JBrase v. Atlasia

[CatoMinor]

I would like for the Atlasian Supreme Court to hear my case challenging the constitutionality of the High Authority for Ethics in voting Act

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to Article V, Section 2, Clause 3,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill claims that it derives it's authority from the above clause yet this clause states that the Senate may define registration requirements by legislation, it does not state anywhere that the Senate has the authority to delegate this role to another group (the HAEV).

[Purple State]

Ehhhhhh... Seems iffy considering the Senate must approve of the registration guidelines (or recommendations) that the HAEV forms.

[cinyc]

FYI - you've quoted the HAEV bill as proposed, not the HAEV bill that was actually passed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nevertheless, shouldn't this be combined with the Atlasia v. Southeast case currently under consideration?

[CatoMinor]

Ok fixed, the bill as passed is quoted now. Though the question of if the HAEV is constitutional or not is related I thought it would be considered a separate issue, since Atlasia v. the Southeast  is about the legality of a different law. However if this should be combined with the Atlasia v. Southeast, I'll go ahead and and drop this.

[Sam Spade]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari
The Atlasian Supreme Court grants certiorari to hear this question of whether the High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act violates Article 5, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

Schedule
Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Thursday, March 25, 2010.

Respondent has an additional forty-eight hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00PM EDT on Saturday, March 27, 2010.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT, Thursday, March 25, 2010, 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.

NOTICE: Since we are hearing this case at the same time as Atlasia v. Southeast, but are not combining the cases because the two cases present distinctly separate legal questions, if either party or an amicus party needs extra time to present his brief, please tell us and we will extend the time if we deem such extension reasonable.

[CatoMinor]

On December 14, 2009, President Leif signed into law the High Authority for Ethics in Voting Act which established the HAEV, a group which is given the authority by the Senate to decide whether or not a voter is "active".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Question
Are the powers exercised by the HAEV constitutional? Is it constitutional for the Senate to delegate powers given to specifically the Senate and the Senate alone, to another group (the HAEV in this case)?

Argument
Clause 3 of section 2 in Article V of The Constitution Reads

You must be logged in to read this quote.

          This clearly states in plain English that its is the Senate's role to decide the requirements for activity. One could say "The HAEV's right to exist comes from the line '...by proper legislation', the HAEV bill being that proper legislation. Well I would like to say to that notion, that the clause gives the the senate the power to define what "active" is and not to delegate that role to another group created for that purpose.
         The argument could be said "The Constitution doesn't say the Senate cannot create an HAEV". Well any court that would rule in favor of that argument sets the dangerous precedent that makes every enumerated power obsolete and pointless to have ever even written down. If that were truly the case then everything regarding the powers enumerated to the Federal Government might as well be torn out as then only the powers denied would truly count anymore. In short the Enumerated powers were written for a reason, and for whatever reason they give only the Senate to decide on what "active" is.
        If what I have stated above is true then it must also be true that everything done by the HAEV up till now is not legal and should be undone. This isn't a question of whether or not the HAEV is a good Idea, It's constitutionality aside, it is well known I feel it is not a good idea but rather a tool in a witch hunt, while it equally known that one of our justices happened to vote aye on it becoming law in the first place, which I hope will not bias his final decision. This is a moral question of whether or not the Senate is abusing the role given to it by our Constitution, something once thought of as the law of the land.

Conclusion
In conclusion I would just like to reiterate the question of if the Senate may delegate away powers enumerated to it by the constitution and if not then is the the power the HAEV was given legal. I would hope the justices Supreme Court look past their personal feelings of the HAEV and instead look at the larger picture of the dangerous precedent they could set by allowing this abuse to continue.
                                                                                             Thank you for hearing this case,
                                                                                              X Governor JBrase
                                                                                             


 

[Sam Spade]

Assuming that we do decide that the Senate does have the ability to delegate said powers, what do you think is the reach of said powers?  In other words, what is meant by the Senate's power to "define these activity requirements"?  Does it include the ability to delegate the authority to take away a registered voter's status?  Can that authority be used arbitrarily?  Or must it flow from some sort of "definition of an activity requirement"?

This can go for the other side too.

[CatoMinor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For example legislate how often a person needs to post to be considered "active".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, as they are to set the requirement to be active, to take some one off requires the SoFA, which is a cabinet member responsible for maintaining the rolls and sanctioned by the Constitution, when allowing for Cabinet officers. In this case the HAEV is not part of the Cabinet, like the SoFA so does not enjoy that same protection.
I believe that covers the other questions.

It boils down to They (legislative branch) make the law, in this case registration requirements. and the SoFA (executive branch) enforces the law.
Its supposed to be as simple as that, but in the name of a witch hunt against "Zombies" the Senate has stepped out of its traditional role by creating this HAEV. It is as if Atlasia is going through a Salem-esque period.

[Purple State]

A brief amicus brief (pardon the pun) for consideration by the Court:

Article V, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Atlasian Constitution states (emphasis added):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Defined in its strictest sense, this clause requires that any activity requirement that is used to judge the validity of a registered voter must be defined by the Senate through legislation.

Section 2, Clause 5 of the Higher Authority for Ethics in Voting Act states (emphasis again added):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is clear from the bolded portion of the law that the HAEV shall judge de-registration according to guidelines that "define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation."

In addition, nowhere does the Constitution specify how a voter is to be removed from the rolls, leaving such power undefined and ambiguous. Under Article I, Section 5, Clause 30 of the Constitution, the Senate has the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers enumerated in this section, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or in any department or officer thereof." Thus, the Senate may create a body, such as the HAEV, that it may deem necessary and proper for executing its duty to execute its de-registration prerogative.

Thank you for your time.

[CatoMinor]

If I may,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But where I ask is this authority derived? You go on to mention that de-registration is not specified therefore the HAEV's right  exist falls under the necessary and proper clause. that is simply not true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since de-registration is not mentioned it fall's under the power of the Regions and the people.

[Barnes]

I'll be filling tomorrow or the day after, Your Honor.

[Purple State]

If I may,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But where I ask is this authority derived? You go on to mention that de-registration is not specified therefore the HAEV's right  exist falls under the necessary and proper clause. that is simply not true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since de-registration is not mentioned it fall's under the power of the Regions and the people.

You agree that the Senate has the power to judge activity requirements for registered voters. This implies that failure to meet those requirements would render one "de-registered." The necessary and proper clause gives the Senate the means of executing that enumerated power.

[CatoMinor]

The Senate is given the power to define the requirements, and in doing so has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to pass any legislation they want defining those requirements i.e. poster must have x number of posts in x amount of time frame. Now lets get to de-registration, as you, Purple State, have said yourself

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefor as per Article V, Section 2, Clause 3

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thus the Senate does not have the authority you say they have protected under the Necessary and Proper Clause , instead the regions reserve that power.

[Purple State]

The Senate is given the power to define the requirements, and in doing so has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to pass any legislation they want defining those requirements i.e. poster must have x number of posts in x amount of time frame. Now lets get to de-registration, as you, Purple State, have said yourself

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefor as per Article V, Section 2, Clause 3

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thus the Senate does not have the authority you say they have protected under the Necessary and Proper Clause , instead the regions reserve that power.

The voter roll is under federal jurisdiction and while the Constitution may not specify how a voter is to be removed from the rolls, it makes clear that such a matter is up to the federal government. Thus, it is up to the federal government to determine the "how" by appropriate legislation.

Through the HAEV, the Senate determines both what qualifies a voter to be de-registered (per V.2.3.) and how that de-registration is to occur (per I.5.30.).

If I.5.30. is overridden by IV.3.2. and does not provide the Senate with the power to execute its enumerated powers, what does the "necessary and proper" clause do? Your argument seems to imply that anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution as a power of the Senate is left to the Regions, despite the inclusion of I.5.30. as one of those powers.

[segwaystyle2012]

This is all moot because FL 26-1 is still in effect and therefore no deregistrations are valid anyways.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is all moot because FL 26-1 is still in effect and therefore no deregistrations are valid anyways.

I think that's a silly complaint to bring up here, personally.

