Sam Spade v. President Porce

[Sam Spade]

To the Supreme Court:

I wish to file suit against the President concerning his appointment of EarlAW, Jerusalemcar5, et al, aka Atlasia World News, to the position of "GM" or "Game Moderator".

I intend to pursue the argument that this appointment is illegal because the President has no individual power under Article II of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia to appoint a person or group of persons known as the "GM" or Game Moderator" to such a position.

I also have a secondary argument to pursue, but it requires the dismissal of the first.  If the court wishes to hear this, I will make it known.

I would also like to ask the court for a temporary injunction against the installment of the EarlAW, Jerusalemcar5, et al, aka "Atlasia World News" while this case is being argued and debated.

The plaintiff asks for a speedy trial.

Thank you.

[Sam Spade]

Although I'm sure that TCash would be impartial concerning this matter, as a matter of point I wish to ask for his recusal due to his involvement with the organization "Atlasia World News".

[Sam Spade]

I am willing to recuse myself from this case, or from AWN. Please note Justice Wixted is gone through the 25th, and without me, he would have to be present.

Either is fine with me, TCash, as long as the temporary injunction is granted.

If it is not granted, I would prefer recusal from AWN, so that the matter can be judged on with speed.

[Sam Spade]

I will present my arguments this evening when I get home from work.

Thank you for your speedy movement in this manner.  I would like to withdraw my request for temporary injunction as a result.

[Sam Spade]

Just letting the Court know that I wasn't able to get the argument done tonight.  It will be complete by tomorrow.

[Sam Spade]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

The "How dare you wuestion my morals" defense is, quite frankly, not reassuring.

The conflict of interest exists, regardless of how good a person you are.

I was not saying you should not "wuestion" my morals.  I said that there was no need to fear a conflict of interest.  We have each other as well as the President to check us.  The only conflict I could forsee if the President took over since he is the overseer.  If there is an overseer, Mr. Ford, then unless you expect that person to also have no ethics there is no problem.  Why don't you actually say something with some merit?

This raises a brand new cause for concern.  You are supposed to be objective to be GM, yet you can't carry on a conversation without making things personal or throwing around insults.  This isn't the kind of thing that will earn people's trust.

As for ethics and morality, you were the one that brought that up, not me.  You said that you were ethical, that in fact we are all ethical people here, and therefore there is no cause for concern about conflict of interest.  I don't think that defense is good enough, and never before in Atlasia has anyone thought that this defense was good enough.  Whether you are a good person or not is irrelevant, all that matters is the existence of a conflict of interest.

That conflict exists, and it shouldn't be allowed.

Yep, couldn't agree more really, Ford. 

[Sam Spade]

Just wanted to apologize to the Court for taking y'alls time on this.  The last two days, I've been around for about an hour total.  I should have it done either tonight or tomorrow, but if it's Sunday and I'm not done, I'll withdraw the case.  I don't want the case to go on forever.

[Sam Spade]

Main argument:

It is the plaintiff's contention that the President has no defined power under the Atlasian Constitution to appoint or dismiss a "GM" or "Game Moderator" or group of persons functioning as such.  Neither does the President have such a power to appoint and dismiss above proper considerations by any branch of government or the citizenry of Atlasia and without recourse to abuse or wrongdoing in his position.

First, there is considerable evidence to show that the position of "GM" should be subject to rules and regulation by the Atlasian Constitution.

The position of "GM" or "Game Moderator" is not mentioned in the First Constitution.  It is mentioned once in the Second Constitution, in passing within Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, concerning a provision which requires this individual(s) to provide the government with comprehensive economic figures.  The rest of the scope of the office, its powers and prerogatives and its limits and restrictions are left undefined by the Constution, except for the responsibility listed above.   Yet, the position of "GM" is specifically given powers within the Atlasian Constitution in this above-stated clause, and must therefore, if the plaintiff's argument is to be accepted, receive sanction under rules and regulations provided for by the same Constitution.

Moreover, the position of "GM" holds ceremonial influence over the Atlasian government and population.  As past instances have shown, the "GM" can influence public policy through oil shocks, fears of budget imbalances, and Chinese insurgency, but to name a few.  Citizens and politicians have believed and reacted according to these outside stimuli in many instances, so the relationship must be considered active and consequential.  The "GM" has a seminal role in Atlasian affairs, as these past instances illustrate, and cannot be considered a separate foreign entity to the Atlasian government.

If we accept that the "GM" has responsibilities under the Atlasian Constitution and holds many powers of unwritten influence over the government of Atlasia, it is necessary and logical to view the position of "GM" as being a governmental position of importance and regulation.

The President attempts to imply that he is granted the power to appoint and remove "GMs" through matters of tradition and informal precedent.  This assertion of power is weak and lacks thoroughness in either design or action.

