Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:56:34 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Supreme Court Ruling: Texasgurl vs. Fritz  (Read 1846 times)
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

« 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
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.023 seconds with 12 queries.