Weatherboy vs The South

[Bacon King]

Please note that the following clarification has no bearing on the court's deliberation on this matter, and should simply be understood as an unrelated aside

Literally in the Supreme Courtroom, your chamber, is a beautiful frieze depicting the biblical Moses holding the 10 Commandments and the Prophet Muhammad. (See Exhibit B 1 and B 2). The National Motto is carved above the rostrum in the Atlasian Senate chamber. (See Exhibit C) One of the first acts of our government in 1789 was hiring a Congressional chaplain. Almost every legislative session is opened with a prayer, something protected by this Court less than a decade ago in Town of Greece v. Galloway 572 US 565 (2013).

I don't mean to single you out Mr. Reactionary but I see a misconception here that's become increasingly common as of late, to the point that I feel it necessary to address. To be clear, I'm not criticizing you or your brief, I wish only to edify the Supreme Court bar as a whole to keep everyone on the same page going forward

Atlasia is not the United States, but a distinct polity that maintains an independent (if simulated) existence. While Atlasia is inspired by the USA of the real world, it's not a 1:1 replacement. The presence of something irl does not necessarily imply its presence in Atlasia except as noted by the GM

The Atlasian Supreme Court is not the US Supreme Court, and we have no physical court building. We don't hear cases in the US Supreme Court building, we hear them in the Atlas Fantasy Government forum of talkelections.org

Likewise, US Supreme Court precedent is not binding upon this court - their opinions have never been the opinions of this court. Furthermore Atlasia operates within a distinct and unique constitutional framework that makes it impossible to meaningfully apply US legal precedents in any logically consistent way. This court is authoritatively beholden to no precedent but its own.

However on that note it is still perfectly reasonable, and encouraged, to cite irl case law in terms of how to apply our own constitutional principles, especially in circumstances where the language of the Atlasian constitution deliberately mirrors the that of the US constitution. So while we are not bound by irl US jurisprudence, they can indeed serve as the best guide for the court as we build Atlasia's own body of case law.

for reference, note the following excerpts from this court's opinion in Politics Fan v South:

   The Supreme Court of Atlasia finds it necessary to recognize the existence of Reality. Our nation must be understood within the confines of its existence as a government simulation; the Atlasian Constitution itself establishes this framework. For example, citizens are granted the right to vote not by reaching adulthood, but by registering an account on the internet discussion forum upon which “Atlasia” is hosted. Article VI of our Constitution even specifically defines the authority responsible for “simulating” the impact of citizens’ actions and controlling their interactions with various “non-playable entities”.

We can safely assume the right to privacy exists within our own jurisprudence by judging the original intent of the authors of Atlasia’s current Constitution. The framers were obviously familiar with United States Bill of Rights and the inferred right to privacy contained therein. They were not merely inspired by the Bill of Rights, they deliberately copied its Amendments verbatim for inclusion within Article I of our own Constitution. This direct transfer of such precise language indicates a clear desire to apply contemporary American Bill of Rights jurisprudence upon Atlasia as they would have understood it – which includes a right to privacy.

   Therefore, while the right to privacy can be discerned from various components of Article I, it can with certainty and simplicity be understood to exist as an unlisted natural right for the purposes of Article I, Section 13 (which states in full: “The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage those natural rights and liberties herein unlisted”).
In addition to covering personal privacy, this right also has some extension that covers marriage, procreation, contraception, as well as family planning; this is evident in cases such as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut, both of which were decided within the common law jurisdiction of the United States based upon Constitutional language in their Bill of Rights that is verbatim identical to our own Article I. Again, the intention of our Constitution’s authors is clear: inclusion of identical language means our own judiciary can look to its real-world United States counterpart for guidance. This does not mean real-world precedent applies to our nation in any meaningful way, of course, but it is a natural element of common law judicial systems that we can look to other common law systems for guidance whenever no controlling precedent exists.

Thanks for taking the time to read my tangent everyone. It's not necessarily the MOST important stuff - when someone (for example) makes an argument that treats US case law as binding, or otherwise doesn't understand the distinction between America and Atlasia, I don't hold it against them. I'll always do my best to infer what they mean within Atlasia's constitutional framework -- and where possible I endeavor to bridge that understanding gap with my questions during oral arguments, to help ppl reframe their case.

Hopefully my explanation makes sense and it can help everyone crafting arguments in future cases. If nothing else, I suppose this post will be a useful resource, and in the future I will link ppl back to this post so they will understand me when I'm asking what their argument means within a strictly Atlasian constitutional context

[Bacon King]

I sincerely apologize for my tardiness here. For my day job I run a plant nursery, and as you can probably imagine, early spring is an extremely busy period for flower sales. I just worked for 16 consecutive days, with most of those days requiring 10+ hours of my time (which includes a great deal of heavy lifting and other manual labor). Basically, my entire life has been nothing but work-sleep-eat-repeat, with no time to participate in the oral arguments here (or do literally anything else, for that matter). Thankfully however I've finally been able to carved out a few days of personal time followed by several <8 hour shifts, to give myself some sorely needed "me" time. For our purposes here, that means I can now give this case the attention it deserves. Thank you all for your understanding

I only have a single line of questioning to ask, which will follow in a dedicated post that can be expected later this morning (after I've had a few more hours' sleep). Also I'll be diligent with my responses and follow-up questions so I don't drag the case out any longer than necessary!

