Attn Supreme Court

[Sam Spade]

quiet in the court room please.

[John Dibble]

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?

It would certainly eliminate a power that the federal government presumes it has. If that's a problem we have ways of correcting it, such as amending the constitution. As Lewis mentioned, another alternative would be if the regions decided to pass laws that extend punishments such as the one in question here to the regional level.

However, I will say that DWTL's analogy is erroneous because the federal government could still imprison someone convicted of a federal crime without the need for a region to take action. There are federal law enforcement agencies to track down the convict should he flee and there are both federally and privately owned prison facilities which the federal government may make use of to imprison the convict. Also, while the regions wouldn't be required to do anything it's unlikely they would be unwilling to cooperate in something like apprehending a murderer.

[Sam Spade]

I have a simple question for Xahar (or Dibble).

Tell me how you interpret this relevant language from Section 2 of the statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can I give my personal opinion here ?
While I apreciate Xahar a lot personally and would really like to see him holding this office and put an end to the PCP's political machine here, I can't honestly support him in this court case. Invoking regional rights to limit the power of Supreme Court's decisions would be a dangerous precedent, creating a partial impunity for anyone who commits a crime. Sorry to say that.

[John Dibble]

I have a simple question for Xahar (or Dibble).

Tell me how you interpret this relevant language from Section 2 of the statute:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are two potential ways that this could be interpreted.

1. It could be interpreted to mean that it forbids participation in election and office holding at a federal level, with "under the Republic of Atlasia" referring to the federal level.
2. It could be interpreted to mean that it forbids participation in all elections and office holding at all levels in government, with "under the Republic of Atlasia" referring to the federal government all the local government levels that fall under it.

I am inclined to believe that the author of that law intended it to be interpreted as the latter, though if you believe that the language is clearly written enough that it should be taken literally even if that overrides the original intent then the former definition could apply. Such is the nature of writing law - you need to make sure your intent is written plainly enough such that nobody can misinterpret it, be it unintentionally or on purpose. In this case, I would say that the language is at least somewhat ambiguous, but if I had to choose I'd say the latter definition is what should be held as the lawful interpretation, though you Justices of the Supreme Court may decide otherwise based on your own opinions.

[John Dibble]

Can I give my personal opinion here ?
While I apreciate Xahar a lot personally and would really like to see him holding this office and put an end to the PCP's political machine here, I can't honestly support him in this court case. Invoking regional rights to limit the power of Supreme Court's decisions would be a dangerous precedent, creating a partial impunity for anyone who commits a crime. Sorry to say that.

The case here is not to limit the power of the Supreme Court's decisions - their power is and has always been to interpret the law and make decisions accordingly, and that power will not change even if they rule in the plaintiff's favor. The Senate's ability to make new laws is what will ultimately be affected.

Furthermore, your argument is not a legal one. A law may be unconstitutional regardless of its merit. If a law that would be unconstitutional is found to be necessary, there are means by which it can be made constitutional. In this case, either passing an amendment or regional extensions of the law would be sufficient.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can I give my personal opinion here ?
While I apreciate Xahar a lot personally and would really like to see him holding this office and put an end to the PCP's political machine here, I can't honestly support him in this court case. Invoking regional rights to limit the power of Supreme Court's decisions would be a dangerous precedent, creating a partial impunity for anyone who commits a crime. Sorry to say that.

The case here is not to limit the power of the Supreme Court's decisions - their power is and has always been to interpret the law and make decisions accordingly, and that power will not change even if they rule in the plaintiff's favor. The Senate's ability to make new laws is what will ultimately be affected.

Furthermore, your argument is not a legal one. A law may be unconstitutional regardless of its merit. If a law that would be unconstitutional is found to be necessary, there are means by which it can be made constitutional. In this case, either passing an amendment or regional extensions of the law would be sufficient.

