Atlasia v. Southeast

[Barnes]

I am bringing charges against the Southeast Government for the recently signed Fair Voting Requirements Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this is a direct violation of the Supremacy Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law in question that it tries to violate is The High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll inform the others.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Very good!

[segwaystyle2012]

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Good thing Winston won.

[Barnes]

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Good thing Winston won.

OK, good to know. Go back to the NE now.

[segwaystyle2012]

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Good thing Winston won.

OK, good to know. Go back to the NE now.

K, Mr. Dole.

[Barnes]

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. Good thing Winston won.

OK, good to know. Go back to the NE now.

K, Mr. Dole.

Wow. Please, for the love of god, get an IP Check on me. PLEASE!

Now, that's all I'm going to say since this isn't the business of the Court.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Both of you stop bickering, please. Especially you, Segway, as you have absolutely no business here.

[Sam Spade]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Thursday, March 25, 2010.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Saturday, March 27, 2010.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Thursday, March 25, 2010, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[Barnes]

You Honor,

On March 19 Southeast Governor JBrase signed the "Fair Voting Requirements Act". This law states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*I apologize if this bill isn't written exactly as the final version is. I was unable to find a full copy of the totally amended bill.

This Act's goal is to "Nullify" the "High Authority for Ethics in Voting Bill".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is in direct conflict with the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution to nullify such a law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The clause clearly states that Laws of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. The Southeast is compelled to follow the text of the Law.

Also, the Fair Voting Requirements Act stipulates that a voter removed by the HAEV as a national citizen shall remain a citizen of the Southeast. With all due respect, your Honor, how is this even possible? Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region? The answer is no. A Region may not have separate citizens form the country that they form.

Also, the Act creates a "Regional Clerk" to update a Southeast Voting Roll. I believe the SE has the full right to create this office, however, they also may not be allowed to count citizens in the Southeast who are not citizens of the entire country.

So, in closing Your Honor, the Southeast cannot nullify federal law and it cannot have citizens in their region that are not citizens of the entire Country, however, they are entitled to maintain a Regional Clerk to update their voter list.

x Barnes

[CatoMinor]

Beings that the decision made in JBrase v. Atlasia will directly effect this case, May I ask that the A.G.'s prosecution of the Southeast be put on hold until a final decision is reached on the constitutionality of the HAEV. 

[Barnes]

Beings that the decision made in JBrase v. Atlasia will directly effect this case, May I ask that the A.G.'s prosecution of the Southeast be put on hold until a final decision is reached on the constitutionality of the HAEV. 

I will if the court is so willing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I see no reason to suspend this case for the moment. This has issues not only with HAEV but also the power of a region to maintain an independent voter roll, which is a separate issue. I believe Spade concurs with that judgment, since he's the one that told me the two cases are (somewhat) separate in the first place.

So continue unless Spade decides to change his mind, Southeast.

[Sam Spade]

I see no reason to suspend this case for the moment. This has issues not only with HAEV but also the power of a region to maintain an independent voter roll, which is a separate issue. I believe Spade concurs with that judgment, since he's the one that told me the two cases are (somewhat) separate in the first place.

So continue unless Spade decides to change his mind, Southeast.

I don't see any reason to suspend the case because I do agree with Marokai that it contains separate issues for our adjudication.

If the parties would like to focus their arguing on the HAEV case and postpone arguments here until that is done, that's fine with me and make it clear. 

But don't in any way think that this matter will become moot if we decide to strike down HAEV (or not).

[CatoMinor]

Your Honors,
taking the bill apart a little out of order

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Constitution of Atlasia does not specify whether or not regions are allowed to create voter rolls thus the right to do so is reserved for the regions. As per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 which delegates powers not prohibited, to the regions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe any one has an issue with these,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was meant to prevent a potential wave of people exiled by the HAEV into the SE to seek refuge. They are still allowed in, just after a wait period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Southeast argues that Federal restrictions on voting and office holding apply only to Federal elections and Federal office. We feel we have the authority to do this because of Xahar's case (Xahar v.) in which the court ruled in his favor, being that the Federal government cannot interfere with regional elections https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104549.0

[Barnes]

If I may, Your Honor, respond to the Defendant's brief.

