Imperial Dominion of the South (IDS) vs Atlasia

[CatoMinor]

Good evening Justices. I happened to be in the neighborhood and just thought I would stop in to say hello. Oh, before I forget, I also would like to ask that you hear the case of the IDS. It has come to our attention that the Senate has overstepped its constitutional authority with the State Name Recognition Act of 2013.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is the opinion of the IDS that the final clause prohibiting regions from abolishing the existing names of states is in clear violation of the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Oakvale]

Seen etc. Will alert the other Justices.

[ilikeverin]

The Midwest would certainly like to join this suit.

[CatoMinor]

The Midwest would certainly like to join this suit.

The more the merrier.

[Torie]

The Petition is under discussion. Just thought I would provide that update.

[Torie]

The Court has granted the Petition for Certiorari, with all Justices concurring.  My brother Justices have graciously given me permission to pose a few questions in conjunction with the granting of this Petition, which I request that the Briefs of the parties address in addition to whatever else the parties choose to address.  One of my brother Justices will outline a Briefing schedule and date for oral argument in a separate announcement, along with a more "official" looking grant of the Petition.

The issues that I request be briefed include:

1.  How did the regions come into being, and with the current boundaries and composition of states?

2.  How did the states within regions come into existence in the first instance, and assume their current names?

3.  Does the federal government have the power to create states and/or name then under the Constitution?

4.  Does the Constitutional provision proscribing the Federal government from requiring the Regions to take or not take any action, potentially conflict with any other provisions of the Constitution, and/or is in "tension" therewith, such that this Court should engage in some balancing test to reconcile such conflict?   Are  federal laws in other contexts not subject to being construed as requiring the Regions to take or not take some action from time to time?  If so, how does one distinguish those contexts from the context of the Statute being challenged here?

5. What is the penalty for a region abolishing the name of an existing State. Is it anything other than the Federal government not recognizing such name for Federal purposes, and if so, does the law being challenged really require the Regions to not take an action, that would subject the subject Region to some actual penalty as opposed to merely being symbolic?

6. What is the legislative history of this Statute? Was there any commentary as to the motivation for its passage, and intent as to what it was intended to accomplish and its scope?

7. If the language proscribing the Regions from abolishing the existing name of states is found to be in violation of the Constitution, is the first sentence of the Statute mandating that the Federal government recognize as valid additional names of an existing state subject to serverability, and being upheld as a "stand alone" provision that is not essential to make the Statute as a whole operational, or was it not intended to be passed except as part of a “package deal” as it were?

8. Is there any reason for the Court to deem this matter is not "ripe" unless and until a Region attempts to abolish the name of an existing state, e.g., because there may be some hypotheticals where the context of such a law would cause the result of the Court to vary based on the particular set of facts presented, in which event the Court should on its own motion, find that its grant of this Petition was improvidently given?

[Oakvale]

Thank you, Torie.

Here's the official grant of certiorari, with the timetable we expect the petitioner and the respondent - presumably the Attorney General - to follow.

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari

The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear the question of whether the State Name Recognition Act of 2013 violates  Art. I, § 6, cl. 7 of the Constitution of Atlasia.

Schedule

Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Thursday, March 20, 2014.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Sunday, March 23, 2014.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 6:PM EDT on Sunday, March 23, 2014, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

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.

[ilikeverin]

I would like to file an amicus brief, but I am leading a trade delegation tour through the Nordic countries until Monday, March 24th.  I would like to request an extension until 8:00PM EDT on Tuesday, March 25th, if it please the court.

[Oakvale]

Consider the extension granted, Verin. No problem.

[CatoMinor]

Imperial Brief

Chief Justice bgwah, associate Justices, I thank you on behalf of the Imperial Dominion of the South for your decision to lend your ears for a moment and hear our case. This case title may be IDS vs Atlasia, but we bring forth this argument not just for ourselves but for every region in Atlasia. In this brief I shall state the facts that lead to this case, our argument against the law in question, and shall do my best to answer the honorable Justice Torie's questions.

On January 1st, 2014 the Senate passed the State Name Recognition Act of 2013. Later that same day President Duke signed the bill into law. Here is the full text of the law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the debate over this bill the original draft only included the first clause. However after RG Fritz expressed personal disapproval over the notion of states having their current names fully changed as opposed to the practice of having alternative names, such as currently practiced in the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest (MSRM), Tmth then offered an amendment adding the section in question. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This section was not added to protect the rights of the Senate, or the people of Atlasia as enumerated under the Constitution, but for one person, the RG, thus it's prohibition on regions abolishing current names of states is in violation of:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for the questions presented by Justice Torie:

1. I was not around to witness Atlasia's Genesis, but from what I gather Dave with a mighty voice proclaimed "Let there be Fantasy Government!" and out of that fantasy government arose the first government which then formed a federal system of the Federal government which would be above the Regional governments which Atlasia was divided into. The states within the regions came from the U.S. states.

2. The current state names and boundaries, are left over from the U.S. states names and boundaries unless changed. For example the midwest chooses to use alternative names to their states and even below the state level preexisting names taken from the U.S. have been abolished entirely. Several county and city names in the Pacific taken from the preexisting U.S. names were changed.