This is how the system is supposed to work, right ? Now, if the Supreme Court agrees with Xahar in considering that banning someone from regional offices for a federal is unconstitutionnal, the power of the Supreme Court wil de facto be weakened, enforcing the criminals' impunity.
I know that it's an interpretation issue, and the Constitution's statement can be interpreted in both ways, both making sense constitutionnally. I just wanted to warn justices about the possible consequences of their decision.

[John Dibble]

This is how the system is supposed to work, right ? Now, if the Supreme Court agrees with Xahar in considering that banning someone from regional offices for a federal is unconstitutionnal, the power of the Supreme Court wil de facto be weakened, enforcing the criminals' impunity.

Again, the SC only has the power to interpret and decide based on the law. The punishment here is dictated by the law, not from some intrinsic power of the SC. The law could be found unconstitutional, or it simply could be altered or removed by the Senate tomorrow if they felt like it. The SC's power is unaffected, it's the Senate that is weakened by decreasing the scope of its law making powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is all well and good, but I remind you again that the consequences have nothing to do with constitutionality.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Just as a random comment, I do agree with Antonio about the worrying precedent that would be set by letting Xahar off, as much as I wish he would be able to serve. I just hope the court has this very very very serious precedent in mind.

[Badger]

As much as I like love the idea of Xahar as SE governor, I'm compelled to note:

If the punishment for offenses included incarceration as in the real world, would a perpetrator be incarcerated "at the federal level" only and free to roam "at the regional level"? The law was clearly intended to prohibit all office holding, and if meant to limit it only to federal offices would've and should've explicitly stated so. I believe it's beyond question that a federal statute may constitutionally prohibit regional office holding for such a conviction.

That said, I still say the matter arguably was waived when no one bothered to file suit to keep Xahar off the ballot before election day.

[John Dibble]

If the punishment for offenses included incarceration as in the real world, would a perpetrator be incarcerated "at the federal level" only and free to roam "at the regional level"?

Considering that would be physically impossible, no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think anyone's arguing against what the intent of the law is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is there no question? We've managed to present a constitution argument that it can't, so it's obviously questionable. Also, thus far nobody has presented a single constitutional argument refuting our arguments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately not the case, as I have already issued a legally binding decision in my own court in regards to that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Rod Blagojevich is banned from holding office in Illinois. Nothing prevents him from holding office somewhere else.

This is not incarceration. This is a ban on holding office. Attempts to liken it to incarceration are wrong.

[Хahar 🤔]

Two weeks have passed. Any chance of a decision?

[Sam Spade]

I've made up my mind now (I said it was a tough case earlier).

The opinion will come fairly soon, I assume.

[Badger]

If the punishment for offenses included incarceration as in the real world, would a perpetrator be incarcerated "at the federal level" only and free to roam "at the regional level"?

Considering that would be physically impossible, no.

But that's kind of my point, Overlord Dibble. The prohibition on holding office is in lieu of Atlasia obviously being unable to fine or incarcerate offenders. If the penalty included incarceration, then one would be jailed for both "the federal level" as well as "the regional level". Likewise any fines would take money out of the offender's pocket, not just make him poorer at "the regional level" only. Accordingly, what prohibitions Atlasia does have of denial of office or voting should apply to all levels of government.

IMHO anyway....

[opebo]

The Court finds for the Plaintiff:

The Constitutional question in this case is whether the punishment of banning from public office applies only the federal office or also to the lower (regional) levels of office-holding.  We examine the language in the relevant statute, which provides a punishment of "up to two years ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia".

In Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 we find, "no person may simultaneously hold two or more offices of the Republic of Atlasia at any level of the government".  I interpret this addition of 'at any level of government' as a clear intention to include regional office.  The former language does not specify this, since 'any office under the Republic of Atlasia' could be interpreted as Federal Office alone.

A clearer exposition of applicability is needed here - something along the lines of 'Any office under the Republic of Atlasia and in any Region', or, as above 'at any level of government'.

