Atlas Forum

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Government => Topic started by: Jake on February 05, 2005, 02:08:39 pm



Title: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Jake on February 05, 2005, 02:08:39 pm
WITHDRAWN

I contend that the act known as "the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act" is unconstitutional because nowhere in  the Powers of the Senate and Region Amendment does it give the Senate the right to provide generic child care.

I ask that the Supreme Court resolve this issue as to not waste tax payer dollars on unconstitutional schemes.

Thank you

Jake

WITHDRAWN


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: KEmperor on February 10, 2005, 08:28:05 pm
Bumped so we dont lose it.  The Court will be conviening on Saturday afternoon.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: Peter on February 10, 2005, 08:39:29 pm
I request permission to file an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the Progressive Caucus in addition to any defence that may be mounted by the Government/Senate officially on behalf of Atlasia.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: KEmperor on February 10, 2005, 08:43:34 pm
I request permission to file an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of the Progressive Caucus in addition to any defence that may be mounted by the Government/Senate officially on behalf of Atlasia.

Very well.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: Peter on February 12, 2005, 02:41:32 pm
Progressive Caucus Amicus Curiae Brief

The plaintiff in his initial suit claims "nowhere in  the Powers of the Senate and Region Amendment does it give the Senate the right to provide generic child care" and that therefore the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act (hereinafter "the Act") is unconstitutional. We seek to challenge this view with respect to Section B of the Act:

Section B of the Act is non-generic child care and fully authorised by the Constitution irrespective of the status of generic child care

The Powers of the Senate and the Regions Amendment, Section 1, Clause 15 (hereinafter "Clause 15") provides authorisation for the Senate to spend money to "assist and foster persons seeking to be educated"(tense altered). Section B of the Act carries out this very mandate: The very persons it seeks to provide childcare to are students in full time education. If these children are not "persons seeking to be educated" then I do not think that the Court could reasonably find that anybody has ever sought to be educated, and thus would render the entire clause useless. Clearly the authors of Clause 15 did not intend it to be useless else they would not have included it in the Amendment.

Child care that is authorised under Section B includes that which "will attempt to instill positive traits in children"; The Act is even so good as to leave decisions over spending at the lowest possible levels, thereby ensuring that communities will be able to tailor specific spending to their own requirements. Clearly the state is attempting to assist and foster those in the most economically deprived bracket of society in their attempt to be educated. There is clear evidence that those from economically deprived backgrounds are not able to provide to their children the facilities and opportunities that children from richer families receive. The federal government has in this case sought to provide equality of opportunity to these children by assisting and fostering their attempts to be educated.

The spending of Section B is clearly authorised by the Constituion at Clause 15 and therefore deserves to stand irrespective to the Court's judgement on generic child care spending and therefore Section A. According to then Senator Akno's analysis (see appendix), Section B would cost $10.4 billion per year to finance. Since this Section would have been using the same facilities presumably as in Section A, then the spending on facilities for one year only of $1.25 billion is also constitutional insofar as it is spending pursuant to Section B and therefore Clause 15. The spending of money pursuant to fulfilling powers authorised in particular clauses is authorised under Powers of the Senate and the Regions Amendment, Section 1, Clause 30.


Appendix

Powers of the Senate and the Regions Amendment, Section 1, Clause 15:

To promote the distribution of Knowledge of Science and useful Arts, by assisting and fostering persons seeking to be educated, to provide education, or to produce educational materials.


Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

Section A
From the second a child is born into a family that is below the poverty line, that child's parents will have the option of sending the child to a day-care center, operated from 6 AM until 7 PM, until the child is ready to attend the normal public school. The day-care center will be cost free, and it will attempt to instill positive traits in children at a young age, so that they will be better adults. The federal government will allocate funds for this, but will leave all decisions up to local governments.

Section B
For children who live with families below the poverty line, totally free before and after-school care will be provided until the child graduates middle school. The rest is the same as Section A.

Section C
The estimated cost of this is 18.9 billion dollars this year, and 17.65 billion dollars every other year. That cost is split between hiring people to run the programs, providing equipment for the programs, and, if needed, constructing new facilities.