The Senate is given the power to define the requirements, and in doing so has the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to pass any legislation they want defining those requirements i.e. poster must have x number of posts in x amount of time frame. Now lets get to de-registration, as you, Purple State, have said yourself

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefor as per Article V, Section 2, Clause 3

You must be logged in to read this quote.

thus the Senate does not have the authority you say they have protected under the Necessary and Proper Clause , instead the regions reserve that power.

I usually try not to be definitive in my statements during court cases, but I simply have to correct you. This is not about the Senate creating a mechanism solely for the removal of voters, as HAEV does not simply remove people, it evaluates activity. A5, S2, C3 says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HAEV evaluates activity and establishes a fluid set of activity requirements for each member and strikes them from the rolls accordingly. The Senate approved the law, the Senate approves the members, the Senate approves the guidelines. It removes people based on activity. Leave out the issue of deregistration for a moment and explain to me how the Senate's involvement with HAEV setting up their own activity requirements (that must be ratified by the Senate by the way) doesn't jive with "The Senate shall have the power to define these activity requirements by appropriate legislation"?

I simply don't buy that activity requirements must only be a list of "you must post this much in this time." Just because that's most of what the Senate's done thusfar doesn't mean it can't be done any other way. It does not state anywhere that is all that can be done.

[CatoMinor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where, can some one, anyone, please for the love of Dave tell me, does the Constitution say "the Senate shall have the power to create another group to establish the guidelines for activity". Which leads to my response to your next point, your Honor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your right, you don't have to buy that, because the senate can make said requirements whatever they want as THEY and THEY alone have the power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You miss the point. It is that because it is not stated is the very reason it should not be done. there are enumerated powers for a reason, to go above and beyond them under the false cover of the Necessary and Proper clause is to abuse the purpose of the clause and the render the Enumerated powers pointless, as the Federal Government could get around them  and abuse their role when ever with the simple excuse "well the constitution doesn't say we can't"

 

[Barnes]

I'll be filling tomorrow or the day after, Your Honor.

I didn't expect I would be getting a Sinus Infection, guys. This might come a little later.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll be filling tomorrow or the day after, Your Honor.

I didn't expect I would be getting a Sinus Infection, guys. This might come a little later.

I had a sinus infection when I had to sue the Southeast for printing a separate currency back in the day. I feel your pain.

[Barnes]

I give my sincerest apologies to the Court for the lateness of my brief.

You Honor,

Article V, Section Two, Clause Three of our Constitution reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The HAEV Act defines activity requirements for voters, and the Senate created the HAEV trough legislation. It is obvious that the Senate has the power to create bodies and organizations to operate as part of the government.

Also, the HAEV is very reliant to the Senate. The HAEV's definitions of a voter, and its guidelines must be approved by the Senate. Furthermore, an person de-registered by the HAEV has the right to appeal their ruling to this honorable body.

Your Honor, the Senate operated within its constitutional right to create the HAEV.

[Sam Spade]

We are working on something, but please be patient.  I suspect this might take a little while to complete.

[CatoMinor]

Well going by the Clause our honorable Attorney General quoted, it is clear the process laid out is that the Senate creates the requirements via legislation, nowhere in that does it give them the authority to delegate power via appropriate legislation.

As I've stated before, what is the point of enumerated powers if the Senate legislates around them. Forget how reliant on the Senate the HAEV is, its a question of their legal right to exist in the first place, and a question of the Senate's legal right to delegate power.

[Purple State]

Just to give the flow of the argument:

The Senate has the power to define activity requirements by legislation. Regardless of who writes them (an independent voter, legislators or the HAEV), the Senate must pass them. Check.

Well, what is the purpose of these activity requirements? The natural extension of defining requirements for remaining registered is the power to de-register. By the necessary and proper clause, the Senate can create a means by which to execute this power: the HAEV. Check.

[CatoMinor]

The senate may make registration requirements, if a person does not meet them they should be considered automatically de-registered at which point the SoFA removes them from the rolls. End of transaction.

Its been said

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That quote says it all, our law must be clear which I hope your decision will do. Your honors, I believe I have argued all that can be argued, with that I rest my case.   

[Sam Spade]

We are hammering out the final details of a decision on this matter, which will hopefully be released tonight or tomorrow.