The Court orders the seating of plaintiff as Governor.

J. Opebo

Joined by Chief Justice Bullmoose88.

[Franzl]

A clearer exposition of applicability is needed here - something along the lines of 'Any office under the Republic of Atlasia and in any Region', or, as above 'at any level of government'.

I'll get to work on that too then, I suppose

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fail decision...

Anyways, long life to Governor Xahar !

[minionofmidas]

So, wait - you ruled that the federal court could have banned Xahar from holding regional office, but didn't? Lol. That particularly easy way out never occurred to me.

[Rowan]

Terrible decision.

[Sam Spade]

I will be dissenting, but the dissent won't be ready today.

(and this won't be like the Trondheim case where no concurrence ever appeared )

[Purple State]

This seems a proper decision, although I'm not sure I agree that all the punishments of all federal law can apply to the regions if a few words are added. I would think the regions should pass their own CCJA and include a clause extending the federal rulings on those grounds to their respective region.

[minionofmidas]

I will be dissenting, but the dissent won't be ready today.

(and this won't be like the Trondheim case where no concurrence ever appeared )

I'm still raving mad about that.

[Sam Spade]

Justice Sam Spade, dissenting,

I strongly dissent from the decision by the Court.  In sum, my learned colleagues' opinion:

1) Provides a convenient "out" for the soon-to-be Governor to hold office by misreading a clear statutory provision and
2) Improperly ignores the valid Constitutional arguments as to Regional rights which must be addressed in order to reach the statutory question.

I.
The appropriate first question to ask when reviewing the scope of a statute is to determine the power under which the Senate created the law.  If the Constitution does not provide power to enact the statute in question, it is void.  See Fritz v. Ernest.  Most Senate powers are found within Article I, Section 5, but some exist within other clauses of the Constitution.  In this case, Xahar was convicted under Section 1, Clauses 1 & 2 of the CCJA and his punishment is provided for in Section 2, Clause 1.  As a result, only the Constitutionality of the provisions in question need to be addressed.

Initially, I believe that these provisions of the CCJA were made under the power provided in Article I, Section 5, Clause 7, which provides that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The court has addressed and interpreted parts of this clause before.  Namely, in Peter v. Atlasia, we wrote that Fraud in our Constitution is to be defined as common-law fraud, namely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clause 1 of the CCJA fits perfectly with the definition of Fraud provided here because the "impersonation" of "another Atlas Forum member" is a "knowing misrepresentation of the truth", specifically, of the injured poster's identity, whose purpose is solely to "induce" other members of the Forum to act in a certain way towards the Fraudster, most likely to their own "detriment."

Clause 2 of the CCJA does not fit quite as well with this definition, but an expected consequence of the actions forbidden clearly constitutes Fraud.  The "hacking" or "taking over control" of the injured poster's account can lead to the Fraudster either knowingly misrepresenting his identity as that of the injured poster or concealing the "material fact" that he is not the injured poster.  Such actions would induce other members of the Forum to act to their own "detriment" in the same manner as Clause 1.

Finally, in Peter v. Atlasia, we did not address whether Punishment constitutes criminal punishment, civil punishment or both.  I firmly believe, and my learned colleagues have assumed, that both criminal and civil punishment is covered under the language for the simple reason that Anglo-Saxon common law fraud is punishable both civilly and criminally.  Consequently, no such distinction should be found in the text of this Constitution. 

Thus, according to its plain language, Section 2, Clause 1 of the CCJA constitutes criminal punishment and can be upheld as a valid exercise of the power under Article I, Section 5, Clause 7.

II.
Having found that the provisions of the CCJA in question are legitimate under the Constitution, the second question to ask is whether this Senatorial power can be applied to the Regions.  I answer this question primarily because 1) my learned colleagues failed to address it in their opinion; 2) it was heavily debated at oral argument; 3) an answer is required to reach the question of whether the Senate has actually exercised the power.

