Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2019, 04:58:47 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  Supreme Court Ruling: Fritz vs. Ernest (MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION!)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Supreme Court Ruling: Fritz vs. Ernest (MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION!)  (Read 4155 times)
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 01, 2004, 09:25:29 pm »

We, the Supreme Court of Atlasia, find Governor Ernest [of South Carolina]'s actions are within the terms outlined in the Atlas Constitution. We find all federal law put forward by the government as Constitutionally inept and open to debate by regional authorities. No clauses in our Constitution or its amendments state that a federal act regarding any matter [that is unrelated to electoral oversight] can supercede a regional action.

Further support of this decision is based upon Clause 14 of the Civil Liberties Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Barring a constitutional amendment stating that federal laws are binding in the regions, and also specifically spelling out what the Senate has the power to legislate on, all federal laws are essentally "suggestions" that the regional governments can or cannot accept as they so please.

This decision has been certified by Justices KEmperor, King and DemRepDan.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2004, 09:28:33 pm by AFCJ KEmperor »Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,496
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2004, 09:38:27 pm »

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well be it's Grim Reaper.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,482
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2004, 09:41:39 pm »

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well bet's Grim Reaper.

IF the Senate passes a Constitutional Amendment stating that all laws set forth by the federal government overrule any regional law. This ruling would be nullified. Smiley

So Senators of the 4th Congress, get on your butts and start amending!
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2004, 09:44:21 pm »

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well bet's Grim Reaper.

IF the Senate passes a Constitutional Amendment stating that all laws set forth by the federal government overrule any regional law. This ruling would be nullified. Smiley

So Senators of the 4th Congress, get on your butts and start amending!

It can't just be a supremacy clause though.  It must actually spell out what powers the Senate has the power to legislate on.  (See Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution)
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,038


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2004, 10:54:46 pm »

Basically this decision boils down to the fact that Dan did a crap job of writing the Constitution because he left massive loopholes in the following respects:

1. He failed to enumerate the powers of the Senate despite the fact that Article I states "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Senate of the Atlas Forum." - no such powers are granted.

2. Also Article III Section 2 Clauses 2 & 3 appear contradictory (certainly under this ruling):

Clause 2. The Supreme Court may make any ruling they see fit to uphold the Constitution of the Atlas Forum.

Clause 3. The Supreme Court may only interpret the law, and if they pass any ruling that usurps the Senate’s lawmaking authority, they are guilty of abusing their power and therefore subject to impeachment.

----
Really the entire SC is open to impeachment under Clause 3 but it isn't because it was doing its duty under Clause 2. Basically its ed. I have a solution, give me a 24 hours to solidify it and I will present it to the Senate. BTW, you guys ought to have discussions about impeaching this bench because they have actually contradicted clause 3 in following clause 2. I return to my original point - its ed.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2004, 02:20:39 am »

While I am not happy about this decision, I will accept it, and I anticipate a healthy debate in the Senate on a proposed Constitutional Amendment.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,361


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2004, 02:47:24 am »

Might I point out that this isn't that big a deal, since we do have an amendment process.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,291
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2004, 08:19:56 am »

Might I suggest we get back to the Dunn constitutional proposal? Wink
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,496
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2004, 08:24:31 am »

Basically this decision boils down to the fact that Dan did a crap job of writing the Constitution

He did a great job. Yes there are some problems, but NONE of us spotted them when it was 'open for inspection' so to speak-nobody including yourself. Your're a good bloke, and I like you, but don't beat up on Dan who did so much work because of a problem we ALL missed.
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,038


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2004, 08:32:00 am »

He did a great job. Yes there are some problems, but NONE of us spotted them when it was 'open for inspection' so to speak-nobody including yourself. Your're a good bloke, and I like you, but don't beat up on Dan who did so much work because of a problem we ALL missed.

Sorry. May I take this chance to extend my apologies to Dan. I am simply angry at the decision and state of affairs in general - frankly, we didn't need this sort of crisis because passing Constitutional amendments is not the sort of thing we should be doing once a week; Once we have a setup a Constitutional framework, we don't want to change it all the time.

