Computer89 v. The Atlasian Senate

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The Supreme Court grants certiorai.

     We will need briefs from Mr. reagente on behalf of the petitioner and from a designated agent on behalf of the respondent. The Court will be expecting a brief by the petitioner by 11:59 PM EDT on 6/10/2023 and the response from the Senate (which can be represented any citizen in good standing that they agree upon) by 11:59 PM EDT on 6/12/2023. The Court requests that we receive notification of the selection of the person to submit the response brief as soon as possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     We've been waiting for the Senate for some time, but given that there are time concerns involved I think I will go ahead and prepare questions for the petitioner to ask tomorrow. The Senate is still welcome to file an official response brief if it wishes, but it is not feasible for the Court to wait forever.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Counsel, do you see any practical implications of how the Court rules in this matter on the vote of the Senate that has already concluded on this matter?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thank you, counsel, that is all the questions I had. Reading your brief thoroughly answered most of the ones I was thinking about.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To the respondent, what are your thoughts on the mootness question? I recognize that you did not raise that issue, but the original amicus brief that did raise it came after your response, so I am curious if you would like to comment on it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

uh can we get a ruling please?

     We are discussing this now. Progress has been slow, but the case has not been forgotten.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Supreme Court of Atlasia
Nyman, DC
Computer89 v. The Atlasian Senate

Opinion of the Court delivered by Associate Justice PiT, joined by Associate Justices ilikeverin, Gass3268, Sestak

I

The question before the Court today deals with the question of whether it is permissible under the Constitution to impeach a sitting Senator. To begin, the Court iterates that this opinion does not touch on the matter of expulsion, which the Constitution furnishes to the Senate as a power and which was not an issue raised by the petitioner.

Considering that the Court is not considering the validity of the expulsion, we do not accept the mootness argument offered by an amicus brief; even though the petitioner's Senate term has lapsed by now regardless, the Court considers the question of whether the Constitutional penalties of impeachment will pertain to him germane.

II

The matter at controversy ultimately hinges on the question of what constitutes "other officers" in Article III, Section 3, Clause 17 of the Fifth Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, which empowers the Senate to prosecute Articles of Impeachment against such individuals. The petitioner demonstrates that where the word "officers" is used it tends to refer to members of the Executive Branch. Examining the Constitution, the Court notices that there is only one instance where the word "officers" clearly pertains to members of the Senate, found in Article III, Section 1, Clause 5:

The Senate shall elect a President pro tempore to preside over the body in the absence of the President of the Senate as well as any other officers as it so chooses, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

In this case it pertains to the Senate's internal housekeeping, which does not support the thesis that this would make Senators subject to impeachment proceedings. Combined with Article IV, Section 4 referring to "all civil officers" in a section of the Constitution that is devoted to defining the Executive Branch, the Court considers the internal textual evidence of the Constitution to support the idea that Senators are not meant to be subject to impeachment, albeit weakly.

III

The petitioner raises the point that Senators are not subject to impeachment under the United States Constitution. While the respondent correctly notes that the United States Constitution is now defunct, the reality is that this document forms the foundation of the law of the Republic of Atlasia, and where there are differences those differences are subject to careful deliberation by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention. Where the text does not change significantly, as a matter of principle its interpretation should follow that which prevailed under the United States Constitution.

With that in mind, the Court finds in favor of the petitioner and determines that members of the Senate are not subject to the penalties of impeachment.