[Bacon King]

To the esteemed Southern Attorney General:

Unlike three of my fellow Justices, I did not participate in the 2015/2016 constitutional convention, and as a result I have no real familiarity with its internal procedures. I therefore have several questions about this "Wiping All Current Laws" thread/vote you have referenced, how you've interpreted its significance, and the broader implications of this interpretation. You extrapolate an extensive argument here and I feel it necessary to take a closer look.

For reference, note that I'm not directly questioning your conclusion as it pertains to the present trial, but rather the broader consequences of the argument presented.

1. What indicates to you that this vote itself was -- and still is -- binding? Did the thread itself indicate the vote outcome would be final and absolute? Could the thread instead be treated as an informal poll among the convention delegates? I wonder if they could have been merely establishing their consensus on the issue, to guide them when crafting the Constitution itself -- hypothetically, akin to a poll asking something like "should we have a Presidential or Parliamentary system?" or maybe, "legislature: unicameral or bicameral?". Questions that would not be binding in themselves, but instead just informally determined what the drafters would establish as binding in the Constitution itself.

2. Is the decision reached by the "Wiping All Current Laws" thread at all present in the convention's finished product? Does the Constitution itself establish the 2016 US legal code as Atlasian law, whether explicitly or implicitly? If so, where? If not, can you provide any examples (in the US, Atlasia, or elsewhere) of a written constitution whose drafters decided on something, declined to enshrine that decision into their constitution, but later judicial opinions determined thee decision was part of the constitutional framework despite its absence from the constitution itself?

3. Regardless of the above, is it reasonable for this court to determine that real world laws exist as a definite component of Atlasian law even when the relevant Atlasian legislature (at regional or federal level) has declined to enact something akin to a reception statute enshrining irl laws into their own legal code?

4. If your argument is correct, that 2016 US laws (at both state and federal level) all exist within Atlasian law unless they've been repealed, how do you account for the fact that there's not exactly a one-to-one correlation between the Atlasian and American constitutional framework? For example, you reference irl state laws that have not been overturned in Atlasia, but how do you account for the fact that Atlasian states are nothing more than geographical subdivisions of the Regions? How could it ever be possible for an Atlasian state government to overturn any law that's been grandfathered in? How do you account for the fact that regional governments don't exist according to all the US laws you argue still apply for us? How do you account for the fact that many US laws refer to various executive agencies and cabinet departments that do not exist in Atlasia? If you posit all these laws still apply for us, how should they be adapted to apply to the context of our simulation? Are Atlasian citizens forced to follow an entire system of "shadow laws" enacted by legislatures that don't exist, and enforced by agencies that according to Atlasian law do not exist?

5. If the court accepts your premise that many real world laws still exist as Atlasian laws, how should this court apply the very many laws that are nonsensical if directly applied to Atlasia? Do any bright line rules and general principles exist this court can consistently apply to "adapt" US laws to our system? If not, must this court be perpetually condemned to determine entirely on a case by case basis how precisely these laws apply to our simulation?

6. Is there not a simpler way this court might determine that the phrase "In God We Trust" has historically been commonplace in the context of our post-reset Atlasian world, without opening such an insurmountable can of worms?

[Bacon King]

also, as a post-script:

I know tone is difficult to convey through text, so I really hope my previous post doesn't come across as hostile or unfairly critical!

I ask so many questions not because I hate the argument or something, but because I'm so fascinated and intrigued by it. It's a surprising and unorthodox perspective, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it here, doing my due diligence to test how it holds up under scrutiny. In particular I'm very hesitant to embrace a very broad ruling that might have lots of unintended consequences

[Bacon King]

I am working on a response to address the various parts of the questions and should have a good analysis posted in the next couple of days (I have 9 cases in real life court tomorrow that I need to prioritize tonight.)

understood, take as much time as you need here, real-world obligations always come first

Just as a quick preliminary, not yet complete survey, on my lunch break I counted 122 post-reset Atlasian federal laws on the not up-to-date Wiki that directly reference or claim to amend pre-reset U.S. laws as well as 15 Southern Laws that directly reference or claim to amend identified pre-reset State laws. I've barely gotten into Fremont and have found 1 so far. Im going to look at Fremont, Lincoln, EOs, and GM canon too.

Ill attach the final survey of everything as an Exhibit to my response.

This is fascinating, not at all what I would have expected (admittedly though I haven't been an Atlasian legislator in like eight years, so I have no idea how the sausages are made these days). Very excited for the full survey!