Your Honor(s) May it Please the Court,
Amicus Curiae BriefRe: Republic v. Down With the Left
Government of Atlasia
Questions Presented1. Can Joe Republic, citizen of Atlasia, sue a sitting senator, DWTL, who does not represent him in the Atlasia Senate?
2. If so, can the Supreme Court of Atlasia be a finder of fact, that is, can it determine, factually speaking, if Mr. Republic's accusations are indeed true?
Discussion1. Does Joe Republic need standing to sue DWTL?
Direct injury to the plaintiff may not be required under Atlasian rulings to pursue his case against Senator DWTL.
MAS v. Bullmoose (Cash J). On the other hand, real life American jurisdictions, both state and federal, generally require some sort of injury on the behalf of the plaintiff to sue, unless standing is authorized by statute.
Certainly this court could clarify the issue one way or the other. It could clarify the necessity of injury to sue and either uphold
MAS v. Bullmoose or it could take a different tack than that case (unofficial ruling) and take a position consistent with American jurisdictions.
If it upholds that prior case, the plaintiff may be able to pursue his case. If not, the court may need then to rule on whether atlasian citizens have the right to sue federal senators regardless if those senators represent the jurisdiction or district in which the plaintiff resides. If on a constitutional question such as this, the court finds that any citizen can sue a senator regardless of what district or region that senator represents, then Republic may proceed. If not, then the court would have to dismiss the case for lack of standing.
This office is unsure of the wisdom of making standing with regards to constitutional violations so broad.
(note: There is an additional issue of the plaintiff being a citizen of Atlasia at the time of filing suit but this office feels that issue is rather clear and unambiguous as a matter of law, although the court may need to examine issues of fact.)
2. Can the Atlasian Supreme Court be a finder of fact rather than just rule on matters of law?
The constitution of atlasia seems to imply that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to preside over a question of fact (ie: did something occur/someone do something or not?) but rather with regards t federal criminal prosecutions, if this is one, the accused is entitled to a jury trial presided over by one member of this court.
Article III, Section 2. Adding to the complexity of this case, this seems to also lend to the interpretation that if this is a criminal case, the government of Atlasia, not the plaintiff, is the proper party to bring suit in that the plaintiff's own constitutional rights were not violated.
The Supreme Court, en banc as the highest court in the land, does not appear to have the power to hear a case where the issues of fact are unresolved because while the constitution grants it the power to nullify or void federal/regional laws it does not grant it the power to initially decide fact.
See Article III, Section 1. That power is reserved for the federal "trial" court.
This court could order such a trial and then address the questions of law (not fact) eminating from that case.
ConclusionFor these reasons, this office would recommend that the Court create a trial court to hear the questions of fact, determine which party, either Mr. Republic, or the Government of Atlasia, is the proper party to bring suit. If the court determines that Atlasia is the proper party, this office asks that trial be postponed in order that should the incoming president wish to change his cabinet, his possible new appointment would have time to review the facts of this case.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bullmoose88
Attorney General of Atlasia
