Young Tweed vs. Department of Federal Elections

[Ebowed]

Chief Justice Ebowed, it is my understanding of the quote below that Q&A cannot begin until after the presentation of the briefs, and even then it would have to be 'scheduled' before it happens.  I'm perfectly willing to entertain your above inquiry and any other questions the Court may have, but it seems out of place as we're still in the Petitioner-brief stage for another 15 hours.

My apologies; I was under the impression that Nathan would be acting as the defense on behalf of the Department of Forum Affairs.  Of course, the commencement of questioning does not preclude any involved parties from posting further briefs.

[© tweed]

I see no indication that Napoleon is 'acting as the defense'.  it's only an amicus brief..  all we've heard out of the DoFE is crickets.

[© tweed]

despite my concerns I shall offer a response to the Chief Justice's inquiry.

Young Tweed, Article I, Section 5, Clauses 30-31, also known as the 'public interest' protection, pertains to powers outlined to the Senate, as Nathan points out in his brief.  How would the certification of Napoleon's election as President inhibit the Senate from being able to exert these powers, noting the innately separate duties allotted to the executive and legislative branches?

the DoFE's election certification did not only certify Napoleon as the president-elect, but also Kalwejt as the vice president-elect.  Article I, Section 1, Clause 3 reads: The Vice President of the Republic of Atlasia shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.  therefore, the certification directly concerns the composition of the Senate.  the wall of 'innate separation' thusly breaks down.  please read my references to 'Napoleon' in my brief as shorthand for 'the Napoleon/Kalwejt ticket'.

[homelycooking]

all we've heard out of the DoFE is crickets.

I will represent the Department that I head as SoFE. I will file my brief when you've finished with yours.

[© tweed]

I am running out of time and have to be at work at 3pm, so I am going to forfeit the remainder of my window to continue to post my Brief.  consider what has already written to be the totality, and I believe my arguments stand perfectly well on their own.  I of course am willing to continue to engage in dialogue with the Court.

[Ebowed]

as such, the certification of Napoleon as victor of the 06/12 election is in clear violation of the quote taken from Miamiu1027 285:27, the John 3:16 of Atlasia, which is inseparable from any reasoned conception of the General Welfare of the Republic.

Be that as it may, how are we to determine that this is, in fact, the intention of the Constitution?  Would you agree that there is good reason to suggest that the application of 'Tweedist' ideology to a reading of the document would be entirely arbitrary, and no more grounded than observing the interpretation of others who took a role in crafting the text of the Constitution?

[homelycooking]

Your Honor, and may it please the Court,

I presided over a federal election for President and Vice President last week in my capacity as Secretary of Federal Elections which Napoleon and Kalwejt won and in which the plaintiff, along with his running mate, bgwah, received the lowest number of votes of the four official tickets. The result was certified this past Monday afternoon, and there is no public dispute over the accuracy of the count. The plaintiff seeks to overturn the result of this democratic election and impose on the Atlasian electorate an outcome justified by a misguided and misleading interpretation of Atlasian law and constitutional doctrine. The court must find in favor of the Department of Federal Elections for the following reasons:

First, that the Preamble to the Third Constitution (the text of which the plaintiff mistakenly identifies in his brief as Art. III, §1, Cl. 5) is a statement of intent and purpose by the authors of the Constitution with no objective meaning and has no place in determining the rightful winner of an election. The plaintiff regards the Preamble in his brief as a series of ironclad dicta holding sway over every law, act and behavior taking place in Atlasia, and assumes it to have the necessary force to enable the nullification of any law, act or behavior which runs contrary to his interpretation of, for instance, blessings of liberty or general welfare. The preamble does not have the force of law. It is merely a statement of the intent of its authors in the drafting of a Constitution. Nowhere exist guidelines or standards for the specific enforcement of the Preamble - the text is inherently ambiguous and does not offer us any so-called bright lines or litmus tests to help us determine who should win an election. The Court would be swamped by frivolous disputes motivated by differing interpretations of the Preamble if this case were decided in favor of the plaintiff and accorded recognition as judicial precedent.

Second, that the section of Art. I §5 cited by the plaintiff has no meaningful relevance to the matter at hand. The "public interest" protection therein is a constitutional bulwark against the use of power by the Senate to act contrary to "public health and commerce". But the certification of the election by my office does not concern the use of power by the Senate. Even if, as the plaintiff contests, Senate power is implied by the election of the Vice President (the President of the Senate), a violation of Art. I §5 Cl. 30-31 has not yet occurred. This portion of the plaintiff's argument rests upon the hypothetical future actions of the Vice President, which he projects to run contrary to the "public interest" protection against the Senate.

