As I've already signed on to another, and find myself in concurrence with the Secretary of Federal Elections, the brief I submit will be brief (no pun).
Your Honors,
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states "The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post." The Senate has made this determination in the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act,
Consistent with the standing law of the land, the results of the June 2012 Presidential Election certified by Homelycooking, Secretary of Federal Elections, should be upheld, making it clear that there is no electoral dispute.
Article III, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, cited by Young Tweed, states "The Supreme Court shall arbitrate in all disputes concerning federal elections." I find this clause unapplicable to Young Tweed's case against the Department of Federal Elections. Young Tweed has not demonstrated that there has been any dispute concerning a federal election. There is no Constitutional provision or statute he can cite that suggests the lowest total vote getter will be certified as the election winner. The Court, in Article III, Section 1, Clause 3, is given authority to
This power of nullification is not extended to election results in the Constution. The plaintiff seeks the nullification of the June 2012 Presidential Election Results for political reasons, not taking into account electoral law. Article VI, Clause 15 of the Constitution clearly states
Therefore the Court must uphold the certification of the June 2012 Federal Election and find it to be in accord with the Atlasian Constitution and all other Atlasian law.
Respectfully submitted,
Napoleon, President-elect
edit: Sorry for being a little late.