To be blunt, the Constitutional provision in question says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To hold that the Senate could not punish Fraudsters by preventing them from holding Regional as well as Federal office would do injustice to any reasonable meaning of the word "uniform" found in this Constitution or in ordinary use.  One might also say that it is "necessary and proper" for the Senate to make a law punishing Fraudsters by forbidding them from holding Regional and Federal offices because such punishment is a method by which the Senate may execute its powers provided in this Section.

Therefore, any arguments based on Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 would fail because power to forbid Fraudsters from holding Regional office has been delegated to the Senate in the Constitution.  Moreover, an argument based on Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 would fail because the right of the Senate to punish Fraud in a uniform manner must be preserved, even though it requires any Region to take the action of not allowing a Fraudster to hold Regional office.

Finally, at oral argument, the main reason put forth why the federal government could not make laws concerning Regional office-holders was because the federal government did not have jurisdiction over regional elections.  This argument is far off the mark and must be corrected fully.  Restrictions on holding Regional office have nothing to do with regional elections.  Rather, the restrictions limit an elected candidate from holding the office after the election has concluded and its process and law are no longer relevant.

Let me illustrate:  Unless specified by Regional election law, nothing would forbid Xahar from running for Regional office, collecting votes as a candidate, voting for himself as a candidate (a question exists whether that part of the sentence applies to him - but is not relevant here), even being certified as the winner of the election or suing to be certified as said winner.  These issues are not addressed by a ban on holding office, but rather constitute the sum of the body of law that deals with regional elections.

This is a mistake commonly made by the Senate, by our elected politicians and what-not, but the key point must be made again - restrictions on holding office are not the subject of election law.

As such, any argument for Regional election law supremacy based on Article IV, Section I, Clause 4 would fail.

III.
Finally, I turn to the question actually answered by my learned colleagues.  Since Section 1, Clauses 1 & 2 and Section 2, Clause 1, Part 2 are valid exercises of Senate power that may apply to Regional offices, did the Senate intend to restrict Regional offices in the punishment provided for in Section 2, Clause 1, Part 2?

I believe that the Senate did.

The text of Section 2, Clause 1, Part 2 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The term "any" is the broadest statute that the Senate can use to define a class of persons or entities.  It is essentially synonymous with "all" and therefore a fair interpretation would categorize "all" offices under the Republic of Atlasia to fall under its purview.

In addition, the phrase "holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia" appears in one important place within the Constitution. 

Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 states that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I question whether my learned colleagues seriously believe that a person convicted of impeachment can still hold Regional office, yet that is apparently the conclusion based upon their opinion.

Nevertheless, even the section of the Constitution quoted in the majority opinion backs up my conclusion that the Senate intended to forbid Fraudsters from holding Regional offices.

Article V, Section 1, Clause 1 states that:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The majority opinion interprets the "addition of 'at any level of government' as a clear intention to include regional office."  It states that "the former language does not specify this, since 'any office under the Republic of Atlasia' could be interpreted as Federal Office alone." 

This interpretation is, on its face, irrelevant.  We are not placed with the duty of interpreting Article V, Section 1, Clause 1, rather we are tasked with finding out what the term "office under the Republic of Atlasia" might be understood to mean in the CCJA.  As the majority opinion says, the addition of "at any level of government" means that the language "offices of the Republic of Atlasia" is meant to include all offices, whether Regional or Federal.  Therefore, language in the CCJA which restricts convicted Fraudsters from "holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia" must clearly apply to both Regional and Federal offices.

In short, the majority opinion lets Xahar free to hold office based on a technicality which, under any reasonable reading of the statute or the Constitution, does not exist.  This type of reasoning does serious damage to future interpretation of the text of either statute or Constitution and furthermore, may inspire the legislature to redouble those mistakes through improperly drafted changes.

At any rate, I dissent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No need to do all that. The problem will be rapidly solved by an Amendment.