The Southeast is perfectly entitled to preform their own elections, however, they are in violation of federal law if they allow members to participate in their elections even though they are not members of the country as a whole.

Again, I restate my question:

Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Jbrase, I've had to say this before and I don't enjoy repeating it. But that is not what the Court said in the Xahar v. Southeast case. The constant revisionism about that case's conclusion is grating on me.

[CatoMinor]

If I may, Your Honor, respond to the Defendant's brief.

The Southeast is perfectly entitled to preform their own elections, however, they are in violation of federal law if they allow members to participate in their elections even though they are not members of the country as a whole.

Again, I restate my question:

Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no.

Your looking at it the wrong way, no one denies they are no longer citizens of Atlasia, nor do we contest that they as non-citizens can no longer hold federal office or vote in federal elections. But if one's citizenship is revoked do they cease to exist? We in the Southeast think not, as such we allow them to live in our region were they are not citizens but still subject to our laws. Any non-citizen in any country would still be subject to the laws where they live. And in the Southeast one need only live here to be eligible for voting and regional office holding. Nowhere in the SE constitution does it specifically say one needs to be a Atlasian citizen to hold regional office and vote in regional elections.

[Barnes]

If I may, Your Honor, respond to the Defendant's brief.

The Southeast is perfectly entitled to preform their own elections, however, they are in violation of federal law if they allow members to participate in their elections even though they are not members of the country as a whole.

Again, I restate my question:

Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no.

Your looking at it the wrong way, no one denies they are no longer citizens of Atlasia, nor do we contest that they as non-citizens can no longer hold federal office or vote in federal elections. But if one's citizenship is revoked do they cease to exist? We in the Southeast think not, as such we allow them to live in our region were they are not citizens but still subject to our laws. Any non-citizen in any country would still be subject to the laws where they live. And in the Southeast one need only live here to be eligible for voting and regional office holding. Nowhere in the SE constitution does it specifically say one needs to be a Atlasian citizen to hold regional office and vote in regional elections.

You are also failing to look at Atlasia as a game where you must be registered to vote to actually participate.

[CatoMinor]

If I may, Your Honor, respond to the Defendant's brief.

The Southeast is perfectly entitled to preform their own elections, however, they are in violation of federal law if they allow members to participate in their elections even though they are not members of the country as a whole.

Again, I restate my question:

Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no.

Your looking at it the wrong way, no one denies they are no longer citizens of Atlasia, nor do we contest that they as non-citizens can no longer hold federal office or vote in federal elections. But if one's citizenship is revoked do they cease to exist? We in the Southeast think not, as such we allow them to live in our region were they are not citizens but still subject to our laws. Any non-citizen in any country would still be subject to the laws where they live. And in the Southeast one need only live here to be eligible for voting and regional office holding. Nowhere in the SE constitution does it specifically say one needs to be a Atlasian citizen to hold regional office and vote in regional elections.

You are also failing to look at Atlasia as a game where you must be registered to vote to actually participate.

Well that is being contested by us, that removal from the federal level voting and office holding does not have to carry over to the regional level. Basically in a nutshell we are saying we control are own voting and office holding thus federal restrictions such as removal from the Federally controlled voter roll, should not apply. 

[Sam Spade]

Update:

We haven't forgotten about your case, question-wise, but I would expect an opinion here to be given after Jbrase v. Atlasia.

[Marokai Backbeat]

(Justice Marokai Blue delivered the majority opinion of the Court which Chief Justice Sam Spade joined.)

Opinion

At issue before the Court here is the Southeast's "Fair Voting Requirements Act" and the constitutionality of the clauses therein.

Barnes, representing Atlasia, argues that the Act violates the High Authority for Ethics in Voting and that, due to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, a regional voter roll, independent of the federal voter roll, is unconstitutional.

Jbrase, representing the Southeast, argues that the laws made in regard to activity, office-holding, and further, that there is nothing in the Constitution expressly forbidding the creation of, or contradicting the creation of, regional voter rolls.

We agree, and disagree.

Un: The Supremacy Clause and Federal Authority.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution of Atlasia states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first part, "This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby," clearly bounds the Southeast to federal law and the stipulations of the federal Constitution.

