Supreme Court Decisions?

[Patunia]

Im brnad new around here, but cant find a link that lists all the courts rulings. I ask if there is one because I have some questions to raise about some of the bills the Atlas Congress has passed.

[JohnFKennedy]

We don't have one singular thread but so far the Supreme Court has only ruled upon elections.

Which particular bills do you mean?

Oh yes, and Welcome to the forums!

[Patunia]

We don't have one singular thread but so far the Supreme Court has only ruled upon elections.

Which particular bills do you mean?

Oh yes, and Welcome to the forums!

Thank you.

If they have only ruled on elcetion results then that does help. So there are serious questions to be answered on where Regional rights end and Federal mandate begins. I have issues with bills F.L. 1-2, F.L. 1-3 and F.L. 2-3. These bills seem to impose upon Regions mandates that would better be left to the specific regions themselves to decide upon. To me they would be clear violations of the 4th Amendment under the The Constitution of the United States Election Atlas Forum .

How can congress mandate to the Regions (without any clear mention of these things in the constitution) on issues of such value based judgements? For instance, why is it ok to tell everyone that they must put up with gay marriage, but dont address polygymy, incest or pedophelia? Why? Is Congress saying its ok to simply hold one moral position and not another just because they say so? Wouldnt these better be addressed on a Regional bases where the people of each Region could determine their own moral code?

I really do believe that the bills mentioned above need to be challenged in front of the Supreme Court.

Edit: Adding The Death Penalty Abolition Act and article 3 of The Health Care Reform Act of 2004 to above mentioned bills.

[KEmperor]

Since no one has challenged them, the Court is powerless to rule on any of them.

[Patunia]

Since no one has challenged them, the Court is powerless to rule on any of them.

Well then I guess that is an unasked question on my part. How is the court petitioned around here?

And I understand the no challenge so no ruling logic. Was actually trying to see what others might have to say on the issue first.

[Fritz]

The fourth amendment you mentioned:

Each region has the right to govern themselves and carry out regional elections as they wish. They may have as many elected or appointed Regional Positions as they so choose. However, they must have a Governor to govern the region and act as the Chief Representative of the respective region. No region is to contradict any law set forth in the Constitution regarding federal elections. Districts have no authority and are meant only to represent the people of the Forum by the population from within that district. No region is to contradict any law set forth in the Constitution regarding the rights of voters. Regions have jurisdiction over any district that lies within it.

How do these laws violate this?  Sure, the regions have a right to "govern themselves as they wish", but that does not supercede the Senate's legislative abililty and right to pass the kinds of laws you are talking about.

[Patunia]

The fourth amendment you mentioned:

Each region has the right to govern themselves and carry out regional elections as they wish. They may have as many elected or appointed Regional Positions as they so choose. However, they must have a Governor to govern the region and act as the Chief Representative of the respective region. No region is to contradict any law set forth in the Constitution regarding federal elections. Districts have no authority and are meant only to represent the people of the Forum by the population from within that district. No region is to contradict any law set forth in the Constitution regarding the rights of voters. Regions have jurisdiction over any district that lies within it.

How do these laws violate this?  Sure, the regions have a right to "govern themselves as they wish", but that does not supercede the Senate's legislative abililty and right to pass the kinds of laws you are talking about.

The line "govern themselves as they wish" is the only line anywhere in this constitution that would indicate who would have authority in these matters. Perhaps the drafting of this document (I.E. an amendment or article similar to the 10th Amendmant in the US Constitution) was not thorough enough. But as I read it, the 4th amendmant gives the regions the authority to decide on these matters themselves. There is no single line in the constitution that would defer such matters to the congress. In fact, there is no single line that gives them ANY authority into such matters.

Edit: I would also like to point out that your argument can be used against you. There is nothing in the constitution giving congress the right to superscede regional authority in these matters either.

[Fritz]

There is no single line in the constitution that would defer such matters to the congress. In fact, there is no single line that gives them ANY authority into such matters.

Sure there is: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Senate of the Atlas Forum."

The regional "govern themselves as they wish" clause does not override the senate's legislative power.

[??????????]

Welcome to the Forum Patunia! I see you will be of valuable assistance.

[Patunia]

There is no single line in the constitution that would defer such matters to the congress. In fact, there is no single line that gives them ANY authority into such matters.

Sure there is: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Senate of the Atlas Forum."

The regional "govern themselves as they wish" clause does not override the senate's legislative power.

The key word here is "herein." Meaning that congress shall be the sole federal legislative authority, as I see it. I dont see that as overriding each region to "govern themselves as they wish." The creation of the 4th amendmant and its langauge is pretty clear to me. Just as the regions can not intefere in federal business, the congress can not interfere in the different regions governing of themselves and their values. Why create the different regions then and outline specific governing authorties in the constitution for them if congress is going to dictate all matters to them?

Edit: And thanks for the welcome States.

[Fritz]

I'm not going to continue arguing this point, clearly we disagree and arguing won't change that.

If this case were to be brought to the supreme court, I think a regio would be the appropriate plaintiff.  Otherwise I think the SC ought to just throw it out.

[Patunia]

I'm not going to continue arguing this point, clearly we disagree and arguing won't change that.

If this case were to be brought to the supreme court, I think a regio would be the appropriate plaintiff.  Otherwise I think the SC ought to just throw it out.

I wouldnt presume to speak for the court on what criteria they may use in hearing a case. But I do want to know how the court is petitioned here. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Thanks.

[KEmperor]

There is no formal procedure outlined, but since taking over as Chief Justice I have followed the following method:

Post an offical complaint on the board.  Then e-mail the Chief Justice(me) in detail what you are contesting and why.  I will then confer with the other justices on whether or not we should hear the case.  If so, I will post an official thread for the case, and invite all interested parties to post testimony.

[Patunia]

There is no formal procedure outlined, but since taking over as Chief Justice I have followed the following method:

Post an offical complaint on the board.  Then e-mail the Chief Justice(me) in detail what you are contesting and why.  I will then confer with the other justices on whether or not we should hear the case.  If so, I will post an official thread for the case, and invite all interested parties to post testimony.

Thank you.