Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[bullmoose88]

Just a Note, this matter has been brought to the court's attention (hopefully the court looks at its inboxes)...stay tuned (hopefully tomorrow) for further details

Ray S. Judicata,

Clerk

[bullmoose88]

The Court has decided, unanimously, to take the case.  The court will be taking briefs.  Due date this Friday, June 27th 2008, 6pm Eastern.  Argument will commence shortly thereafter.

The court, by a 2-1 vote, has decided to grant the plaintiff's injunction, effective immediately to be lifted at the disposition of the case.  While one justice thought no harm could come about by allowing balloting to continue, two justices thought it prudent to grant the injunction at this time.

So ordered.

[bullmoose88]

Does that count as an official brief?

The court will accept it as an amicus brief.

The court also recommends that the relevant parties use the brief format it has outlined during prior occasions.  The court is imposing a Friday deadline for the plaintiff and a 24 hour response time for the defendant to expedite this matter given the time implications for the election.

Structure...

The Caption (Appellant's name vs. Appellee's Name

Statement of Facts

Here should be your brief outline of the facts in the case, including the procedural history.  Parties are reminded they have a duty to be honest to the court.

Question(s) Presented

Here you should state the questions of LAW (not fact) you want the court to consider

Argument

Here you should try to answer the questions you asked in the QP section.  If you have multple questions, you should break your argument up to answer each, prefaced by a sentence long point heading answering your QP for that part.

Conclusion

Briefly sum up your argument


The length and depth is up to you...the brief is your way of helping the court.

[bullmoose88]

I have a couple of questions that both parties can address...

The plaintiff's brief quotes Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 ("No Person shall be a Senator who has not attained a hundred or more posts, and is not a registered voter in the District or Region that they represent.").

My question is, how important is the fact the article, if quoted correctly, uses the term "and" rather than "or" to join the two requirements.  Is the court unreasonable in reading the clause to require both the condition that of less than 100 votes AND registration prior to candidate disqualification?

Or do implicit policy reasons (namely being a registered voter, ala resident of, the represented district) demand this court go beyond the absolute literal text of this article and possibly stretch, which I personally am heistant to do, an interpretation of it?

Second...the Deputy Secretary relies upon Second Constitution, Article 5, Section 2, Clause 4 which states, "In order to vote or be a candidate in an election, a person must have been a registered voter on the tenth day before that election...."

The court is wondering if there are factual circumstances regarding the plaintiff's registration which would run afoul of this clause.  In short...how many days before the election did deregistration occur?

If Mr. Spade's registration does not violate this clause, then I personally cannot buy the DSoFA's transitive claim.

But supposing the deregistration brought this clause into play...it would seem to conflict with my reading of Article I, Section 1, Clause 2.  Which clause should i rely more upon?


One more question (Columbo style)...the DSoFA claims there is a transitive link which would thus enable a reading of F.L. 11-1, the Dereigstration Act Section 2, Clause 2 to also apply to candidacies.


My final question is this...given how often this issue comes up...doesn't the absence of any explicit terms referring to candidacies along with voting imply that the Senate did NOT want this act to cover that issue?

Thats all I can think of for now...perhaps my bretheren have some thoughts.

[bullmoose88]

I have a question for the counsel that is also related to the Dereigstration Act Section 2, but concerning the implications of Clause 3: "Should a citizen who has deregistered, re-register with Atlasia within sixty days of their deregistration, then they remain bound by the requirements of Article V, Section 2, Clause 7 as amended by the Seventh Amendment."

That clause makes a reregistration within sixty days the same as if it the person had never deregistered as far as place of residency is concerned. An expansive reading of Clause 3 would thus imply that a reregistration makes a deregistration null and void in other circumstances as well.  I'd like for counsel to address why an expansive reading would or would not be appropriate.

Well, I mentioned a little bit of the history behind deregistration in order to address the scope of what Senators at that time might have had in mind when writing the Act.  This clause, perhaps the most specific of all of the clauses, dealt with the most important deregistration  problem at that time - posters (named Philip) either deregistering or deleting their names in order to move between states before the two-month period was over.

I think the language is pretty clear concerning the statute's intent, it should read narrowly

However, the specificity of this clause and the problem that it was supposed to address signifies that other clauses, such as the one pointed to by Defendant should not be given a broad scope (i.e. inability to vote silently implies inability to not be a declared candidate)

Is my Brother Ernest satisfied with this response?  Does he have a follow up question?  Does the defendant wish to chime in?

Does the plaintiff have anything else he wishes to add on this matter?  I believe any of his additional insights would be most helpful in our disposition of this matter.

[bullmoose88]

I see no reason why we cannot consider them in our deliberations and decisions.

[bullmoose88]

Am I correct in remembering that in real life, in the United States, it does not matter how old a candidate is when (s)he is elected to say the senate, or the presidency as long as (s)he met the requirement at the time (s)he assumed office?

[bullmoose88]

Am I correct in remembering that in real life, in the United States, it does not matter how old a candidate is when (s)he is elected to say the senate, or the presidency as long as (s)he met the requirement at the time (s)he assumed office?

That's an age requirement, there is no logical way in which they could NOT meet the age requirement.  If I correct a candidate could not live in Rhode Island, be elected senator of Utah and then move their before the term started.  I know representatives do not have to reside in their district, but that's how the law is written.  This law is written that the person MUST live in the region to be senator, and when Spade was voted for he did not "live" in the region

I'm not sure I totally buy that argument...however, I'll leave it for now and move on...

So what is your (collective you, anyone chime in) opinion of write in ballots for candidates who are real life personas?

It seems to me we have a tradition of accepting those votes, even when they are cast in jest, and registering them in the tabulations, even if they do not change the end result for the atlasian candidates.

[bullmoose88]

To all interested parties,

The Court has reached its decision.  Justice Ernest will present the opinion.  Additional opinion(s) may follow.

Sincerely,
Ray S. Judicata

[bullmoose88]

The CHIEF JUSTICE, concurring as to Part I of the Court's Opinion, and dissenting as to Parts II and III of the decision.

I

I agree with the Court's determination that the Sam Spade who was registered on 9 June 2008 is the rightful victor of the Southeast Election.

II

However, I cannot agree with the Court's interpretation of the Deregistration Act. 

The Deregistration Act (FL 11-1) reads as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The section of the constitution quoted in the act reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I interpret the act and our constitution, once one joins Atlasia they forever remain a citizen of Atlasia--even if they have deregistered.  Furthermore, the act and the constitution imply that one is a resident of the region they last registered in, even after deregistration, until they reregister somewhere else.

But more importantly, even though he has deregistered and reregistered, the same citizen, Sam Spade, who won the Southeast Senatorial election is the same Sam Spade for the purposes of the election.

While this notion may be uncomfortable for some that one could deregister and reregister when it suits them, it should put the people and their representatives on notice to be more careful when crafting their laws.   

III

Whether Sam Spade, the eligible candidate and Senator-Elect, is eligible to assume his office on inauguration day or at any time later in his term, is a different matter.

If he is at unable to take office then, in my view, the proper course is to treat his seat as vacant until he is qualified to be seated, or until the senate decided to expel him (or his region recalled him).

While the Court's method of calling for a special election does allow for instant representation for Southeastern voters, I feel we are overstepping our bounds with this order.


For these reasons I respectfully dissent from Parts II and III of the Court's judgment


x Bullmoose88, CJ