Joe Republic vs. DownWithTheLeft

[bullmoose88]

Your Honor(s) May it Please the Court,

Amicus Curiae Brief
Re: Republic v. Down With the Left
Government of Atlasia

Questions Presented

1. Can Joe Republic, citizen of Atlasia, sue a sitting senator, DWTL, who does not represent him in the Atlasia Senate?
2. If so, can the Supreme Court of Atlasia be a finder of fact, that is, can it determine, factually speaking, if Mr. Republic's accusations are indeed true?


Discussion
1. Does Joe Republic need standing to sue DWTL?

Direct injury to the plaintiff may not be required under Atlasian rulings to pursue his case against Senator DWTL.  MAS v. Bullmoose (Cash J).  On the other hand, real life American jurisdictions, both state and federal, generally require some sort of injury on the behalf of the plaintiff to sue, unless standing is authorized by statute.

Certainly this court could clarify the issue one way or the other. It could clarify the necessity of injury to sue and either uphold MAS v. Bullmoose or it could take a different tack than that case (unofficial ruling) and take a position consistent with American jurisdictions.

If it upholds that prior case, the plaintiff may be able to pursue his case. If not, the court may need then to rule on whether atlasian citizens have the right to sue federal senators regardless if those senators represent the jurisdiction or district in which the plaintiff resides. If on a constitutional question such as this, the court finds that any citizen can sue a senator regardless of what district or region that senator represents, then Republic may proceed. If not, then the court would have to dismiss the case for lack of standing.

This office is unsure of the wisdom of making standing with regards to constitutional violations so broad.

(note: There is an additional issue of the plaintiff being a citizen of Atlasia at the time of filing suit but this office feels that issue is rather clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, although the court may need to examine issues of fact.)


2. Can the Atlasian Supreme Court be a finder of fact rather than just rule on matters of law?

The constitution of atlasia seems to imply that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to preside over a question of fact (ie: did something occur/someone do something or not?) but rather with regards t federal criminal prosecutions, if this is one, the accused is entitled to a jury trial presided over by one member of this court.  Article III, Section 2. Adding to the complexity of this case, this seems to also lend to the interpretation that if this is a criminal case, the government of Atlasia, not the plaintiff, is the proper party to bring suit in that the plaintiff's own constitutional rights were not violated.

The Supreme Court, en banc as the highest court in the land, does not appear to have the power to hear a case where the issues of fact are unresolved because while the constitution grants it the power to nullify or void federal/regional laws it does not grant it the power to initially decide fact.  See Article III, Section 1.  That power is reserved for the federal "trial" court.

This court could order such a trial and then address the questions of law (not fact) eminating from that case.

Conclusion

For these reasons, this office would recommend that the Court create a trial court to hear the questions of fact, determine which party, either Mr. Republic, or the Government of Atlasia, is the proper party to bring suit. If the court determines that Atlasia is the proper party, this office asks that trial be postponed in order that should the incoming president wish to change his cabinet, his possible new appointment would have time to review the facts of this case.

Respectfully Submitted,
Bullmoose88
Attorney General of Atlasia

[Emsworth]

As a former member of this court, I would like to throw in my two cents:

1. Standing. The reason for which the federal courts of the United States arises from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the "judicial power" to specific categories of "cases [and] controversies." The terms "case" and "controversy" have specific legal meanings, which include a requirement that the plaintiff have suffered some injury from the defendant.

Note that the Constitution of Atlasia does not contain a cases and controversies clause. The standing issue is, accordingly, not a relevant concern.

2. Juries. The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by Section 2 of Article III only in "criminal" prosecutions. This is quite clearly not a criminal prosecution. The defendant is not being accused of violating any particular law (but rather a constitutional provision); nor is he being subject to any particular criminal sanction (but rather removal from office, which is a political penalty but not a criminal one).

[Bono]

As a former member of this court, I would like to throw in my two cents:

1. Standing. The reason for which the federal courts of the United States arises from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the "judicial power" to specific categories of "cases [and] controversies." The terms "case" and "controversy" have specific legal meanings, which include a requirement that the plaintiff have suffered some injury from the defendant.

Note that the Constitution of Atlasia does not contain a cases and controversies clause. The standing issue is, accordingly, not a relevant concern.

2. Juries. The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by Section 2 of Article III only in "criminal" prosecutions. This is quite clearly not a criminal prosecution. The defendant is not being accused of violating any particular law (but rather a constitutional provision); nor is he being subject to any particular criminal sanction (but rather removal from office, which is a political penalty but not a criminal one).

However, what preexisting regulations exist regarding non-criminal trials and juries?

[Emsworth]

As a former member of this court, I would like to throw in my two cents:

1. Standing. The reason for which the federal courts of the United States arises from Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which limits the "judicial power" to specific categories of "cases [and] controversies." The terms "case" and "controversy" have specific legal meanings, which include a requirement that the plaintiff have suffered some injury from the defendant.

Note that the Constitution of Atlasia does not contain a cases and controversies clause. The standing issue is, accordingly, not a relevant concern.

2. Juries. The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by Section 2 of Article III only in "criminal" prosecutions. This is quite clearly not a criminal prosecution. The defendant is not being accused of violating any particular law (but rather a constitutional provision); nor is he being subject to any particular criminal sanction (but rather removal from office, which is a political penalty but not a criminal one).

However, what preexisting regulations exist regarding non-criminal trials and juries?

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Republic of Atlasia, than according to the rules of the common law." Art. VI, Cl. 13.

A suit at common law is a suit in which one party sues another for money damages. So, for example, if the Atlasian Treasury had sued the Senator for a return of his salary, this would be a suit at common law. However, since the plaintiff is demanding non-monetary relief (an injunction or an order removing the Senator from office), this is not a suit at common law, but a suit at equity, which must be tried by a judge.

[Sam Spade]

If there's no standing requirement, I may choose to make the court very busy someday indeed. 

[bullmoose88]

If there's no standing requirement, I may choose to make the court very busy someday indeed. 

Oy vey.

[TomC]

If there's no standing requirement, I may choose to make the court very busy someday indeed. 

I'm not sure if this is a threat or you have actual cases in mind. Bring it on.
_____

I have sent the other Justices my thoughts on the matter at hand.

Does the defendant (or anyone) have anything (else) to present to the Court?

[opebo]

And now the question is, will opebo show up without being told about this case?

Just waiting for the opportunity to enter my decision.

[TomC]

And now the question is, will opebo show up without being told about this case?

Just waiting for the opportunity to enter my decision.

PM me and Txgurl so we can see what kind of agreement we have.

[TomC]

Working on brief- should be done soon.