Should I be nominated and confirmed to the post of AG I will establish a Special Commission to review the Constitution and look for inconsistencies within it so that we can nip any potential problems in the bud.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,291
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2004, 08:34:03 am »

One big problem is the eleventh-hour invention of the moderator, which changed the rules very much. Another problem is that clause in the Civil Liberties amendment. The thing has several highly problematic clauses, this being one of them. Its defects (some of them) were discussed but people agreed that it was on balance a good thing. Stuff in there should really have been voted on clause by clause, would have made for a far superior law. Also, bills used to get changed a lot between proposal and passage in the early days of the Senate, something bad's happened since. Basically the third Senate did much more work than its predecessors but also work of much inferior quality.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,678
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2004, 12:29:52 pm »

One big problem is the eleventh-hour invention of the moderator, which changed the rules very much. Another problem is that clause in the Civil Liberties amendment. The thing has several highly problematic clauses, this being one of them. Its defects (some of them) were discussed but people agreed that it was on balance a good thing. Stuff in there should really have been voted on clause by clause, would have made for a far superior law. Also, bills used to get changed a lot between proposal and passage in the early days of the Senate, something bad's happened since. Basically the third Senate did much more work than its predecessors but also work of much inferior quality.

Making sure that the Central government doesn't usurp the powers delegated to the individual states isn't a defect. It is made to ensure that the powers of government remain constrained. Now people are immediately hoping to pass an amendment to the constitution to dilute the powers that are given to the regions. This is an exgregious example of the Congress strong arming any opposing body into submission. I hope that the Senate will vote against this amendment and that the people will be smart enough to vote against this amendment should it every come to referenda.
Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,038


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2004, 12:43:42 pm »

Making sure that the Central government doesn't usurp the powers delegated to the individual states isn't a defect. It is made to ensure that the powers of government remain constrained. Now people are immediately hoping to pass an amendment to the constitution to dilute the powers that are given to the regions. This is an exgregious example of the Congress strong arming any opposing body into submission. I hope that the Senate will vote against this amendment and that the people will be smart enough to vote against this amendment should it every come to referenda.

The Court just ruled that the Senate has no power to do anything. We need a constitutional amendment to avoid the Senate becoming a talking shop and all the power actually lying with the Regions. I'm not saying the Regions don't deserve some power, just not all of it.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,678
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2004, 03:48:46 pm »

Well I do agree to the admendment now that I have seen it. But I also think that the power of the regions should not be curtailed. The Senate makes federal laws while the regions make regional laws. I think that if a federal law wants to be accepted by the region then either the Lt. Governor, the Governor, or a group of people with a signed petition can declare that a referendum would be held concerning whether that law should become law in the Region. I except though your attempts as well as Ernest's as good and well thought out. We need an enumeration of the powers of the Senate that way we can control what powers are given over to the central government and what powers are delegated to the people and the regions respectively.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,496
Australia


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2004, 01:41:14 am »

we don't have enough people for a decentralised system!

No matter what tyour views on centralism are, the fact is, its the ONLY way the system will work.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,291
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2004, 05:15:11 am »

Also, the regions were created by the Feds in our case. This isnay America.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,383
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2004, 11:01:47 am »

What's the point of having Regions if we aren't going to explore the issue of co-sovereignity?  We certainly don't have enough people to have State governments, but with the inititaive process all of our Regions use so that the Regional legislature is the people, I think we have enough people to support Regional government.  That said, this decision threw out the baby with the bathwater, so we need to adopt a new baby soon.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,291
India


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2004, 02:57:29 pm »

What's the point of having Regions if we aren't going to explore the issue of co-sovereignity?  We certainly don't have enough people to have State governments, but with the inititaive process all of our Regions use so that the Regional legislature is the people, I think we have enough people to support Regional government.  That said, this decision threw out the baby with the bathwater, so we need to adopt a new baby soon.
The idea was to have an additional office to run for, give some more semblance to the US.
That was really the whole idea behind the Senate, too...there once was a proposal that every registered voter would be considered a Representative unless elected or appointed to something else.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,922
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2004, 06:08:41 pm »

oh dear, i leave for a little while and I return to this horrendous decision
Logged
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,642
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2004, 07:55:26 am »

This is the most ridiculous ruling ever made.  The court has just ruled that the Senate has no authority to make law whatsoever, and has set up Governors as virtual dictators of each region- apparantly able to make legally binding declarations without so much as calling for a vote among the citizens, as Ernest has done.  This undermines the entire fantasy election government process.  Laws passed by the Senate are nothing more than "suggestions"?  Governors can decide whether or not any law is valid in their region?   I am sorry, but even in the broadest interpretation of the constitution I fail to see how this conclusion is reached.

