|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2020, 10:45:23 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz  (Read 1678 times)
KEmperor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 27, 2004, 10:16:58 pm »
« edited: October 27, 2004, 10:35:40 pm by AFCJ KEmperor »

    There are two main issues raised in this case.  The first is whether Texasgurl has any standing to sue on behalf of Migrendel.  Since she is not directly affected by the Federal Activity Act, she has no standing to sue.  If Migrendel were to return, he would have standing to challenge the Federal Activity Act.  However, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 states that “The Supreme Court shall step in on any occasion in which a person or persons preform an unconstitutional or unlawful act.”   We exercise this constitutional mandate in this case. 

     Part II, Section 2 of the Federal Activity Act contradicts Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution.  There should be no recall of a Senator.  The Senate itself, by majority vote, should expel Migrendel.  In addition, the Senate has the power to remove a person from office, after they have been impeached by the people in a public poll administered by the Chief Justice of the Atlas Forum.  The current procedure where an office holder is simply declared a criminal by the Attorney General and is replaced, violates Article I, Section 2, Clause 7 of the Constitution. 

    Therefore, in the case of Texasgurl vs. Fritz, it is the unanimous decision of the Court that the Federal Activity Act is unconstitutional.  Migrendel shall retain his seat and no special election shall be held barring the Senate voting to explicitly expel him.

---Chief Justice KEmperor presiding, Justices King and Demrepdan concurring.
Logged
MAS117
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 10:19:45 pm »

booooo
Logged
Demrepdan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 11:03:32 pm »

Since I have no authority in the Senate, I would now like to simply state my OPINION...and SUGGESTION to the Senate at this time. In order to quickly resolve the Migrendel situation, I would pass a new law with the same premise as the Federal Activity Act, which excludes the unconstitutional sections. I believe that all of the Supreme Court Justices, myself included, believe in the basic concept of the Federal Activity Act, but it was fundamentally flawed. If a new law is passed which would make a Senator’s inactiveness itself a crime or misconduct, then the Senate could expel Migrendel on those grounds and hold an emergency election as soon as possible to fill the dead seat of Senator Migrendel.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2004, 03:31:55 am »

I resent being named as the defendant in this case.  I have taken no action in this matter.

But, it matters not, and the court does not need to respond.

I should, however, be named as a plaintiff in the case vs. the Governor of the Southeast region.
Logged
Peter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2004, 06:43:41 am »

BTW, the opinion should begin: "The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of a unanimous court"

and end: "It is so ordered"

The Chief Justice is never referred to by name in real SC opinions.
Logged
KEmperor
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,453
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2004, 07:53:10 am »

I resent being named as the defendant in this case.  I have taken no action in this matter.

But, it matters not, and the court does not need to respond.

I should, however, be named as a plaintiff in the case vs. the Governor of the Southeast region.

You are the one who would have administered the election to replace Migrendel.  This makes you a key member of the government in this matter.  Read Article I, Clause 2, Section 7 of the Atlas Consititution to see why this is important.

BTW, the opinion should begin: "The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of a unanimous court"

and end: "It is so ordered"

The Chief Justice is never referred to by name in real SC opinions.

Well:

1)  Don't be so anal.

2)  I believe you are not quite correct, I have read decisions and while they do not mention the chief justice by name, they do include the names of all the justices that agree with the majority opinion.  I simply skipped a few formalities and wrote in mostly plain english.
Logged
Peter
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2004, 10:29:49 am »

But I'm so good at it Wink

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Justices are mentioned by name in opinions, the CJ is not. But fair enough that you want to right them in plain English, its probably easier for the "ordinary" Forumites to understand.
Logged
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,141
Japan


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2004, 06:01:27 pm »

Thank you for the prompt action.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2004, 09:33:25 am »

When will the Court be ruling on Fritz vs. Ernest?
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2004, 11:13:56 am »

When will the Court be ruling on Fritz vs. Ernest?

Soon, we postponed the trial until we got testimony from the otherside (you Fritz). We already talked with Ernest, Pete Bell, etc.

Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2004, 11:31:24 pm »

So you are waiting for a statement from me?  No one has asked me for one.

And I really don't have a statement to make, other than to state the obvious.  I believe the federal government is within its constitutional authority in passing the Death Penalty Abolition Act, and I believe Governor Ernest exceeds his authority in nullifying a federal law in his region.

Even if Ernest's arguments are valid, which I don't believe they are, he still does not have the authority as Governor to unilaterally make such a declaration.  He should at least put the question to a vote among citizens of the region.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.135 seconds with 13 queries.