Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Franzl]

As my client has stated, I am serving as defense counsel in this case.

I require a short while to review this case before we make decisions about what to plea and, should it be necessary, what type of trial to request.

Wow,  I guessed right.

How did you guess?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As my client has stated, I am serving as defense counsel in this case.

I require a short while to review this case before we make decisions about what to plea and, should it be necessary, what type of trial to request.

Wow,  I guessed right.

How did you guess?

An inconvenient hunch.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ha, your federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The offices which I hold are defined strictly by the Constitution of the Northeast.

Maybe so, but the federal consitution surely trumps the regional constitutions on enumerated powers. It will be interesting what the Justices say. But I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Libertas.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Ha, your federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The offices which I hold are defined strictly by the Constitution of the Northeast.

Maybe so, but the federal consitution surely trumps the regional constitutions on enumerated powers. It will be interesting what the Justices say. But I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Libertas.

Some regional rights advocate you are. I guess this is why the Regional Protection Party changed its name?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ha, your federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The offices which I hold are defined strictly by the Constitution of the Northeast.

Maybe so, but the federal consitution surely trumps the regional constitutions on enumerated powers. It will be interesting what the Justices say. But I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Libertas.

Some regional rights advocate you are. I guess this is why the Regional Protection Party changed its name?

Did I advocate anything here? No. I stated how things presently are. Its called analysis?


Why don't you ask your former boss about the name change. I would call it sabotage so he could create a Libertarian party. But thats just me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Ha, your federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The offices which I hold are defined strictly by the Constitution of the Northeast.

Maybe so, but the federal consitution surely trumps the regional constitutions on enumerated powers. It will be interesting what the Justices say. But I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Libertas.

Some regional rights advocate you are. I guess this is why the Regional Protection Party changed its name?

Did I advocate anything here? No. I stated how things presently are. Its called analysis?


Why don't you ask your former boss about the name change. I would call it sabotage so he could create a Libertarian party. But thats just me.

My former boss? Create a Libertarian party? Huh?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ha, your federal courts have no jurisdiction here. The offices which I hold are defined strictly by the Constitution of the Northeast.

Maybe so, but the federal consitution surely trumps the regional constitutions on enumerated powers. It will be interesting what the Justices say. But I wouldn't dismiss this so easily, Libertas.

Some regional rights advocate you are. I guess this is why the Regional Protection Party changed its name?

Did I advocate anything here? No. I stated how things presently are. Its called analysis?


Why don't you ask your former boss about the name change. I would call it sabotage so he could create a Libertarian party. But thats just me.

My former boss? Create a Libertarian party? Huh?

Connect the dots.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Re: Standing Requirement

A question has been raised regarding Bgwah's standing to sue in this matter. Let it be known that we have voted to overrule the standing requirement set in Purple State v. Lief.

We feel the standing requirement to sue is an unnecessary waste of time, and only creates needless obstacles to doing justice. It is an incredibly time consuming procedural hoop that doesn't really make much sense inside Atlasia when consideration is given to the fact that Atlasia is what it is.

But most of all, the standing requirement is entirely without precedent until very very recently, whether that precedent be in many past decisions of the Court or the Constitution. Not only does the majority of the Court believe that the standing requirement is a practical mistake, but it is a legal one.

Justice Marokai Blue

Joined in this short opinion by Justice Opebo.

Remind what midnight session you managed to slip through on a voice vote unbeknownst to most of the body?

[Fritz]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

[Purple State]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

If standing were to be an issue, it would be predicated on the idea that the offense occurred at the regional level, beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

But the federal Constitution does have jurisdiction over the regions in many situations and dual office holding is one of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

In this situation he is affected because the federal consitution was in question. If still not so then, in that case, at most the precendent should have been modified, not thrown out. This opens the door to some pretty nasty and unforseen, unintended consequences.

[Franzl]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

Only problem is the "defendent" is not accused of violating a federal law.

[Associate Justice PiT]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

Only problem is the "defendent" is not accused of violating a federal law.

     Indeed, it seems bizarre for bgwah to be the petitioner in this case rather than a citizen of the Northeast.

[Fritz]

Huh?  The defendant is accused of violating the federal CONSTITUTION.

[Franzl]

Huh?  The defendant is accused of violating the federal CONSTITUTION.

So? The Attorney General is there to enforce the laws of the Republic of Atlasia. Things such as voter fraud, impersonation of another poster, other CCJA crimes, etc. all fall under the AG's jurisdiction.

But the Republic of Atlasia certainly does not have standing to sue in something like this, IMO, and I would have joined Spade's dissent were I a member of the Court.

A citizen of the Northeast should be doing this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Huh?  The defendant is accused of violating the federal CONSTITUTION.

     You need charging sections to bring charges. In most cases in real life you cannot be charged with violating sections of the Constitution.

[Fritz]

I really don't understand your reasoning.  The constitution has been violated.   The AG, according to you, is there to enforce the laws of the Republic of Atlasia.  This includes the constitution.