3. The Senate is only granted the Authority to create new states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4. The constitution provision prohibition the Federal Government from forcing the Regions to, or not to, do something is not only not in conflict with but works harmoniously with the rest of the constitution. The Federal Government can prohibit action or compel it if falls under the enumerated powers to the Senate. What is not enumerated to the Senate, nor denied to the Regions, is fair game under:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

5. The only real penalty is that the names chosen by the people of the regions would not be recognized as legitimate by the Federal government. Not exactly anything out of Machiavelli's playbook here, but it is the principle that the Senate can pass a law in obvious violation of the Constitution that places illegal limitations on what the Regions can do that we take issue with. The IDS is not currently trying to rename a state, but what if we were? What if the people of Georgia wished their state to be renamed the State of Cherokee? Under the Constitution there is nothing prohibiting the IDS from making that happen. To let this slide would be to set a precedent that the constitution only binds the Regions and the people within, and the Federal Government may ignore any clause they wish.

6. I believe I have addressed this. If you would like more please feel free to ask.

7. The first sentence in the statute is fine and can stand alone without the the second, should decide to strike it down.

8. This is matter is very much "ripe" as you put it. The issue is not simply the Regions changing a state's name, but the law which prohibits it. The law itself has been passed and made a fact. Why then if the section in question is indeed inherently unconstitutional should there be wait for the case to be heard to strike it down? Every region has a standing to challenge this by the fact that they have had an illegal limitation placed on them.


I now welcome any questions from the honorable Justices.

[Torie]

Thank you for that most helpful Brief Jbase. I guess the provenance of the Regions, and their number and perimeters, is that they just sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus as it were - all a riddle within a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

[CatoMinor]

Thank you for the most that helpful Brief Jbase. I guess the provenance of the Regions, and their number and perimeters, is that they just sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus as it were - all a riddle within a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Well that does explain it in a sense.

Cronos (Dave) beget Zeus (Atlasia) who had his own children who would grow (the regions).

Although they most certainly are not like Athena who came out fully grown. The regions, the cultures in them, the governments, etc... would grow and evolve over the years. The states however are more the enigma as they seem have all came into existence fully grown with their own laws and boundaries from a mythical "United States". 

[CatoMinor]

Actually, it happens I have come across a primary source document about the Genesis of Atlasia since it has been brought up.

(Please excuse the language of Mr. Tweed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFFwAhKPsX0

[Maxwell]

Not sure what the precedent is for this, but I can't find too much I disagree with with Jbrase's assessment.

[Oakvale]

Generally one would expect the Attorney General to defend the federal government, Maxwell. I don't think we've encountered this particular circumstance before - unless someone else wishes to present a defense on behalf of the government I suppose we'll simply do without your brief?

[CatoMinor]

If I recall correctly, the last time this happened, Marokai was the AG and recused himself for agreeing with the other side. So I suppose someone could file an amicus brief on behalf of the Feds. Perhaps the court could summon the author of the amendment which placed the disputed section into the law (tmth if I recall right). Surely he could could offer a defense of, or at the very least more insight into it.

[Oakvale]

If I recall correctly, the last time this happened, Marokai was the AG and recused himself for agreeing with the other side. So I suppose someone could file an amicus brief on behalf of the Feds. Perhaps the court could summon the author of the amendment which placed the disputed section into the law (tmth if I recall right). Surely he could could offer a defense of, or at the very least more insight into it.

That may be an idea. The deadline for the respondent was set at tonight. I'd rather in both this case and the one you mention that the Attorney General actually did their job, mind.

[Cincinnatus]

Attorneys often don't agree with the case that they're arguing.. Not sure what the problem is here.

[Maxwell]

Federal Brief

This will be short: My belief is, although Jbrase makes a good case, I will stand against it. Looking to the Canada-US free trade merger we've had rather recently, the Federal Government has the power to born states and issue states to regions. With that power, the arguement from my opponent goes that after that, their power to create is no more. Herein, my disagreement: I believe the Feds do have the control over the states, and thus the power to limit their naming.

As for the questions:

1. Well, according to the ever accurate wiki, they weren't always the way they were (the passage of the Region Redrawing Act of 2004. However, after that it seems like it's a blurr, whether it was a legal challenge of the act or a repeal. Certainly, the Midwest has fought for states such Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho and others that belong to the Pacific. It seemed to form from a basic outlet after some changes.

2.  I assume we held most of their names, though the Midwest, in their infinite wisdom, decided to go ahead and change the names.

3.  Well, yes, the federal government does have the power to create states (see: Canada).

4. No conflict.

5. This hasn't been the case, and my understanding is that Federal Authority may try to correct that measure, though not sure how they could.

6. As one of the people who voted for the bill, the express purpose was to allow the Midwest to have their names as recognized by the Feds. The reason that that section was added was as a compromise by Senator Tmth, and allowed by Senator TNF.

7. The last question sort of answered this one.

8. Well this is where the powers of the Federal Government are in a gray zone. With creation but no naming power, it leaves this in a zone in which I'm not really sure if it's very ripe.

