Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz

[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.

[MAS117]

booooo

[Demrepdan]

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.

[Fritz]

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.

[Peter]

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.

[KEmperor]

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.

[Peter]

1)  Don't be so anal.

But I'm so good at it

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.

[TexasGurl]

Thank you for the prompt action.

[Fritz]

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

[King]

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.

[Fritz]

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.