Third, that the so-called "Genesis thread" cited by the plaintiff as support for his argument does not deserve the Court's attention - indulging the plaintiff's megalomania does not help us understand whether or not my certification of an election result violates the Constitution. The plaintiff, on the basis of his early participation in Atlasian government, apparently has judged Napoleon to be "not fun" and thus illegitimate. His disregard of the enduring laws of Atlasia and those who abide by them and his mandating, above all, of particular interpretations of his own ancient, inscrutable aphorisms is not worthy of the respect of any democratic institution, let alone a court of law. The game does not belong to the plaintiff, nor should it reflect exactly his desires; its direction and meaning have been entrusted to the 143 other citizens at the present and the hundreds before them through law and democracy.

Fourth, that the turnout statistics cited by the plaintiff do not indicate the national decline that he purports to show. Turnout for the election in question was significantly lower than the previous presidential election (66.0% vs 74.3%), despite the Tweed/bgwah candidacy. His narrative of decline is not, moreover, supported by any other objective evidence. The Court cannot take the plaintiff on his word that the Atlasia preceding his presidential candidacy was sick or in decline - it is his opinion and not fact or evidence.

Fifth, that the extensive body of election regulation signed into law (e.g. The Proportional Representation Act, the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act, Art. II, §2, Cl. 2 of the Constitution, etc.) represent a wholly constitutional and systematic attempt to bring about fair and free democratic elections and that the plaintiff's argument circumvents and contradicts those laws because the Atlasian electorate handed down an unfavorable verdict to the plaintiff in the election in question. The Department of Federal Elections is responsible for upholding and enforcing election law, and that is what was done in the June 2012 federal election. To rule in favor of the plaintiff here would be to discard those laws and make obsolete the entire election process. It is neither the place of the Department of Federal Elections nor of the Supreme Court to act as an electoral tribunal, rendering decisions on candidates' future actions' compliance with vague Constitutional language so as to arbitrarily select public officials, as the plaintiff would evidently prefer.

Sixth, that the Court, in previous election disputes, has declined to employ the interpretive strategy employed by the plaintiff in his brief and deferred instead to existing election regulation. When confronted with cases in which the integrity of the vote was called into question (e.g. Atlasia v. Dallasfan65, Atlasia v. Giovanni) the Court chose not to reach a decision through interpretation of the Preamble or the Public Interest provision, but through analysis and interpretation of laws governing the existing and established electoral process. There is no judicial precedent for the course of action the plaintiff proposes.

That the plaintiff believes Napoleon to have been "pounded with advertisements since he was a small child" and to be a bourgeois ideologue is not evidence enough to overturn a democratic election. Here the plaintiff's argument is laid bare: he wishes the court to revoke the certification of Napoleon as president-elect on the basis of his ideology and his demeanor - is this not the proper role of the voters, rather than the Court? His case that the President-elect is a threat to the general welfare of Atlasia relies upon speculation, faulty interpretation of law and the sheer force of bombast. Bombast alone may suffice to win a presidential election, but in the plaintiff's case this past weekend, it was far from enough. The people did not elect him President; now he seeks to be selected instead. If the plaintiff wins the day here, his extraordinary personality and his bizarre perspective on Atlasian law will have, too; but Atlasia's confidence in the stability and endurance of its legal, legitimate, liberal democracy will have forever been lost.

Therefore the Court must uphold the certification of the June 2012 Federal Election and find it to be in accord with the Atlasian Constitution and all other Atlasian law.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Department of Federal Elections,

HOMELYCOOKING
Secretary of Federal Elections
Registrar General of Atlasia

[© tweed]

as such, the certification of Napoleon as victor of the 06/12 election is in clear violation of the quote taken from Miamiu1027 285:27, the John 3:16 of Atlasia, which is inseparable from any reasoned conception of the General Welfare of the Republic.

