Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 22, 2019, 05:51:24 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  Legal advice...
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Legal advice...  (Read 408 times)
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,707


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 23, 2011, 06:15:06 pm »

It is my understanding that when Atlasia was established (and it's strange symbiotic relationship with the United States is still difficult to understand), Atlasia 'carried' forward all legislation and judicial rulings passed in the United States upon adoption of the First Constitution in 2004.

While the First Constitution was..well...deficient, my understanding is in part answered by Article VIII of the Second Constitution which confirmed;

"All Legislation and Judicial Rulings not inconsistent with this Constitution passed prior to the Adoption of this Constitution shall remain in full force, unless superceded by subsequent legislation or Judicial Rulings."

This language was retained in Article VIII of the Third Constitution.

'Prior' would include rulings determined under the US Constitution as in terms of Atlasia, if we are for the purposes of game play, considered to be a 'successor' to the USA at a point of stated divergence.

Indeed, the legislative process refers to many US laws (Civil Rights Act for example) as being 'in force' and laws have been passed at federal and state level that abolish, amend of supercede US laws. Even Court judgements have refered to US law and to US legal precedent.

I have always considered therefore, and indeed it makes sense from a game viewpoint that all existing US law and legal decision was 'carried over' to Atlasia and this would include Roe vs Wade unless it is determined that this ruling was based on a premise that was inconsistent with the constitution or another court ruling.

This ruling was of course based on Section 1 of the 14th Amendment concerning a right to privacy;

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is replicated in Article VI of the Third Constitution;

"The Atlasian government shall not deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process, nor shall it deny any citizen the equal protection of the laws."

I cannot see, in the specific example of Roe v Wade, where our Constitution expresses such liberties differently.

Assistance would be appreciated.
Logged
Junkie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 790
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -4.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2011, 08:16:44 pm »

I am fried from work, but yes I believe you are correct.  First, in my opinion, US Court law is still precedence, although in many areas, Atlasia has diverted from it.  Roe would not be one.  When it comes to Roe, the decision was based upon the overall "penumbra of privacy" that gave an inherent right to privacy.  It was a number of rights guaranteed to citizens that led to the decision, including the ones you mentioned, as well as many others (my favorite being the 3rd against quatering of soldiers).  We have almost all of them, if not all of them, but I could be wrong.  So if our Court accepts that argument (which I think they will), Roe would be upheld on the same reasons.

I can help out more starting Friday, but now am just too tired to really think.  Your question would require some thinking and research which I can do right now.  I would be interested in Marokai's or Badgers comments.  More important would be the Supreme Court, but they wouldn't comment on a legal issue.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,707


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2011, 03:56:19 am »

I am fried from work, but yes I believe you are correct.  First, in my opinion, US Court law is still precedence, although in many areas, Atlasia has diverted from it.  Roe would not be one.  When it comes to Roe, the decision was based upon the overall "penumbra of privacy" that gave an inherent right to privacy.  It was a number of rights guaranteed to citizens that led to the decision, including the ones you mentioned, as well as many others (my favorite being the 3rd against quatering of soldiers).  We have almost all of them, if not all of them, but I could be wrong.  So if our Court accepts that argument (which I think they will), Roe would be upheld on the same reasons.

I can help out more starting Friday, but now am just too tired to really think.  Your question would require some thinking and research which I can do right now.  I would be interested in Marokai's or Badgers comments.  More important would be the Supreme Court, but they wouldn't comment on a legal issue.

Thank you for your advice Smiley I've spoken to one of the Superior Court judges and one of the 'founding fathers' and they concur.

It is something I've always thought to be the case, but wanted clarification.
Logged
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,901
Nepal


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2011, 09:32:40 am »

That's weird since it makes a large part of the Constitution redundant, doesn't it?
Logged
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,853
Timor-Leste


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2011, 11:09:11 am »

Atlasia has never exactly determined how much overlap it has with the US in its timeline, which is inevitably quite confusing.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,707


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -8.17

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2011, 01:23:15 pm »

That's weird since it makes a large part of the Constitution redundant, doesn't it?

Not really:

"All Legislation and Judicial Rulings not inconsistent with this Constitution passed prior to the Adoption of this Constitution shall remain in full force, unless superceded by subsequent legislation or Judicial Rulings."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2011, 01:26:24 pm by afleitch »Logged
Pages: [1] 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