[Franzl]

I really don't understand your reasoning.  The constitution has been violated.   The AG, according to you, is there to enforce the laws of the Republic of Atlassis.  This includes the constitution.

I would have to disagree there. From a legal perspective, they're totally different things.

[Fritz]

Well then, we disagree.

Maybe a real lawyer could explain this.  Badger, you out there?

[k-onmmunist]

The federal government does not have that jurisdiction over the Northeast, which is why it is a bad decision.

[Marokai Backbeat]

@Franzl & Fritz: Standing is a nice thing to talk about if it actually existed anymore in this respect, gentlemen. I'm a little more open to the idea of discussing our decisions than court members have been in the past, but standing to sue, in Atlasia, has been without precedent, without reason, and an all around waste of time given the fact that Atlasia is not the real world. It's a silly technicality, and we did away with it.

We shouldn't be spending more time arguing over technicalities that are entirely subjective in the first place given that this is a forum instead of the actual problems with the law. In Purple State v. Lief, the court and Purple State spent a month just squabbling over the ability to sue in the first place, instead of just cutting straight to the issue. What is the point of that? What does standing even positively accomplish anyway in Atlasia? Especially since the argument over whether Purple State had standing or not was entirely subjective. As far as I can see, nothing at all, except wasting all our time and letting actual legal issues slip away.

Now, if anyone has anything constructive to add on the issue of Libertas and his alleged violations of the Constitution, submit something for the court in the case thread. Otherwise, this little argument you're having should be more about having a standing requirement in the first place, instead of arguing over something that doesn't matter.

The federal government does not have that jurisdiction over the Northeast, which is why it is a bad decision.

I'll not comment on this directly, case ongoing and all, but if you feel so strongly about it, you are free to submit something on Libertas' behalf if he likes.

[Peter]

Hi All - on the matter of Atlasia v. Libertas:

There is plenty of precedent for the federal government to sue a Region, or Regional Officer to bring it into compliance with the federal Constitution and proper statute.

See Atlasia v. States Rights, and decision.

The Court is correct to have got rid of the awful standing precedent - it was never a factor in our jurisprudence, and inevitably would cause issues if we were to, for example, have an abortion law challeneged - the suit might never come to issue because none of us can be subject to the abortion laws of Atlasia in a true sense.

[Badger]

Well then, we disagree.

Maybe a real lawyer could explain this.  Badger, you out there?

Well, I'll offer one lawyer's perspective anyway. Find another and pay his retainer and you'll likely get a contrary opinion.

I agree that the federal constitution takes precedence in any conflict with regional constitutional provisions. Note Clause 2 of the same section (subsequently repealed by the 18th Amendment, but doesn't change it's applicability here) also explicitly applies to federal and regional officeholders.

 I likewise agree the Atlasia Constitution's language on this subject is crystal clear. "any level of government" means exactly that; from President and senator down to regional assembly member. "The Republic of Atlasia" is as all encompassing term to include the regions rather than merely the federal government itself, the same as "The United States of America" includes all 50 states and the various territories.

Regarding standing, I don't think it was necessary to do away with it here as the A-G clearly has standing to enforce the laws of Atlasia which obviously includes provisions of the Atlasian Constitution. That said I don't mourn dumping the Court's dumping the standing provision as a RL matter that doesn't fit well at all in our game much as Peter described above.

Now Franzl makes an interesting point in that there is no explicit penalty stated for violation of this constitutional provision as there are for statutes. For a legislative statute this deficiency can actually render enforcement of its provisions null and void. When the Ohio Legislature revamped driving license laws a couple years ago, it included penalties for persons with expired licenses depending on the length of expiration (< or > 6 months) and number of prior convictions, but forgot to include penalties for individuals caught driving who never had a license at all. Thus for a brief period of time until the oversight was corrected it was essentially legal to drive a car in Ohio if you never had a license. Ah, our state leg....

I don't believe that's a problem here, however, as constitutional provisions rarely include an actual penalty provision. In the absence of additional federal or regional penalties, it would seem prohibition on holding a second office would make the act of holding multiple offices a nullity. If the Court (likely) rules against Libertas, it is axiomatic it has the power to deny him from holding both offices.

With that in mind, based on practice and precedent in the swearing-in thread, it would appear that Libertas taking the oath as NE Lt. Gov. acted to immediately terminate his office as NE Rep., and his subsequently taking the oath as (reelected) NE Rep. was a nullity. Hence making Libertas NE. Lt. Governor and creating a vacancy in the NE Assembly.

Hope that helps. I'll be sending my bill shortly.

[Sam Spade]

I likewise agree the Atlasia Constitution's language on this subject is crystal clear. "any level of government" means exactly that; from President and senator down to regional assembly member.

That language wasn't interpreted as "crystal clear" in Xahar v. Southeast, as you may recall... 

[Peter]

Re: Atlasia v. Southeast (the independent voter roll which ignores HAEV rulings)

It has long been postulated that a Region could have an independent voter roll - Ernest and I in principle agreed that it was possible under the Second Constitution in 2005. That said, I would not consider it prudent policy to set up an independent voter roll, as in the past we have had problems maintaining even one.