My region may soon be without a governor, but perhaps that will be a good thing.  Better to have anarchy than dictatorship.

The entire Supreme Court ought to be impeached, under Article III clause 3 of the Constitution, for usurping the Senate's lawmaking authority.  I call upon the Senate to reclaim its rightful position as the lawmaking authority in Atlasia by beginning impeachment proceedings against Justices KEmporer, Demrepdan, and King.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2004, 08:12:13 am »

You're right about Clause 3 Fritz.  But it's contradicted by Clauses 1 and 2.  So either way, we would have been screwed whenever we rule on a case.

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

So impeach us if you wish, all we were doing was trying to enforce the Constitution YOU provided us to work with.
Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,482
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2004, 06:54:21 pm »


Besides, Fritz, only President PBrunsel can call for the impeachment of a Justice. (See Article III, Section 1)
Logged
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,642
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2004, 01:24:37 am »

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

Which section of the Civil Liberties Amendment explicitly repeals the Senate's authority to pass law?  If you are referring to clause 14, that is an explicit copy of Amendment 10 in the United States Constitution (right down to using the word "states" instead of "regions").  No court has ever suggested that Amendment 10 explicitly takes away Congress's ability to make law.  I still do not follow your logic here.


Besides, Fritz, only President PBrunsel can call for the impeachment of a Justice. (See Article III, Section 1)

Actually, Article III section 1 has nothing to do with impeachment, the word "impeachment" does not appear there.  That section deals with another method of removing Justices from office.  Apparantly an easier one, too- it does not require a public poll or 2/3 of the Senate; just a Presidential mandate and a simple majority in the Senate.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,473
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2004, 01:48:49 am »

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

Which section of the Civil Liberties Amendment explicitly repeals the Senate's authority to pass law?  If you are referring to clause 14, that is an explicit copy of Amendment 10 in the United States Constitution (right down to using the word "states" instead of "regions").  No court has ever suggested that Amendment 10 explicitly takes away Congress's ability to make law.  I still do not follow your logic here.


The reason it doesn't in the real world is because in the real world Congress's powers are spelled out in the constitution(Coin money, fund armies, ratify treaties, etc.).  The 10th amendment says that any powers not given to the Federal Goverment in the Constitution are retained by the States or the people.  But the Congress is given powers in Article I, Section 8; so they can still make laws based on those powers.

The problem we have in our fantasy constitution is that there are NO legislative powers spelled out in our constitution, except for those that apply to election law.  This was not really a problem until we passed the amendment that said that any powers not given to the Senate go to the States(Regions) or the people.  Now, we have the bizzare situation where the Senate has been given NO explicit powers to make law other than election law, and at the same time having an amendment that says that any powers not given to it, it doesn't have.

Do you understand the problem?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2004, 02:05:08 am by AFCJ KEmperor »Logged
Fritz
JLD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,642
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2004, 01:59:50 am »

Well, since you put it that way...

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5. The Senate may pass a bill for the purpose of making laws, or a resolution for the purpose of declaring war, a majority of the Senators voting concurring. But all such bills and resolutions shall first be submitted to the President before taking effect; and the President may either declare his or her approval or veto it. If the President approves, or if he or she neither approves nor vetoes the bill or resolution within seven days, the bill or resolution shall take effect. But if he or she shall veto it, the bill or resolution shall be of no effect unless the Senate shall vote, two-thirds of the Senators concurring, to override the President's veto.



Doesn't that explicitly give the Senate power to make laws?Huh
 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines