Young Tweed vs. Department of Federal Elections

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They could refuse cert on grounds that accusing another candidate's platform of not promoting the general welfare, equality, or public health is a political question.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that previous liberal and conservative Presidents have been allowed to exercise the office without incident indicates that the Court, if respecting precedent and Atlasian history, would treat this as political. 'Not within the bounds of executive power' for ideological reasons would be something like a fascist or Pol Potist candidate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is ridiculous. For the Court to find in Tweed's favor wold be tantamount to a coup. If Tweed wants to mount a legit real-folk coup he's welcome to try and I'll consider that on its merits as I have in the past but he shouldn't hide behind an absurd attempt to nullify the results of an election. This is no better than the recent mess in Egypt.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

obviously I do not have a brief ready at the moment, but I do suggest that Justice bgwah recuse himself due to the obvious potential for conflict of interest in his hearing this case.

Thank you for your honesty in this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Will the Court give me some guidance as to where I ought to take the joint amicus brief I'm writing once it's finalized?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Brief in support of the respondent in the case Young Tweed v. Department of Federal Elections

We consider that the plaintiff’s case is founded upon an overtly political reading of the relevant sections of the Atlasian Constitution, and hence should have been ruled a non-justiciable political question in accordance with longstanding Constitutional doctrine. The fact that this Court has decided to grant certoriari is baffling and we believe that the Court must find in favor of the Department of Federal Elections in its count of the results of June 2012’s Presidential election.

Young Tweed’s case is entirely subjective, based upon a reading of the Constitution that takes it as a matter of course that somebody who ran on the platform of the Liberal Party in the election in question is by mere virtue of having run on that platform prima facie, before he has even begun to exercise the duties of the office, to be found incapable of promoting the general welfare, supporting equality for all forum members, or protect the Public Health (sic), commerce, and heritage. This should have been found non-justiciable from the beginning and must now be considered to not constitute sufficient grounds for exercising the Court’s power to overrule the Department’s certification of the election results, for the following reasons:

1.   Neither the Preamble nor Art I §5 clauses 30-31 even address the office of the President; Art I §5 is moreover explicit in pertaining to the powers of the Senate, for which neither Napoleon (the certified winner) nor the plaintiff were running in the election at issue.

2.   Even if the relevant portions of the Constitution made reference to the powers or duties of the President, whether or not Napoleon is on the basis of his campaign platform to be found incapable of doing the things that the plaintiff is arguing the Court should find him incapable of doing is entirely subjective, subjective according to the individual political opinions of the person asking the question.

3.   Even if the Court’s powers in Art III §1 clause 5 are to be interpreted to give the Court the ability to at time void the results of any federal election and assign the office to its preferred candidate on entirely subjective and political grounds, an interpretation which has never been used or even considered before this election no matter how high ideological tensions have run (for in Art II §2 clause 3 we read that the Senate has the general power to determine regulations for federal elections and it is presumably within the bounds of such regulations that the Court is empowered to arbitrate disputed results), it is risible to claim that Napoleon has failed, or must fail, as President of Atlasia before he has taken office.

For these reasons the Court must find that Napoleon was duly elected in the same manner as all previous Presidents under the Third Constitution, that Young Tweed’s claim to the Presidency is based upon a non-justiciable subjective reading of the Preamble of the Constitution and an irrelevant and specious application of the terms of an Article concerning the powers of the Senate to a case concerning the duties of a non-Senatorial office, and that hence the Court ought not to consider the dispute at hand one which rises to the level of enabling it to legitimately invoke its ability to override the Department in determining the results of the election. We confide that Napoleon is the victor of the election, Constitutionally, legally, and by democratic right, and must be sworn in on Friday, July 6, 2012, in accordance with this fact.


Amici curiae:

The Tripartite Commission on the Restoration of Democracy
Nathan, Chairman of the Labor Congress, ex rel The Standing Committee of the Whole of the Labor Party of Atlasia
Scott, Chairman of the Liberal National Committee, ex rel The Liberal National Committee
Simfan, Acting Chairman of the Whig Party, ex rel The Whig Party and its members
Snowstalker, Vice-Chairman of the Labor Congress
Napoleon, Vice-Chairman of the Liberal National Committee and President-elect of the Federal Republic of Atlasia
Clarence, Presidential candidate of the Whig Party and At-Large Senator.

Tmthforu94, Vice President, Leader of the Mideast Citizens for Progress and Reform, ex rel Mideast Citizens for Progress and Reform

Ben, Mideast Senator

Averroës Nix, Northeast Governor and Liberal Party Whip

This 26th day of June, 2012.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bgwah shot himself in the foot?

I guess. Either way I'm very happy he seems to have been honest about this, insofar as not recusing himself was honest. I'm actually a little confused by his thinking on this.