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

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I do not have a position on Bacon King v. SoFE, partly because I haven't taken the time to review the law and see what the right answer is, but this interpretation of our Constitution:

Secondly, the constitution gives the Congress the right to set requirements for activity. It does not state posting activity and it doesn't limit what kind of activity it could be applied to. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to define such activity and could therefore define both lack of activity or engaging in certain other activities (lack campaigning in the voting booth) as being prohibited and still consist of a "requirement for activity" as stated in Article I, Section 4.

genuinely disturbs me. This basically amounts to saying, 'activity means whatever the Congress says it means,' which opens the door for a train of abuses that could potentially disenfranchise huge swaths of the population. Speaking as the person who actually wrote Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, I can assure you that this is not what the framers intended.

For the record, I don't think the SoFE's actions violate the Constitution, but I don't think the reason he gave is the correct one either. "Requirements for activity" refers to a very specific measure of participation on the forum at large, and not to an ethereal concept that Congress is free to mangle and redefine at will.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm doing all I can to find a replacement for Dereich, which will hopefully alleviate some of the problem.

Btw, I know you mean well etc but you have no authority to do so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Interim President, I temporarily exercise all powers vested in the President of the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution and the laws passed under its authority. As such, it is my prerogative to nominate Dereich's successor on the court, pending the affirmative vote of the Senate.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Right, I've given up on writing anything as deep as I wanted and literally just am throwing stuff unedited from IRC and PMs while ignoring some things but here are my thoughts on BaconKing v. SoFE and what I'd consider if I was still a Justice.

I really don't like BK's "none of the other SoFEs have done it!" argument. The person's judgment on how to enforce the law (along with their activity level) is THE THING that differentiates candidates for the position; different people SHOULD handle it differently as long as there isn't a SCOA bright line on the matter.

BK's "freedom of speech" argument should fail as well. Regulation of both speech and voting are permitted and expected by the constitution; just as yelling fire in a crowd is ban-able, so too should attempts to use peer pressure in the voting booth. This pits two rights against each other, speech and the right to vote as you please without intimidation. The Court here should defer to the Legislature's power to create appropriate regulations regarding these boundaries. As the regulation serves a substantial government interest and is narrowly tailored to not suppress speech rights any more than necessary to protect other rights there's no problem on that front.The Court earlier collectively decided that the statue thing was unimportant; that can be ignored. The Due Process claim doesn't work for me either; the SoFE explained his justification for the ban and the aggrieved voters are currently having their day in Court.

For me, the sole issue that has merit in BK's case is that of the right to vote and of the definition of campaigning. As I said above, the right to ban campaigning should be constitutional and a lack of prior enforcement shouldn't necessarily preclude its use here.

When looking at just that issue my question is "Was the SoFE justified in calling the activity of the voters campaigning?" Rpryor actually got the question exactly right: "could those votes reasonably be construed as a direct attempt to influence how future voters cast their ballot."

In some circumstances, I'd think that was a jury question but since this has already gone on for a million years I'll just go ahead and assume the Court won't do that. I'll admit; I'm really really torn on this case. "F**k Kingpoleon," is not, to me, prima facie enough to ban a vote. But I also think Rpryor as SoFE should be the one determining these things, not the Court. If I was still on the Court, I guess my final vote would be the allow the votes in, only because I think voting is the crux of this game and this ONE TIME while anti-campaigning laws were not well understood the voter's rights could outweigh the SoFE's power but I can't say I'm sure enough that any decision the Court makes will be wrong.

I more or less agree with this in its entirety. It's a d*mn shame the rest of the game is too busy screaming at each other to think through this rationally.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Bump.

If those in the gallery would be so kind as to post their comments here, rather than in the case threads, it would be much appreciated.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Honorable Justices,

I would like to ask for greater oversight on Discord. All of the above users, were involved in Discord discussions, which were to some extent, racist. They had said that immigrants have poor grammar, and compared someone's political views to the caste system, this was even more offensive, given that, that someone was Hindu. I would like for the justices to issue a broad ruling on this unregulated off-site messaging app. Since, Congress has already failed to take action, I feel that this is the only place, where action on this issue, can truly occur.

Thank you for your time,
SNJC

Is it just me, or does the plaintiff sound as if he is asking the Supreme Court to pass a new law banning racism?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seems like the Frist Minister of Fremont believes constitutions aren't worth diddly squat.

LOL. It seems the former Speaker of the Southern Chamber of Delegates is ignorant of the basic tenets of constitutional law.

"The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights." (Source)

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom." (Source)

There's a reason that when we actually annexed the Pacific islands last year, we did it with a bill and not an amendment to the preamble.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

To hopefully nip this in the bud: while I (strongly) disagree with the court's decision in this matter, I do not believe that Windjammer should be impeached, nor do I believe there is significant support for impeachment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

The fact is this is not about me or you. It's about Atlasia.

words words words words

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I just want to state publicly that I never supported impeaching Windjammer, and when the question was brought up, I immediately said no. Windammer is a good Chief Justice who does his job. You can't just impeach justices you don't agree with, and the initial proceedings against LT were botched by the prosecution.

