Lawsuit

[Vepres]

I am suing the federal government of Atlasia over Section 3, Clause C, of the recently passed 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill.

I believe that it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the constitution.

If the court accepts this lawsuit, I will be happy to argue my case in more detail.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I certainly hope the court doesn't accept this case because, speaking as former-AG for a moment, it doesn't seem like terribly smart legal reasoning to base a case to repeal something on a clause of "giving power to ____."

Leaving aside the number of alternative rationales (such as building transportation, as given, to promote commerce, as given, to protect public health by making regulations to protect employment, as given, etc) it would seem like you're presenting this clause very broadly where, as you interpret, you could strip away any regulation or government program competing with identical private services, such as the post office, the health care program, funds to develop certain cars, etc.

Summary: Bad legal basis and overly broad interpretation. But we'll see what the court says, I suppose.

[Sam Spade]

I'm sorry that I had to read this thread and see that picture of Rachel Maddow.  Need to go find that thread with the picture of Carla Bruni again...

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry that I had to read this thread and see that picture of Rachel Maddow.  Need to go find that thread with the picture of Carla Bruni again...

LOL

[Sam Spade]

Anyway, I have notified the justices and we'll see what happens.

[Vepres]

I certainly hope the court doesn't accept this case because, speaking as former-AG for a moment, it doesn't seem like terribly smart legal reasoning to base a case to repeal something on a clause of "giving power to ____."

Leaving aside the number of alternative rationales (such as building transportation, as given, to promote commerce, as given, to protect public health by making regulations to protect employment, as given, etc) it would seem like you're presenting this clause very broadly where, as you interpret, you could strip away any regulation or government program competing with identical private services, such as the post office, the health care program, funds to develop certain cars, etc.

Summary: Bad legal basis and overly broad interpretation. But we'll see what the court says, I suppose.

They do not have the power to distort the market now do they? They only have to power to provide "a single market where competition is free and undistorted." They do not have the power to do the opposite.

The reason regulation doesn't violate this is because it affects every company in the industry being regulated. Therefore, the market is undistorted.

The post office and health care plan don't distort the market because they do not give an unfair advantage to certain companies. If the government prevented private mail delivery companies from delivering certain kinds of mail, that would be distorting the market. However, the presence of a post office doesn't distort it because it must compete with private enterprise. Ditto for the health care bill.

[Vepres]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair. If Toyota were to be on the verge of liquidating, they wouldn't have the luxury of these loans that the "Big 3" do.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair.

Allowing Toyota to sell cars in Gm's home market when Gm can't sell cars in Toyota's home market is what's unfair. Fuuck Toyota. They make terrible cars.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Vepres, you could quite easily make the argument that government intervention distorts the market and government intervention in a business or market inherently corrupts the freedom of the economy.

Of course, I still think using a clause giving the Senate the power to do something as justification for repealing anything that, in your opinion, doesn't do that, is rather flimsy.

I shouldn't really interfere though, there's no actual case and I'm not the AG.

[Vepres]

Vepres, you could quite easily make the argument that government intervention distorts the market and government intervention in a business or market inherently corrupts the freedom of the economy.

Of course, I still think using a clause giving the Senate the power to do something as justification for repealing anything that, in your opinion, doesn't do that, is rather flimsy.

Again, no where do they have to power to distort the market, which I believe that part of the bill does.

Like a said, as long as there is a level playing field in any given industry, I see nothing wrong with it legally under my reasoning.

[Purple State]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair.

Allowing Toyota to sell cars in Gm's home market when Gm can't sell cars in Toyota's home market is what's unfair. Fuuck Toyota. They make terrible cars.

We have free trade with Japan now, so GM can sell their cars in Toyota's home market.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair.

Allowing Toyota to sell cars in Gm's home market when Gm can't sell cars in Toyota's home market is what's unfair. Fuuck Toyota. They make terrible cars.

We have free trade with Japan now, so GM can sell their cars in Toyota's home market.

Then never mind. But either way, we shouldn't be giving money to foreign companies. Japan can fund Toyota if it chooses to.

[Purple State]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair.

Allowing Toyota to sell cars in Gm's home market when Gm can't sell cars in Toyota's home market is what's unfair. Fuuck Toyota. They make terrible cars.

We have free trade with Japan now, so GM can sell their cars in Toyota's home market.

Then never mind. But either way, we shouldn't be giving money to foreign companies. Japan can fund Toyota if it chooses to.

Ah, there's a plus for free trade! Finally found one you like.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I should say it violates Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 because it distorts the market in favor of Ford, GM, and Chrysler while not offering loans to, say, Toyota. If they go out of business, they go out of business. Offering the loan to some and not others is unfair.

Allowing Toyota to sell cars in Gm's home market when Gm can't sell cars in Toyota's home market is what's unfair. Fuuck Toyota. They make terrible cars.

We have free trade with Japan now, so GM can sell their cars in Toyota's home market.

Then never mind. But either way, we shouldn't be giving money to foreign companies. Japan can fund Toyota if it chooses to.

Ah, there's a plus for free trade! Finally found one you like.

Fair trade can be free.

[Vepres]

To summarize my justification for suing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Vepres, you could quite easily make the argument that government intervention distorts the market and government intervention in a business or market inherently corrupts the freedom of the economy.

Of course, I still think using a clause giving the Senate the power to do something as justification for repealing anything that, in your opinion, doesn't do that, is rather flimsy.

Again, no where do they have to power to distort the market, which I believe that part of the bill does.

Like a said, as long as there is a level playing field in any given industry, I see nothing wrong with it legally under my reasoning.

[Purple State]

I wonder what these closed door Supreme Court talks look like.

[Sam Spade]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

Purple State:  Not much.  Just a lot of PMing usually...

[Purple State]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

Purple State:  Not much.  Just a lot of PMing usually...

Sure it is.

I have never seen the court decline a case before. Haven't been here all that long, but interesting to see.

[Vepres]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

May I inquire as to why?

[Sam Spade]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

Purple State:  Not much.  Just a lot of PMing usually...

Sure it is.

I have never seen the court decline a case before. Haven't been here all that long, but interesting to see.

It's happened before - usually when South Park Conservative would bring an action.

[Sam Spade]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

May I inquire as to why?

The Court doesn't usually give reasons for declining cases, much like the real Supreme Court.  All I can legitimately postulate is a negative rationale - if we were interested in the argument, we would have taken the case.

[Vepres]

The Court has declined to hear your case.  So sorry.

May I inquire as to why?

The Court doesn't usually give reasons for declining cases, much like the real Supreme Court.  All I can legitimately postulate is a negative rationale - if we were interested in the argument, we would have taken the case.

Fair enough.