The Southeast cannot disregard federal activity requirements or criminal proceedings whenever it suits it's fancy. The Supreme Court has ignored or struck down regional laws or constitutional provisions that conflict with the Constitution, in cases such as Atlasia v. Southeast (April 2009) or Atlasia v. Libertas for two examples. The second part of the clause, "anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding" does not grant regions the ability to defy the federal government with anything they do not like.

Furthermore, as Jbrase argues, the Court has never in recent times held that regions are impervious to federal standards when it comes to elections. As held in Atlasia v. Libertas, the federal government's election standards are, partnered with the Supremacy Clause, law of the land no matter the election.

Deux: Clauses 1, 2, & 4.

With Section Un out of the way, we must address Clauses 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act, which state:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We cannot agree that these clauses are constitutional. As federal voting and office-holding restrictions are law of the land throughout Atlasia, there is no rationale in which these clauses are defensible.

It further deserves stating that, in Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3 of the constitution that states, in part: "The Senate shall have power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation" we believe the Senate has the exclusive authority to determine voter registration rules and activity requirements, and that no region may subvert them.

Also, as we held in previous rulings and earlier in the opinion, the federal election standards are uniform throughout Atlasia unless the lack of certain wording specifies otherwise. In the case of office-holding and voting restrictions, however, the law is uniform throughout every level of government, and the Southeast's actions contradict that.

Further, Attorney General Barnes states: "Can I be a citizen of the Northeast but not of Atlasia? Can I be a citizen of Atlasia but not of a region?

And, again, the answer is no."

We agree.

Citizenship in Atlasia is determined by voter registration. Removal from the rolls constitutes, in the current interpretations of citizenship, revocation of citizenship entirely. Such being the case, the Southeast region, or any other region, cannot allow individuals who are not citizens of Atlasia to vote in their elections or hold office.

Therefore, we strike down Clause 1, Clause 2, and Clause 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as unconstitutional.

Trois: Maintaining a Separate Voter Roll

Clause 3 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jbrase, in his defense of the Act, states "The Constitution of Atlasia does not specify whether or not regions are allowed to create voter rolls thus the right to do so is reserved for the regions. As per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 which delegates powers not prohibited, to the regions."

The Court happens to agree with his interpretation. There is nothing in the constitution expressly, or anything in the constitution which would imply, that maintaining a regional voter roll is unconstitutional in the slightest.

The Southeast region, or any region of Atlasia, has the ability to create regional voter rolls if they so desire. However, such a voter roll must comply entirely with the rules and regulations of the federal voter roll, be maintained in compliance to federal election and office-holding regulations, and must be entirely consistent with the federal voter roll maintained by the Secretary of Forum Affairs.

Thus, we uphold Clause 3 and subsections 3a and 3b of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as constitutional.

Quatre: Conclusion Summary

Section Un The Court affirms that the Supremacy Clause detailed in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution maintains federal office holding and voting requirements as the law of the land throughout Atlasia, and the Court expressly disagrees with the notion put forth by Jbrase that the federal government has no ability to apply federal election standards to the regions.

Section Deux Clause 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act are struck down as unconstitutional, as the Court holds they violate the federal election laws and the High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act applied uniformly by the Supremacy Clause.

Section Trois The Court has decided that Clause 3 and the following subsections (3a and 3b) are constitutional, as nothing in the Constitution of Atlasia denies regions the ability to create their own voter rolls, as long as those voter rolls are held in complete compliance to all federal election laws exactly as the federal voting roll is.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the Court strikes down Clause 1, 2, and 4 of the Fair Voting Requirements Act as unconstitutional, and maintains Clause 3 and all included therein as constitutional.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I believe Opebo joins us, by the way, I just hadn't gotten confirmation yet and didn't want to delay this any longer. Thanks everyone for your patience.

[Barnes]

I thank the Court for their well thought decision.

[opebo]

I of course concur on this case (Atlasia v. Southeast), and would like to comment on Xahar v. Southeast:

...We feel we have the authority to do this because of Xahar's case (Xahar v.) in which the court ruled in his favor, being that the Federal government cannot interfere with regional elections https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=104549.0

A.J. Marokai Blue is correct, this was not at all the court's decision in Xahar V. Southeast - we did nothing to limit or reject the authority of the Federal Government in Regional Elections.