OSR v. The Office of DoFE

[FairBol]

Amicus Brief/Brief

Mr. FAIRBOL, acting as counsel for POIROT, a citizen of Atlasia and interested party to the case, files this brief. 

Arguments are as follows:


I. VALIDITY OF AMENDMENT

Quoting the brief to this Court by OriAr:

"On February 8, 2023 the Senate of Atlasia repealed the purported allowance of foreigners living in the U.K. to vote in Atlasian elections despite not being domiciled in Atlasia.

This law was never vetoed by the President. Accordingly, after 10 days, it came into effect on February 18, 2023. At such time, foreigners residing in the U.K. no longer were eligible to vote in Atlasian elections”.

To this, I present a question as to the powers of the Atlasian Senate; specifically, at what time does a session of that body expire? RL precedent holds that expiration to be upon the start of elections for the next term of office, whether the body is officially adjourned ("sine die") or not.

This question is relevant because of the definition of the term “pocket veto”.

According to Wikipedia, “a pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the president does not sign it within the ten-day period and cannot return the bill to Congress because Congress is no longer in session”.

Thus, the timing of the amendment’s effective passage becomes an issue.  Petitioner asserts that such passage was achieved on February 18.

Be that as it may, this is after the beginning of the February 2023 Federal Election for Senate and other offices, which opened at 1 AM Eastern Time the previous day.

If previous precedent on the matter is correct, then it must be held that the Senate was not in a valid session at the time of the bill’s claimed passage.  This would result in a pocket veto towards the same.

In the event of such a veto, the votes of Mr. Griffin and Mr. Thumb must be regarded as valid.

Counsel submits that this is indeed the case, and as such, the certification of the vote should be allowed to stand.

(Pocket Veto information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto#United_States)

[FairBol]

Another amicus brief, this one attempting to explain the previous presented argument. 

It seems to me that the Court really hasn't considered my argument in this case.  Allow me to explain. 

As I pointed out in the case thread:

According to Wikipedia, “a pocket veto occurs when a bill fails to become law because the president does not sign it within the ten-day period and cannot return the bill to Congress because Congress is no longer in session”.

The petition says that the statute allowing foreigners to vote was repealed by the Senate, with such repeal taking effect on February 18, 2023 due to inaction of the president. 

Here's what the Fifth Atlasian Constitution says about pending legislation (Article III Section 1, clauses 8-9):

8. All legislation passed by the Senate, save constitutional amendments and resolutions, shall, before it becomes law, be submitted to the judgement of the President. A passed bill shall become law upon the signature of the President or seven days of Presidential inaction.

So normally, upon seven days of inactivity of the president in regards to a bill, the bill becomes law even without his signature. 

Now we come to Clause 9:

9. Should the President disapprove of a bill, it shall be sent back to the Senate. If, after considering the President’s objections, the Senate passes the bill again by a two-thirds vote, it shall become law regardless.

--

Note the part I've highlighted in bold.  It says that "should the president disapprove of a bill, (the bill) shall be sent back to the Senate". 

Well, what if the Senate is not in session at the time of the seven-day expiration?


Although the Constitution doesn't specifically define a "session", RL precedent holds that the term means an individual meeting of the legislative body; "each Congress generally has two sessions". 

And in this case, "meeting" can be construed as meaning a term of the Atlasian Senate, which lasts for about two months (Article III Section 2, Clause 1, sub-clause I).


Referring again to RL precedence, a term is generally considered to expire upon the opening of the next election for that office.  At that point, the previous Senate no longer has the power to make law; such power is held up until the members of a new Senate are elected, and that meeting/session begins.   

This is the meaning behind the phrase "pocket veto"; due to the adjournment of the legislative body, the president cannot return the bill in question.  In that case, such a bill "shall not be a law" (Article I Section 7, US Constitution)



The February election opened on February 17th.  The bill supposedly came into force of law on February 18th; one day after the previous term would have expired. 

So the concern is this; was the Senate in valid session when the bill came into force, or was it not? If the latter interpretation is the correct one, then the bill was vetoed by use of the "pocket veto", and its provisions repealing the ability for foreigners Griff and Thumb to vote never took effect. 

In that case, the defendants win.

I am asking this Court to define and clarify the matter of when a "session" of the Atlasian Senate ends. 

Thank you esteemed Justices.