Well then, we disagree.
Maybe a real lawyer could explain this. Badger, you out there?
Well, I'll offer one lawyer's perspective anyway. Find another and pay his retainer and you'll likely get a contrary opinion.
I agree that the federal constitution takes precedence in any conflict with regional constitutional provisions. Note Clause 2 of the same section (subsequently repealed by the 18th Amendment, but doesn't change it's applicability here) also explicitly applies to federal and regional officeholders.
I likewise agree the Atlasia Constitution's language on this subject is crystal clear. "
any level of government" means exactly that; from President and senator down to regional assembly member. "The Republic of Atlasia" is as all encompassing term to include the regions rather than merely the federal government itself, the same as "The United States of America" includes all 50 states and the various territories.
Regarding standing, I don't think it was necessary to do away with it here as the A-G clearly has standing to enforce the laws of Atlasia which obviously includes provisions of the Atlasian Constitution. That said I don't mourn dumping the Court's dumping the standing provision as a RL matter that doesn't fit well at all in our game much as Peter described above.
Now Franzl makes an interesting point in that there is no explicit penalty stated for violation of this constitutional provision as there are for statutes. For a legislative statute this deficiency can actually render enforcement of its provisions null and void. When the Ohio Legislature revamped driving license laws a couple years ago, it included penalties for persons with expired licenses depending on the length of expiration (< or > 6 months) and number of prior convictions, but forgot to include penalties for individuals caught driving who never had a license at all. Thus for a brief period of time until the oversight was corrected it was essentially legal to drive a car in Ohio if you never had a license. Ah, our state leg....
I don't believe that's a problem here, however, as constitutional provisions rarely include an actual penalty provision. In the absence of additional federal or regional penalties, it would seem prohibition on holding a second office would make the act of holding multiple offices a nullity. If the Court (likely) rules against Libertas, it is axiomatic it has the power to deny him from holding both offices.
With that in mind, based on practice and precedent in the swearing-in thread, it would appear that Libertas taking the oath as NE Lt. Gov. acted to immediately terminate his office as NE Rep., and his subsequently taking the oath as (reelected) NE Rep. was a nullity. Hence making Libertas NE. Lt. Governor and creating a vacancy in the NE Assembly.
Hope that helps. I'll be sending my bill shortly.