[Oakvale]

Since we've extended the deadline for Verin's amicus until tomorrow, if anyone else wants to submit an amicus brief you can consider the deadline the same.

[Torie]

Where are all the Senators that voted for this Bill?  None have any interest in defending the Constitutionality of what they did?  If so, why don't they just repeal it ASAP, to save us some work!

[Simfan34]

I would like to submit an amicus on behalf of the respondent, but I do not think I will be able to before later this evening.

[Oakvale]

Yes, fine. I think we'd like to have a slightly broader defense here before we deliberate.

[ilikeverin]

Justices of the Supreme Court, I come forward today in support of the case filed by my colleague Jbrase of the Imperial Dominion of the South.  The Act passed this year is a draconian reaction to nothing less than each region's ability to decide for itself its own destiny, and the most sacred principle in Atlasia: that of Fun (tm).  As the Midwest's first judicial officer, I hope that my worthy predecessors—who, until recently, had sole judicial power in my fair Serene Republic—decide wisely and prudently on this matter.

As a signatory of the First Constitution, I believe I may be in a unique position to some of the questions asked by Torie (and in such cases I shall try to be objective).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasia was founded essentially to be an election game, something along the lines of the current "Forum Community Election Match-ups" sub-forum.  The government of the Republic of Atlasia essentially came into existence with the creation of a voter registration thread, with citizens listing their names as well as their parties.  My first registration was on February 22nd, 2004, when I registered as a member of the Atlas Forum Democratic Party.  (However, I quickly retracted my registration and switched to the Progressive Party.)

However, citizens quickly recognized that, if they wished to simulate a Presidential election, there would be little for other citizens to do, and so it was decided to have other match-ups as well.  There was some discussion of mimicking the American system entirely, but, of course, we were nowhere near large enough in population for both a Senate and a House.  Still, nearly everyone was in agreement we needed something more, and that something should involve geographic representation in a legislature, as specified by a Constitution*.  So, we decided that voters' avatars would indicate their state of registration**.

States, though, were insufficiently populated for real, competitive elections.  So we realized that states needed to be combined together in order to facilitate competitive elections.  Regions were formed to serve as an analogue to states.  (I got the impression at the time that state laws were generally kept preserved as possible from American laws, yet that states were something along the lines of counties.)  Five seemed like a good number of regions, and so five were created.  Here is the text of the First Constitution with regard to the regions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I honestly don't remember this public vote, but here it is, evidently: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=1169.0

Map D, which "won" the competition, was proposed by Lewis Trondheim, and became the first district map, districts being equal-population units that each elected one Senator.  Map E, which was proposed by Harry, became the region map.  We used the regions in Map E for... something like a few months (I think), before we realized that, oops, the Senate had to actually decide the boundaries of the regions in line with the First Constitution, which was voted on by the people***.  Note that that region names were to be decided either by the citizens of the region or the Senate, and state names were not specified at all.  Eventually, the First Constitution was passed, and regions had their first regional elections.  IIRC, I was the first governor elected in Atlasian history, here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=2808.0

* This was in fact a big point of debate, at first, whether we needed a Constitution at all.  The Progressive Party, the country's first third party, was created to support the establishment of such a Constitution.
** At the time, there were only avatars for each state in D, R, and I forms.  Foreign posters were rare, and many of them were posing as Americans.  "Protest avatars" were not a thing.  However, as things changed, it took us a surprisingly long time to realize that the avatar system was stupid.  Instead, we did things like require notice of registration in folks' signatures... the relic of which is part of my sig now.
*** This, unfortunately, led Naso, who had a Texas avatar, to be moved out of the Midwest.  It was unfortunate because I was running against him for Governor and he had just proposed the creation of a series of lakes in what were then called Kansas and Nebraska.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 5:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that this section does not say anything about what the Region can do to a State after it is admitted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In contrast to my colleague Jbrase, I think that such a conflict is possible, depending on one's interpretation of the preservation of the "rights of the Senate".  However, there is no provision whatsoever in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which establishes the Powers of the Senate, that indicates that the ability to stop Regions from naming their own States is something necessary for the preservation of the Senate's rights.  Or anywhere else in Article I at all, for that matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Merely symbolic"?  Your honor - if the federal government required you to change your name to Sunshine Stardrop Homosexual Agenda Waffle Iron, or refused to recognize you by any other name, would you call this "merely symbolic"?  Such an action taken by a Region could certainly lead to federal action under Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 of the Constitution, as it would violate your rights as a person.  The Most Serene Republic of the Midwest is tired of having its motivations and actions impugned by the federal government in the way that was expressed by the State Name Recognition Act of 2013.  It is just another way that the Nyman elites have sought to destroy us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this has been adequately covered by my colleague Jbrase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see much wrong with the first section of the Act.  I am a bit confused about "legislature or citizens" (should it be a referendum?  or a legislative vote?  or both?), but that's just my crankiness speaking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Jbrase said.  All Regions will soon desire to change their names to resemble the Midwest's.  Resistance is futile.

[Simfan34]

Yes, fine. I think we'd like to have a slightly broader defense here before we deliberate.

Thank you, your honour. I intend to present my brief later this evening.