Cost Structure outlined by then Senator Akno21

Section A
Teacher/Supervisor costs - $5 billion
Equipment costs - $2.25 billion
Facilities - $1.25 billion [one time cost only; facilities used for both Sections]

Section B
Teacher/Supervisor costs - $6 billion
Equipment costs - $4.4 billion


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: Jake on February 12, 2005, 07:30:59 pm
In the interest of reducing tensions around here, I will withdraw this case.  I apologize to everyone, especially Pete who probably had a whole ten minute speech to give.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:17:58 pm
Can anyone sue over anything?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?)
Post by: Peter on February 12, 2005, 08:19:13 pm
In the interest of reducing tensions around here, I will withdraw this case.  I apologize to everyone, especially Pete who probably had a whole ten minute speech to give.

Don't worry it was a fun intellectual exercise for me anyway - its good fun (for me at any rate) to seek out constitutional defences for legislation.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:22:08 pm
Can anyone sue over anything?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Jake on February 12, 2005, 08:26:18 pm
Can anyone sue over anything?

You must be a registered voter and must have at least 250 posts in the Fantasy Forum.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:27:21 pm
Thanks.

Do all United States laws count as Atlasian laws, unless the Senate repeals them? Because there are a couple things I'd like to challenge... :P


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Alcon on February 12, 2005, 08:29:15 pm
Thanks.

Do all United States laws count as Atlasian laws, unless the Senate repeals them? Because there are a couple things I'd like to challenge... :P

No.

You might want to, I don't know, read our laws before running for Senate.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:32:28 pm
Ernest posted a while back that marijuana was illegal because it was illegal in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. He said that there was precedent for doing so, as with the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution.

If not, what the hell was the point to things like the Marijuana Legalization Act?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Alcon on February 12, 2005, 08:45:42 pm
Ernest posted a while back that marijuana was illegal because it was illegal in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted. He said that there was precedent for doing so, as with the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution.

If not, what the hell was the point to things like the Marijuana Legalization Act?

Things here are based on the laws of the U.S., but we have our own Constitution. Read it.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:50:55 pm
What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm asking is U.S. laws carry over to this game or not. Not the Constitution.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Jake on February 12, 2005, 08:54:34 pm
What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm asking is U.S. laws carry over to this game or not. Not the Constitution.

Are you even a registered voter?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Alcon on February 12, 2005, 08:55:05 pm
What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm asking is U.S. laws carry over to this game or not. Not the Constitution.

Mostly, yes.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 08:57:17 pm
Thanks.

Yes, I'm registered. I don't have 250 posts in the Fantasy Forum yet.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Alcon on February 12, 2005, 09:03:13 pm
Thanks.

Yes, I'm registered. I don't have 250 posts in the Fantasy Forum yet.

That doesn't matter. There is no requirement.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Jake on February 12, 2005, 10:01:26 pm
Thanks.

Yes, I'm registered. I don't have 250 posts in the Fantasy Forum yet.

Haha, sorry Philip.  Please don't spam us with cases


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 10:07:31 pm
Nah, I was only going to post one.

I need a legal opinion. Anyone think I can get the Civil Rights Act thrown out?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: KEmperor on February 12, 2005, 10:10:26 pm
Nah, I was only going to post one.

I need a legal opinion. Anyone think I can get the Civil Rights Act thrown out?

Isn't that set to expire this year anyway?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 11:16:55 pm
Uh, the Civil Rights Act expires? Where did you hear that?


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: KEmperor on February 12, 2005, 11:24:37 pm
Uh, the Civil Rights Act expires? Where did you hear that?

I heard that there are certain provisions in it that are temporary and scheduled to expire in 2007 actually.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: Peter on February 12, 2005, 11:29:27 pm
Uh, the Civil Rights Act expires? Where did you hear that?

I heard that there are certain provisions in it that are temporary and scheduled to expire in 2007 actually.

It was re-authorised in 1982 for 25 years. Supposedly its going to be reauthorised for another 25 in the real world, but I'm not sure about that.


Title: Re: Jake v. Atlasia (?) -Withdrawn
Post by: A18 on February 12, 2005, 11:31:12 pm
Well, that's two good years of discrimination I'm missing out on. ;)

So can I sue, or do I need 250 posts in the fantasy forum?