Attn Supreme Court

[Хahar 🤔]

I am appealing this decision by the Southeastern Magistrate on the grounds tha tthe Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in regional elections.

[bullmoose88]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this case. 

Judgment will be stayed against Petitioner until the conclusion of the appeal.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Saturday, November 7, 2009.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Monday, November 9, 2009.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Saturday, November 7, 2009, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need.

A possible period of argument (Q&A) may be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[Sam Spade]

A question has been raised as to the effect of our stay on the ability of Xahar to hold office as Governor, and the Court wishes to answer that question now.

Since Xahar's ability to hold office as governor of the Southeast is directly affected by the outcome of this case, we hold that he is stayed from taking the office as Governor pending our decision in this matter.

Additionally, as expressed by the SE Constitution, and seconded by the Court, the Lt. Governor can serve as Acting Governor until our decision is finalized.

Justice Sam Spade, joined by bullmoose88

[John Dibble]

I would like to post my legal opinion on this matter.

I believe Xahar has unintentionally overstated and slightly misstated the grounds upon which the decision in question needs to be overturned.

First off, it is not only the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in question here, but rather the entire federal government's. The original verdict handed down that forbid Xahar from voting and holding office was based on a federal law (Consolidated Criminal Justice Act) which the Supreme Court is not responsible for writing. Whether that law can constitutionally affect the ability of a citizen to participate in the electoral process at a regional level is what is in question here.

Second, it is quite clear constitutionally that the federal government does legally have jurisdiction on regional elections in cases where there is a constitutional interest. For instance, if a user's registration was in question the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over a regional election based on Article V of the Constitution. Another example of valid federal jurisdiction would be if someone were believe to be disenfranchised based on something relevant to Article VI, Section 14. This is supported by Article IV, Section 3.1 which denotes the supremacy of the Constitution and laws made in the Pursuance thereof over regional constitutions and laws.

However, Article IV, Section 3.2 reserves all other powers not forbidden or otherwise relegated to the federal government to the regions and the people. It is of note that Article I, Section 5 does not grant the Senate the power to create laws which may be construed as having jurisdiction over regional electoral affairs. Obviously as mentioned before the obvious exception would be when there is a constitutional interest in doing so. However, I would submit that the constitution may not allow the federal government to interfere in regional electoral affairs when there is not a constitutional interest being protected.

If that is the case, I can see no constitutional interest in forbidding Xahar from taking office at a regional level due to the violation of a federal law.

[Bacon King]

In addition to Dibble's above commentary, I simply add that extending punishment sentenced under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act (a Federal law) into the realm of someone's participation in Regional affairs violates Article I Section 6.7. Xahar's punishment, if applied here, would require the Southeastern Region to forbid itself from allowing his election as Governor. In this context the CCJA thus requires "action to be taken or to be not taken" by the Region, making a punishment on regional office-holding Unconstitutional.

[bullmoose88]

Reminder, Petitioner's brief is due tomorrow.

[minionofmidas]

Does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere in this regional election by taking this case, though?

I am appealing this decision by the Southeastern Magistrate on the grounds tha tthe Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in regional elections.

[Sam Spade]

Does the Supreme Court have the right to interfere in this regional election by taking this case, though?

I am appealing this decision by the Southeastern Magistrate on the grounds tha tthe Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in regional elections.

Presumably, this means that we would need to determine that we don't have jurisdiction to interfere in regional elections.  In other words, we're handling the procedural question first and would only handle the substantive question (i.e. the amount we do interfere) if we have the power.  If we answer the procedural question in the negative towards interference, then we wouldn't interfere.

[Хahar 🤔]

Statement of Facts:

The court will now impose sentence.  The court can do no more than echo the words of the attorney general.  Therefore it will accept the AG's recommendation and impose the following sentence upon Xahar, the defendant:

a.) hacking the account: 3 month voting ban, one year ban from holding office
b.) impersonating the victim: 3 month voting ban, one year ban from holding office.

These two sentences, upon the AG's suggestion, will run simulataneously.

So ordered.

    This booth is closed. Xahar is elected Governor. Brandon H is elected Lt. Governor.

Mr. Dibble, I just thought I should bring this to your attention before Mr. Xahar gets too deep into his new job.

