Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2019, 09:27:02 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
  Bono vs. ? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Bono vs. ?  (Read 1756 times)
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,710
United Kingdom


« on: February 05, 2005, 09:57:25 am »

I contend that nowhere in the powers ammendment that determines the actions permited to the senate is that body given the authority to appropriate money to programs of the like of those for which money was appropriated under The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill. Therefore, as the money I paid in my taxes is being used for unconstitutional purposes, I ask that The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill be declared unconstitutional and without effect.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,710
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2005, 02:40:53 pm »

I'm presuming that the version here is the version that passed.  What follows is my opinion

Sections 1 and 3  would be constitutional under a broad interpretation of section 1 clause 16 of the Powers amendment.  Whether clause 16 can be interpreted that broadly is something the Court will need to decide.  A broad interpretation of section 1 clause 9 of the Powers amendment would help support the constututionality of section 1 of the Act, but would not be enough by itself,

Section 2 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 14 of the Powers amendment, insofar as it related to the treatment of infectious disease.  It would require a overly broad intrepretation of that clause to extend that clause to other forms of health care assistanc, especially given the explit narrow scope of clause 14.

Section 4 is constitutional to the extent that sections 1, 2, and 3 are found to be constitutional.

As written, section 5 is unconstitutional.  If it were limited in scope, child care assistance could be constitutional, but I don't see anything that makes a generic child care subsidy constitutional

Section 6 is clearly constitutional under section 1 clause 15 of the Powers amendment.

Obviously, I'll save my arguments for the trial.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,710
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2005, 08:46:54 am »

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,710
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2005, 03:43:43 pm »

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?

There is a queue for the Supreme Court you know Wink

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.
Logged
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,710
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2005, 03:44:38 pm »

When are we going to have the trial, anyways?

There is a queue for the Supreme Court you know Wink

Once the Senate pulls its finger out and actually holds a vote we should (hopefully) get a new Justice to make up for Liberty's extending absence and therefore we will have at least a majority of the Court to hear cases. It then depends how long it takes the NixonNow case to get considered and ruled upon.

The NixonNow case was filled after this one.

Nevermind, I thought you meant andrew vs. NixonNow.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC