Note to self: make sure I bring up a similar case when Emsworth or Colin leave.I support the comments of others that the Court was usuing judicial activism, not sound constitutional judgement, to rule on this case.
Do you even know what judicial activism is?
Yes it is when you put personal feelings ahead of the law in order to amend, uphold, or create laws.
I take complete offence to that. Article VI of the Constitution, as is true with the rest of the Constitution, only pertains to the activities of the government. Article II, which is concerned with the office of the Presidency, does not apply to CEOs so why should Article VI be anything different? Article VI states the limits and parameters of constitutional governance within Atlasia. From its first clause which establishes that the Government of Atlasia cannot abridge the freedom of speech, free expression and press, which seems to be coming up now in the Articles of Impeachment, to the final clauses dealing with the desparagement of rights and the denial of the right to vote. All of them deal specifically with the government.
In order to actual believe the arguement made by the opponents of this case we must first off believe that Article VI is completely different from the rest of the Constitution because it applies to everyone who is currently in Atlasia. In my view this would be preposterous since the rest of the Constitution has nothing to do with private matters and private business and property.
Just like the rest of the Constitution Article VI deals with the Atlasian government and sets limits and barriers to government power and intervention in much the same way as Article I, Sections 5-7 set up limits and barriers to Senatorial legislative powers. In my view Article VI is no different than the Powers Sections in Article II only Article VI deals with the entirity of the Atlasian government while the powers sections of Article II only deal with the Senate.