First, the Court should note that there is no record of a "GM" having ever been removed from his position by the President, so there simply is no precedent for a removal.  Second, there is no guarantee, save the informal power of influence, that if a President were to ever remove a "GM", he would necessarily allow himself to be removed.  Appointment of another "GM" could lead to conflicting reports of duties required under Article I, Section 8 and more importantly, mulitple GMs could lead to conflicting scenarios, every dividing and splintering public opinion at large.

The plaintiff would simply point out that if there is no real power to remove a "GM", then wherein lies the power to appoint one.

Article II, Section I lays out the depth and quantity of Presidential powers.  Within these powers, there does not lie a power to appoint or remove a GM, nor is the power present within the powers of the Senate.  The decision of Fritz v. Ernest prescribed the limits of the government power as to those powers which had consititutional basis for the exercise thereof.

Without such a Constitutional basis to appoint or remove a "GM", it is therefore logical to assume that President Ebowed cannot appoint or remove a "GM" to perform the responsibilities outlined to the position in Article I, Section 8, and that his appointment to that position of the Atlasian World News (AWN), is illegal and without merit.

Secondary Argument (if necessary)

If the court decides that the President does have the inherent right (through precedent or power) to appoint a "GM" to his position and/or remove him from such, I would like to present this argument towards the overall power of the "GM", based on the principles established in Fritz v. Ernest.

Fritz v. Ernest laid out the guiding principle that there must be a constitutional basis for the exercise of power within the Atlasian Constitution.  If these powers do not exist, then these powers must be considered "essentally 'suggestions' that the regional governments can or cannot accept as they so please."

It would therefore be the assertion of the plaintiff that without rules, regulations and powers defining the office of the "GM", that with the notable exception of the "GM's" power under Article I, Section 8, that any other statements, scenarios, comments by the "GM" should be considered "suggestions" that the Atlasian citizenry or government may accept or ignore as they please.

If the President is denied power to appoint a "GM" under the Constitution, as my earlier argument contends, then it would also be logical for the President to have the authority to suggest a "GM" to the Atlasian population at large for either acceptance or disapproval.

I would like to thank the Court for its time.

[Sam Spade]

I'd like to hear from both parties whether or not the following constitutional provisions apply to the role of GM. If the president appoints and may remove, does it fall under an executive department? And if so, does the Senate have a right to assign duties? Is this how the Senate assumed it had the authority to specify the budget duties of the GM (by proposing a constitutional amendment)?

Article I, section 5  Clause 28 (Powers of the Senate)

To create the Executive Departments as it may deem necessary and to assign duties to their officers.

Article II, section 1, clause 4

The President shall appoint the Principal Officers of the executive departments who shall constitute the Cabinet, with the advice and consent of the Senate, who shall all be registered voters. The President shall have power to dismiss any member of his Cabinet.

If not "executive department," is it an office at all?

I would argue that it should fall under the aura of an "executive department" because it contains enumerated powers within the Constitution.  A person cannot hold powers within the Constitution and yet be "above the fray", so to speak.  There must be prescriptions for appointment, dismissal, and refusal.  The common citizenry of Atlasia (represented by the Senate) must have their legitimate rights protected against abuse of the power contained within the position of "GM".  Moreover, the "GM" has never been formalized in this manner as an executive department by the Senate.

I would also say that if it is not considered an "executive department", then its place, its appointment, its rights and defined powers must be met within the Constitution in order for the position of "GM" to have actual power (separate of the power in Article I, Section and not be just suggestions, as per Fritz v. Ernest.

[Sam Spade]

If not "executive department," is it an office at all?

I believe the answer to this is no.  The GM is entirely separate from the executive branch (or at least, it should be), nor is it an office, at least in the traditional sense of the word, because it is not sworn into.  Nor does it have a set term length, or anything else that defines a traditional office.

If, as you argue, the GM is entirely separate from the executive branch, then how, at the same time, is the President the sole avenue towards appointment and removal of the GM?

It would appear to me that under such a system, the GM is not separate from the executive branch, but rather a fundamental part of it, totally subservient and calling to and answering from the President (through his power of appointment and removal), rather than being a separate independent entity.

[Sam Spade]

I have no other real points to make, since upholding that the GM should be considered an executive department or office would eliminate the need for me to argue that one cannot hold the office of GM and hold another office within government.

However, if the court rules the GM is somehow "above the game", it would be logical for one to conclude that for one person or a group of persons to be appointed to a position that is "above the game", there would be an apparent conflict of interest for this same person or persons to be involved "in the game", so to speak, ie, in a governing or ruling authority.  Abuse of the power to create and provide numbers in Article I, Section 8 could be used to influence or force other elected officials to submit their own wishes to the wishes of the GM/elected official.

If the court has any other questions to ask, I'll be quite happy to answer, otherwise, the plaintiff rests his case.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry for the delay, folks. I've had a very busy week and Colin was out of town last weekend. We have been discussing the case and will issue an opinion in the next several days.

Thanks for your patience.

thank you.