Sam Spade v. Secretary of Forum Affairs

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Justice Ernest for the Court, with Justice Opebo concurring in full, and Chief Justice Bullmoose88 concurring with only part I and dissenting with parts II and III:

I

It is clear that Sam Spade met the constitutional and statutory requirements to be a listed candidate on the ballot, in that he was registered on June 9, 2008.  As such, under the language of the Consolidated Electoral System Reform Act, the votes that Sam Spade received should have been counted, which would produce the result that Sam Spade that was registered on June 9, 2008 was the victor of the election.

II

However, this does not necessarily imply that Sam Spade should be sworn in as Senator on July 4, 2008.  To determine whether he should be a full analysis of the implications and constitutionality of the Deregistration Act must be considered.

Under the Deregistration Act, deregistration followed by reregistration is not the same as restoration of the original registration. Only one aspect, residency, of the prior registration is carried over.  If a reregistration were to be treated as a restoration of the prior registration, then it would be possible for a deregistered individual to vote and then reregister and have his vote count, which would be in contradiction of Section 2 Clause 2 of that Act.

Clearly, the reregistered Sam Spade is not entitled to all the privileges of held by Sam Spade when he deregistered.  He was a Senator when he deregistered and even tho the Southeastern  never did appoint a replacement, he is constitutionally barred from holding the office of Senator during his deregistration.  It would be most improper for him to resume that Senate seat upon reregistration.  Hence the question thus becomes what privileges are retained by a reregistered individual.

To that end, let me examine upon what basis the Senate could authorize deregistration.  It is not an explicit power.  Indeed, Article 5 Section 2 of the Constitution sets mandatory requirements for how a person may register and gives three specific conditions under which a registration shall be made invalid, none of which pertain to deregistration as defined in the Deregistration Act.  The only way I can see to support the Act’s constitutionality is the Senate's Article I Section 5 power "To establish uniform rules of Naturalization and Alienation".  Thus deregistration under the Deregistration Act is a form of Alienation and subsequent reregistration is a form of Naturalization.

Thus, for the purposes of the law, the Sam Spade that registered on June 23, 2008 is not the same legal person as the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008 and thus is not victor of the election.

III

Since the victor of the election, the Sam Spade that deregistered on June 15, 2008, is not available to take office this court holds that a special election be conducted forthwith for the vacancy in the office of Southeast Senator that will exist as of July 4, 2008.

Ernest

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd like to ask Justice Ernest, if there are two Sam Spades, do the posts made prior to deregistration count towards the deregistered Sam Spade or the reregistered Sam Spade? If he's a different entity, one would assume his posts don't carry over and he must post 75 times to qualify for the new election.

Posts made prior to a first registration count, therefore I see no reason why those made prior to a reregistration should not.  Speaking speculatively, it likely would be within the bounds of the Senate's power under Article V Section 2 Clause 3 to require a specific degree of activity for voters (and thereby candidates) after registration in order to be able to vote.  However, existing legislation uses a fixed span of time, unrelated to when a voter registered, to be the period in which activity is measured.