I will also say that I have submitted evidence of LT's behavior to a person working on this case. I will say nothing more on the matter.

Expected take from a typical partisan. What is going on is ludicrous and a perversion of this country's constitutional order. This is negligent to say the least.

You will never be president.

this started playing in my head as soon as i read your post and now it's stuck in there

Of course here in Fantasyland, Hamilton did eventually become president.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would understand by what Authority, (I mean lawfull) I am brought hither. There are many unlawfull Authorities in the world, as Thieves and Plunderers in the high-wayes. I would know by what Authority I was taken from thence, and carried from place to place, I know not where? When I have understood the lawfulness of the Authority, I will make my Answer: In the mean time, re∣member that I represent your Government, your lawfull Government; and weigh well with your selves, what sins you heap on your own heads, and the anger and judgments of God which you will bring upon this land, I say seriously, weigh it before you further do proceed from one sin to a greater. Therefore declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I sit here, and I will not refuse to Answer you. In the mean time I will not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by an ancient and lawfull succession, I will not betray that by answering to a new and an unlawfull Authority; wherefore satisfie me in this, and you shall hear further from me.

If you had but pleased to observe what the Court did suggest unto you, when you first came hither, you had under∣stood by what Authority you were brought hither; which Au∣thority doth require of you, in the Name of the People of Atlasia, by whom you are elected Attorney General, that you make answer to them.

Atlasia was never an Elective Commonwealthe, but collectivist, for almost, these two decades. Therefore declare unto me, by what Authority I am brought hither. I labour more for the liberty of my people then any of you, who pretend to be my Judges; and therefore I say, declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I am placed here, and I will answer you; otherwise, I shall make no answer at all.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would understand by what Authority, (I mean lawfull) I am brought hither. There are many unlawfull Authorities in the world, as Thieves and Plunderers in the high-wayes. I would know by what Authority I was taken from thence, and carried from place to place, I know not where? When I have understood the lawfulness of the Authority, I will make my Answer: In the mean time, re∣member that I represent your Government, your lawfull Government; and weigh well with your selves, what sins you heap on your own heads, and the anger and judgments of God which you will bring upon this land, I say seriously, weigh it before you further do proceed from one sin to a greater. Therefore declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I sit here, and I will not refuse to Answer you. In the mean time I will not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by an ancient and lawfull succession, I will not betray that by answering to a new and an unlawfull Authority; wherefore satisfie me in this, and you shall hear further from me.

If you had but pleased to observe what the Court did suggest unto you, when you first came hither, you had under∣stood by what Authority you were brought hither; which Au∣thority doth require of you, in the Name of the People of Atlasia, by whom you are elected Attorney General, that you make answer to them.

Atlasia was never an Elective Commonwealthe, but collectivist, for almost, these two decades. Therefore declare unto me, by what Authority I am brought hither. I labour more for the liberty of my people then any of you, who pretend to be my Judges; and therefore I say, declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I am placed here, and I will answer you; otherwise, I shall make no answer at all.

You are Thou art brought hither by the aAuthority of thou y^e Supreme Court of Atlasia, which is authorized under thou y^e constitution that thou have hast sworn to uphold.

Thankfully, illiterates cannot be lawyers. Even in fantasyland!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would understand by what Authority, (I mean lawfull) I am brought hither. There are many unlawfull Authorities in the world, as Thieves and Plunderers in the high-wayes. I would know by what Authority I was taken from thence, and carried from place to place, I know not where? When I have understood the lawfulness of the Authority, I will make my Answer: In the mean time, re∣member that I represent your Government, your lawfull Government; and weigh well with your selves, what sins you heap on your own heads, and the anger and judgments of God which you will bring upon this land, I say seriously, weigh it before you further do proceed from one sin to a greater. Therefore declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I sit here, and I will not refuse to Answer you. In the mean time I will not betray my trust. I have a trust committed to me by God, by an ancient and lawfull succession, I will not betray that by answering to a new and an unlawfull Authority; wherefore satisfie me in this, and you shall hear further from me.

If you had but pleased to observe what the Court did suggest unto you, when you first came hither, you had under∣stood by what Authority you were brought hither; which Au∣thority doth require of you, in the Name of the People of Atlasia, by whom you are elected Attorney General, that you make answer to them.

Atlasia was never an Elective Commonwealthe, but collectivist, for almost, these two decades. Therefore declare unto me, by what Authority I am brought hither. I labour more for the liberty of my people then any of you, who pretend to be my Judges; and therefore I say, declare unto me, by what lawfull Authority I am placed here, and I will answer you; otherwise, I shall make no answer at all.

You are Thou art brought hither by the aAuthority of thou y^e Supreme Court of Atlasia, which is authorized under thou y^e constitution that thou have hast sworn to uphold.

Thankfully, illiterates cannot be lawyers. Even in fantasyland!

Ye Supreme Court of Atlasia hast recongized me before, and even ruled in my favor. Thou shalt be impeached before long regardless.

As I recall, y^e court recognized thee for the purpose of declaring thee mentally unfit to serve on a jury! I trust thy weak mental faculties are again represented in thy forecast of y^e criminal travesty of y^e so-called "trial."