section 3 Clause 2 reads, "The Senate shall have fulfilled a quorum if a majority of its members are capable of discharging their offices and sworn into office."  This clearly implies that membership in the Senate can be held prior to the required swearing of the oath.

I read this the other way. That to  constitute a quorum, a majority of senators must be sworn in; implying that you must be sworn in to be counted as a voting senator. It implies if only four senators have sworn themselves in, you could not have a quorum, but if eight senators have sworn themselves in, you could achieve a quorum. I realize we aren't talking about a quorum here, but what constitutes a 2/3rds majority. However, it seems being sworn in is a part of figuring out the "number" of the Senate, doesn't it?

I has the same interpretation as Ernest.  Please not that wording of the sentence. It uses members before it mentions swearing in.  That implies one is a member regardless of being sworn in.  It is also saying that in order to be a member of the quorum one must be sworn in, but does not say that you are not a member and therefore part of the "number" if you aren't sworn in.

[MasterJedi]

Besides everything that Ernest has said I have something else. The problem with counting people who have not sworn in is very serious. A person can have an effect on the Senate just by having been elected or appointed and never swear in. Which means though they can't vote they'll hold up the Senate process just becuase they would be counted as one. One could purpously not swear in until after a certain point to make sure any veto override's cannot happen.

You can't allow someone who's not sworn in and can't fulfull their duty to be counted in a 2/3 majority. A 2/3 majority should be held for the people who can actually vote and have been sworn in, not those that have been appointed/elected to the position but haven't yet done so. If someone refuses to sign in why should the rest of the Senate be held hostage by that and can't properly do it's work?

I do have one final request though, if you do rule in Jcar's favor I would request that the decision also include what I should do as PPT on the matter.

[Jake]

My two cents here:

The Constitution explicitly states that a Senator must be sworn in before they can discharge the powers of their office.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we can all agree that one of those powers of a Senator is to cast a vote. So, we've established that a Senator must be sworn in to cast a vote.

So, to vote on the veto override, a Senator must've been sworn into office. At the time, Speed of Sound was not sworn into office, so he was ineligible to vote on the override. Why then should he be counted among the number of Senators for the purpose of determining a 2/3rds majority? It makes little sense to count him as one of ten, when he is ineligible to make his opinion known either way.

[jerusalemcar5]

The Senate wouldn't be held hostage.  They could easily make a quorum and discuss and vote on any bills.  The only issues would be that you would need 7 votes (as you almost always do need) instead of 6.  That isn't holding the Senate hostage at all. 

The main reason they aren't holding it hostage at all, though, is that if they didn't support it they could swear in, not swear in, abstain, vote no, whatever.  All of those have the same results-failure to reach 2/3.  It is not very difficult to wait for a person to be appointed and swear in and I believe the Constitution does not make someone wait to be sworn in to count.  The Constitution wants to make sure that stunts like the ones Master Jedi pulled aren't done just before a Senator can log in and swear in.

Also, if a senator refused to swear in then he could be expelled.