The court will now impose sentence.  The court can do no more than echo the words of the attorney general.  Therefore it will accept the AG's recommendation and impose the following sentence upon Xahar, the defendant:

a.) hacking the account: 3 month voting ban, one year ban from holding office
b.) impersonating the victim: 3 month voting ban, one year ban from holding office.

These two sentences, upon the AG's suggestion, will run simulataneously.

So ordered.

He's ineligible to serve until January 5, 2010 according to this verdict. Just doing my duty as a citizen of the Southeast.

*sigh* Nothing I can do about this. I don't believe I can overturn a verdict by a higher court. However, before you're kicked out of office I'll give you a week to do one of three things, Xahar.

1. Get a pardon from the President.
2. Get the Supreme Court to clarify that the punishment refers only to federal office. EDIT - It just occurred to me that the federal government may not have the authority to forbid you from voting in regional elections and holding regional office, so if the punishment does apply to regional elections and offices you may wish to appeal this idea to the Supreme Court.
3. Appeal to the Supreme court that the amount of time you are forbidden from holding office constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and is therefore in violation of the Constitution. You might have a case for this given that a month is the equivalent of a year for our game.

January 5, 2009 (4:16 PM EST): The Supreme Court sentences Xahar to two concurrent sentences of three-month bans from voting and year-long bans from holding office.
October 27, 2009 (2:46 PM EST): Xahar is elected Governor of the Southeast Region.
October 30, 2009 (11:49 PM EST): Xahar is barred from holding office.

Question(s) Presented:

The question at the center of the case is whether the Government of Atlasia has the power to by law affect the ability of a citizen to participate in the electoral process at a regional level in cases not specifically enumerated by the Constitution of Atlasia.

Argument:

It is quite clear constitutionally that the federal government legally has jurisdiction on regional elections in cases where there is a constitutional interest. For instance, if a user's registration was in question the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over a regional election based on Article V of the Constitution. Another example of valid federal jurisdiction would be if someone were believe to be disenfranchised based on something relevant to Article VI, Section 14. This is supported by Article IV, Section 3.1 which denotes the supremacy of the Constitution and laws made in the Pursuance thereof over regional constitutions and laws.

However, Article IV, Section 3.2 reserves all other powers not forbidden or otherwise relegated to the federal government to the regions and the people. It is of note that Article I, Section 5 does not grant the Senate the power to create laws which may be construed as having jurisdiction over regional electoral affairs. Obviously as mentioned before the obvious exception would be when there is a constitutional interest in doing so. However, I would submit that the constitution may not allow the federal government to interfere in regional electoral affairs when there is not a constitutional interest being protected.

In addition, extending punishment sentenced under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act (a Federal law) into the realm of someone's participation in Regional affairs violates Article I Section 6.7. Xahar's punishment, if applied here, would require the Southeastern Region to forbid itself from allowing his election as Governor. In this context the CCJA thus requires "action to be taken or to be not taken" by the Region, making a punishment on regional office-holding Unconstitutional.

If that is the case, there is constitutional interest in forbidding Xahar from taking office at a regional level due to the violation of a federal law.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of Atlasia lists certain powers of the Government of Atlasia, beyond which all rights are reserved to the regions or the people. Given that the ability to bar citizens from participating in the regional electoral process is not among these rights, it must be held to belong to the regions. As a result, the Supreme Court's ruling in Atlasia v. Xahar does not apply to regional elections.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

[Хahar 🤔]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Do you have any legal argument?

[opebo]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Do you have any legal argument?

Mr. Left does bring up an interesting point, Mr. X - given that the only 'punishment' available to us in Altasia is banning of the convicted from forms of participation in the game (by the way, may we only ban people from holding office or may we ban people from voting as well?), won't your proposition of making this ban apply only federally excessively weaken the (some might say) already fairly weak deterrent/enforcement capabilities of our Altasian Government?

[minionofmidas]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Do you have any legal argument?

Mr. Left does bring up an interesting point, Mr. X - given that the only 'punishment' available to us in Altasia is banning of the convicted from forms of participation in the game (by the way, may we only ban people from holding office or may we ban people from voting as well?),

Yes. Xahar WAS also banned from voting (for a shorter period of time), remember?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh... a good argument from a politician against a law or amendment proposing to do that.
A, cough, rather special, argument from a judge though (though I admit loads of constitutional judges actually think of issues in that light only, they just couch it in holier-than-thou inoffensive language.) The issue is to decide whether the Constitution already denies that capability to the Atlasian Government.

