To the Supreme Court

[??????????]

I wish to challenge the Federal Activity Bill as it stands. I believe it removes Senators and other government officials from office to quickly. I belive this bill is unfair. I wish to challenge it and hope to hear something back soon.

[Niles Caulder]

Senator, I very much repsect your position and feelings on the matter...and agree there's something a little askew with the litmus test of ejecting a legislator depending on the arbitary rate of legislation proposed in any given time period.

But I respectfully ask you to hold off on filing a law suit just yet...other measures for a successful resolution haven't been exhausted.

[KEmperor]

Well, you personally cannot challenge the law.  It has not affected you directly.  The way the law is written makes it a bit difficult to sue.  Someone who was removed for inactivity would have to return and then sue for their position back.

[StevenNick]

I bet that would be news to Ms. Roe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, I think it might be possible for any Senator to make a case.  The Act requires that a Senator vote at least once in every three times.  A Senator might for political reasons wish to not vote and yet remain a Senator.  As such it infringes upon the ability of a Senator to make a particular form of political speech and thus a Senator could seek injuctive relief from the Court which would make the Act subject to review by the Supreme Court even if the Senator had not yet fallen foul of the provisions of the Act.  The reasoning is convoluted, but I think it is sound, especially given the broad interpretation of what constitutes speech that US courts have traditionally used.

[Fritz]

I think that merely posting "abstain" would constitute voting for purposes of the Act.  Missing a vote requires not posting anything at all.

[KEmperor]

Actually, Stevennick himself might have a case here, since he has been targeted.