It has been an unwritten rule for quite some time that the President appoints a GM, the Senate does not need to confirm the appointment, and the appointment assumes the role at his leisure.
The position of "GM" is only mentioned once in the constitution, that of course being Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 ("
The GM must provide the Senate with comprehensive economic figures (such as GDP estimates, estimates of tax revenue, or needed additional appropriations, etc.) at the above-specified times of drafting and approving each and every budget"). No rule or law exists as to where this "GM" comes from, or what "GM" even stands for. The constitution was likely written this way because its writer never saw a legal loophole like this making its way to the court whenever an unpopular appointment was finally made. The writer of our current constitution was probably of the philosophy that some things are better left unsaid, if only to keep people from getting too obsessed with technical details.
That's the beauty of this case, because a constitutional argument will not simply suffice. My best argument therefore comes from Atlasian precedent.
- On August 26, 2005, President Siege40
appointed the plaintiff to the position of GM. The plaintiff
formally accepted this appointment, soon resigned his seat in the Senate, and on September 8, 2005,
created the official GM thread with the formation of SAM News Corp. No record exists of the plaintiff swearing into this position as though it were similar to other types of office. It should be noted that throughout this period (which was operating under the same constitution as we are currently using), the plaintiff did not seek an injunction against his appointment, nor did he seek legal action against the President for his allegedly unconstitutional appointment.
- Upon the plaintiff's
resignation from the position of Game Moderator, which he served in because he was appointed to do so by a President, the defendant (which shall be used interchangeably in reference to myself throughout the rest of this argument), on April 24,
named a replacement. The replacement, Mr. True Democrat,
formally accepted the appointment. No record of him swearing himself into this office exists. Later that day, Mr. True Democrat
created his official GM thread and announced the formation of True News Inc. It should be noted that at no time did the plaintiff cite any constitutional opposition to this appointment. It should also be noted that in the plaintiff's resignation he stated that his move allowed him to return to "political life", again solidifying the well-established yet unwritten rule that the GM was not a regular political position.
- Mr. True Democrat resigned on May 16, 2006. The defendant
named a new GM on June 17, 2006, and citing that the position was mostly based on precedent, attempted to name an entire news organization as Game Moderator, resulting in the lawsuit set before this honorable court.
- The defendant was unable to find a record of any person swearing into the position of GM as one would for any other office. Additionally, amongst Senate debate regarding the removal of the position, the plaintiff
claimed that he found the position to be generally necessary in order to give real-world consequences to what the President and Senate do. Another Senator
remarked that the position of GM was not a constitutional one, implying that the existence of the position was based on unwritten rules and common sense.
- When a citizen stated that having a media source sticked was unconstitutional, the then-current Chief Justice of this court
remarked that "
The GM thread has been stickied since virtually it's [sic] inception. It's part of the game." Then-current GM John Ford
added the following: "
The GM thread is stickied because it is different than all other news threads. Its [sic] not just some newspaper. I don't just report the news. I am the Game Manager, or GM, an official position appointed by the President. I don't report news, I make it. I determine the outcomes of all government policy and what our world looks like so the government can act accordingly." He went on to nominate the citizen who had accused the thread stickying to be unconstitutional as the "laughing stock of Atlasia," despite the fact that there is no basis in the constitution to allow the GM to establish who the LSoA is at any moment in time. The plaintiff later bumped this thread because he found it amusing at the expense of the citizen who had cited constitutional concerns with having a sticked news thread.
Therefore the defendant concludes that the issue of whether or not a President may appoint a Game Moderator is not strictly an issue of Constitutionality, but rather one of Atlasian tradition and essentiality in order for the game to function in its current form. Should the Court rule the actions of the defendant on June 17, 2006 to be unconstitutional, the defendant simply asks: If the President does not appoint the "GM", who does? There is nothing to suggest that the appointment of the "GM" is the responsibility of any person except the President. And while the Constitution does not grant the President this power, this is likely for good reason; as implied earlier in my argument, the author of the Constitution likely felt that it was better that the issue of the GM was kept out of the law. On a purely functional basis, the President appoints a GM so that real events happen and news exists that the government can respond to. To jeopardize where the GM comes from would be detrimental to the continuation of the game. Therefore I ask the Court not to ignore the Constitution but rather recognize that this is not an issue of Constitutionality, and therefore reject the initial argument of the plaintiff.
Thank you for your time.