(Incidentally, if the court so rules, regions might well pass their own laws making such federal bans also apply in the regions. Though it would be too late for this particular election, of course.)

[opebo]

A, cough, rather special, argument from a judge though (though I admit loads of constitutional judges actually think of issues in that light only, they just couch it in holier-than-thou inoffensive language.) The issue is to decide whether the Constitution already denies that capability to the Atlasian Government.

Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Trondheim, but the Court does not require a lecture. 

Nor did I make any argument, but rather posed a question.   Such questions may be entertained by plaintiffs if for no other reason than to indulge the intellectual curiosity of a venerable brethren, and it is even possible that at times they may shed light on what was the intention of the authors of said constitution.

[minionofmidas]

A, cough, rather special, argument from a judge though (though I admit loads of constitutional judges actually think of issues in that light only, they just couch it in holier-than-thou inoffensive language.) The issue is to decide whether the Constitution already denies that capability to the Atlasian Government.

Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Trondheim, but the Court does not require a lecture. 

It seemed to be wanting one, though.

[Purple State]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Says the regional rights advocate...

Sometimes I wonder if that whole regional rights belief structure is a sham of the right.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Says the regional rights advocate...

Sometimes I wonder if that whole regional rights belief structure is a sham of the right.

It is. I called them out on it many times as a member of their party and got shunned. They don't believe in regional rights one bit. Only an authoritarian agenda that is leftist in nature but useless in outcome.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Says the regional rights advocate...

Sometimes I wonder if that whole regional rights belief structure is a sham of the right.

I advocate for the rights of regions but does not mean that a criminal should be set free on a region because they were prosecuted federally.  That is absurd, see my analogy before

[Alexander Hamilton]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Says the regional rights advocate...

Sometimes I wonder if that whole regional rights belief structure is a sham of the right.

I advocate for the rights of regions but does not mean that a criminal should be set free on a region because they were prosecuted federally.  That is absurd, see my analogy before

Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Besides, you are basically arguing that the Supreme Court has authority over regions. I believe that is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can only make rulings on regional affairs if they are given that power by the region itself.

[DownWithTheLeft]

My analogy makes perfect sense, the entire country of Atlasia punished Xahar.  When the crime was committed, Xahar did not even live in the Dirty South.  So what, when he moved here the Dirty South should have stuck him on trial again?  That makes no sense

[Alexander Hamilton]

My analogy makes perfect sense, the entire country of Atlasia punished Xahar.  When the crime was committed, Xahar did not even live in the Dirty South.  So what, when he moved here the Dirty South should have stuck him on trial again?  That makes no sense

No, and you are clearly denying regional sovereignty. It is a very good thing you guys underwent a name change, because you never stuck up for regions when it mattered.

[Purple State]

The idea that Xahar can hold office is absurd, he was convicted of crime and must suffer the consequences.  This is basically the equilvant of a capital murderer being allowed walk free in his home state because he was only convincted of a federal crime

Says the regional rights advocate...

Sometimes I wonder if that whole regional rights belief structure is a sham of the right.

I advocate for the rights of regions but does not mean that a criminal should be set free on a region because they were prosecuted federally.  That is absurd, see my analogy before

Your analogy is a crock. Murder is not legal at a state level either. It is only the jurisdiction that may change, not the illegality of the crime. Not to mention, the very nature of Atlasia is very different from real life. There is no jail, so people may always "walk free." The question is, what jurisdiction does the Supreme Court have to impose federal punishments on to the regions.

If the regions pass crime laws that replicate the CCJ then you would be correct, but so far I don't believe any have.

[DownWithTheLeft]

There is no reason for the regions to adopt these, it has just been long accepted that the punishments apply to all levels

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There is no reason for the regions to adopt these, it has just been long accepted that the punishments apply to all levels

Hardly. It's never really been an issue before.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Harvard = 6,500
Yale = 5,300
Dartmouth = 4,100
Princeton = 5,000
SHU = 5,200

Our numbers are on par with Ivy League schools, pretty awesome didn't even realize that