Be that as it may, how are we to determine that this is, in fact, the intention of the Constitution?  Would you agree that there is good reason to suggest that the application of 'Tweedist' ideology to a reading of the document would be entirely arbitrary, and no more grounded than observing the interpretation of others who took a role in crafting the text of the Constitution?

two points.

first, 'Tweedist ideology' is a misnomer.  Tweedism is actually the absence of ideology; we only call it an ideology, for that makes it easier to comprehend.  Atlasia is to Tweedism as a fish is to water. without the Genesis thread, there would be no Constitution.  while the authors may conceivably have wanted to rebel against Miamiu1027 285, they could not have, any more than a twelve-year old who wants to stay out late on a Friday night can move away from his parents, nor any more than we could get fed up and relocate to another universe.

...and besides, the primary author of the Constitution, Purple State, was so motivated by this case to briefly return and confirm that my reading of the Constitution is consistent with his at-the-time intention.  I quote him, emphasis added:

I have but three letters to say:

LOL

Seriously though, even if it is frivolous as all hell, Tweed's suit is simply a stroke of genius.

I will reappear (very briefly) from my extended walk into the sunset to echo this. Leave it to the true creator of the very idea of Atlasia to provide such a brilliant effort to return excitement to the game.

I would support the lawsuit if it leads to a reset of Atlasia(constitutional convention), not just an amendment.

As the chair of the two previous Constitutional Conventions and author of the current Constitution, I can tell you that the idea of a "true reset" is nonsense that is peddled every few months. The game thrives on its history--one that includes many of the greatest posters this forum has ever seen. That is why the Boss's suit is so sound. You don't really want a reset... you want a shakeup. That's what this is and I support it.

[Napoleon]

I would like to submit a brief.

[Ebowed]

I would like to submit a brief.

Of course

[Napoleon]

As I've already signed on to another, and find myself in concurrence with the Secretary of Federal Elections, the brief I submit will be brief (no pun).

Your Honors,
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states "The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post." The Senate has made this determination in the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Consistent with the standing law of the land, the results of the June 2012 Presidential Election certified by Homelycooking, Secretary of Federal Elections, should be upheld, making it clear that there is no electoral dispute.

Article III, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, cited by Young Tweed, states "The Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all disputes concerning federal elections." I find this clause unapplicable to Young Tweed's case against the Department of Federal Elections. Young Tweed has not demonstrated that there has been any dispute concerning a federal election. There is no Constitutional provision or statute he can cite that suggests the lowest total vote getter will be certified as the election winner. The Court, in Article III, Section 1, Clause 3, is given authority to

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This power of nullification is not extended to election results in the Constution. The plaintiff seeks the nullification of the June 2012 Presidential Election Results for political reasons, not taking into account electoral law. Article VI, Clause 15 of the Constitution clearly states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefore the Court must uphold the certification of the June 2012 Federal Election and find it to be in accord with the Atlasian Constitution and all other Atlasian law.

Respectfully submitted,

Napoleon, President-elect

edit: Sorry for being a little late.

[© tweed]

I move that Gov. Napoleon's brief not be considered by the court due to its tardiness.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 6:00AM EDT on Friday, June 29, 2012, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

[homelycooking]

When can we expect to have a decision handed down in this case?

[bgwah]

Is Purple State really the primary author of the Constitution? I'm under the impression that much of it was simply copied from previous versions, before he was a member.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This has nothing to do with the case but if it will please the court, I move that Bgwah's signature become the flag of Atlasia Donna Summer's reanimated corpse become the dictator of Atlasia.

[Ebowed]

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court, with the Junior Associate Justice concurring.

The Court cannot, at this or any juncture, entertain notions of 'installing' a candidate in violation of the democratic process.  Napoleon, the certified winner of the Presidential election, has beyond any doubt rightfully earned the ability to assume the duties of the head of the executive branch at the appropriate time.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[minionofmidas]

This has nothing to do with the case but if it will please the court, I move that Bgwah's signature become the flag of Atlasia Donna Summer's reanimated corpse become the dictator of Atlasia.

I would prefer for her non-reanimated corpse to become the flag of Atlasia.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[Grumpier Than Thou]

i guess

[Redalgo]

The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court, with the Junior Associate Justice concurring.

The Court cannot, at this or any juncture, entertain notions of 'installing' a candidate in violation of the democratic process.  Napoleon, the certified winner of the Presidential election, has beyond any doubt rightfully earned the ability to assume the duties of the head of the executive branch at the appropriate time.

[Oakvale]

Since the Junior Associate Justice (bgwah) is listed as concurring, are we to assume that the Senior Associate Justice, opebo dissented, or...?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I thought Bgwah recused himself.

[Oakvale]

I thought Bgwah recused himself.

I think Tweed suggested it but I'm not actually sure if it happened or not.