Peter v. Atlasia

[Peter]

(I apologise if there have been other Peter v. Atlasia cases, but I cannot find any, if there are, I will renumber as directed by the Court)

I hereby ask for leave to sue the Republic of Atlasia and to have the LGB Dignity Act struck down as unconstitutional. My internet access is limited at the moment and because this case is not urgent (i.e. it doesn't relate to an electoral issue), I would appreciate if the Court set a longer timetable that will give me sufficient time to rebutt arguments from the respondent.

For the information of those wondering about the grounds of my suit,

LGB Dignity Act.

All self described reperative therapy, psychological therapy, self help and 'ex gay' institutions, associations and ministries with the intent to subdue, erase, reform, negatively influence or attempt to change an individuals sexual orientation are hereby outlawed.

I do not think this can be justified under any federal power, moreover, I believe it could violate the free speech and free exercise of religion clauses as well.

I was the first to question the original act, and I still have serious reservations that there is simply no federal power that will authorise this bill, but I will post my full arguments once the Court outlines a timetable.

[Fritz]

Ummm, Peter??  That isn't the bill we passed.  This is:

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Purple State]

Peter, I amended the legislation specifically so that it would be constitutional. The version Fritz posted is correct.

[Peter]

I apologise for the confusion.

I believe the bill as passed and quoted in Fritz's post is unconstiutional. It is my contention that there is simply no enumerated power which enables the federal government to take such action.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

[SPC]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Where's the clause?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Where's the clause?

That's what I'm waiting on, good sir, I demand the specific section on bans for praying away the gay. If the constitution says we can't do it, then we can't!

[SPC]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Where's the clause?

That's what I'm waiting on, good sir, I demand the specific section on bans for praying away the gay. If the constitution says we can't do it, then we can't!

I'll ignore the obvious sarcasm and ask why you voted ifor it in the first place if you didn't think it was constitutional?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Where's the clause?

That's what I'm waiting on, good sir, I demand the specific section on bans for praying away the gay. If the constitution says we can't do it, then we can't!

I'll ignore the obvious sarcasm and ask why you voted ifor it in the first place if you didn't think it was constitutional?

Well it was obviously the fact that we're all just blinded here, being the very gay Senate that we are.

[Peter]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Please do not mock me. I am not often a harbinger of stupidity, and whilst I cannot objectively measure my present actions, I believe I am entitled to being heard out seriously.

My contention is that there is no clause in the federal constitution that will allow for a police power that extends to prohibiting a specific offence that has no direct impact on standards of commerce, foreign relations, employment, defence, transportation, etc. These are the things that the Feds can regulate, this isn't one of them and so is reserved to the Regions.

[Purple State]

I apologise for the confusion.

I believe the bill as passed and quoted in Fritz's post is unconstiutional. It is my contention that there is simply no enumerated power which enables the federal government to take such action.

Fair enough. I look forward to the decision of the Court.

I imagine the Senate will have no problem appointing Senator Marokai as counsel, as he is both the most fervent supporter of the legislation, as well as  a former AG.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I apologise for the confusion.

I believe the bill as passed and quoted in Fritz's post is unconstiutional. It is my contention that there is simply no enumerated power which enables the federal government to take such action.

Fair enough. I look forward to the decision of the Court.

I imagine the Senate will have no problem appointing Senator Marokai as counsel, as he is both the most fervent supporter of the legislation, as well as  a former AG.

If only we had some sort of current official for the national enforcement of the law, the Senate really should get on that.

[SPC]

Yes, I too demand the specific clause in the Constitution that allows for the prohibiting of "curing" gay people. This unconstitutional travesty should not be allowed to stand!

Where's the clause?

That's what I'm waiting on, good sir, I demand the specific section on bans for praying away the gay. If the constitution says we can't do it, then we can't!

I'll ignore the obvious sarcasm and ask why you voted ifor it in the first place if you didn't think it was constitutional?

Well it was obviously the fact that we're all just blinded here, being the very gay Senate that we are.

I would think that you would alerady have a justification handy, given that you or someone else provided one when the amendment was proposed.

[Purple State]

I apologise for the confusion.

I believe the bill as passed and quoted in Fritz's post is unconstiutional. It is my contention that there is simply no enumerated power which enables the federal government to take such action.

Fair enough. I look forward to the decision of the Court.

I imagine the Senate will have no problem appointing Senator Marokai as counsel, as he is both the most fervent supporter of the legislation, as well as  a former AG.

If only we had some sort of current official for the national enforcement of the law, the Senate really should get on that.

I don't mind kicking it to AG bgwah, especially considering the plaintiff is not the government as well. I just assumed you feel the most passionate about the issue and, as former AG, could do a good job defending the legislation.

Otherwise, someone get bgwah's attention to this and he can do his thing.

[Sam Spade]

I've gotten your message, Peter and hopefully the rest of the court will respond on whether to take the case or not soon enough.

[Sam Spade]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case. 

Schedule
The plaintiff has until Monday to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Monday, August 3, 2009.

The defendant has an additional seventy-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Monday, August 3, 2009, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

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.

So ordered.

[Purple State]

Bgwah, will you be taking this case on the side of the government?

[bgwah]

Bgwah, will you be taking this case on the side of the government?

Uhh, I'm leaving soon for a while... Dunno if I'll be back in time... If it's possible someone else could do it...

[Sam Spade]

bgwah and the rest of Respondents:

Let me know whether you want to have someone else argue the brief and get it in by the requisite time limit or whether you want me to extend the time limit.

As has been mentioned before, this is not an "urgent" case and a couple of days probably won't make a lot of difference.

[Purple State]

I believe, if the AG is in agreement, we would like an extension for the filing deadlines to allow bgwah to pop his case cherry.

[Sam Spade]

Alright, I'll start off with giving an extra 48 hours to all parties involved from the original time limits and we'll see whether any more is needed.  bgwah was a little unclear when he'd return, so if I'm wrong on the time needed, we can still change.

[Peter]

Thank you for granting an extension - I have only just seen the message. I will endeavour to file by Wednesday.

[Peter]

Hi, I'm having serious problems with the hot water/heating in my new place, that added to no internet until Friday/next week means that I would like to postpone the case until I have some proper time to sort it out.

[bullmoose88]

How much time would you need?

[Sam Spade]

I'm willing to give a few more days to all parties, but like bullmoose said, I'd like to know when to expect a brief.