Supreme Court Ruling: Fritz vs. Ernest (MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION!)

[KEmperor]

We, the Supreme Court of Atlasia, find Governor Ernest [of South Carolina]'s actions are within the terms outlined in the Atlas Constitution. We find all federal law put forward by the government as Constitutionally inept and open to debate by regional authorities. No clauses in our Constitution or its amendments state that a federal act regarding any matter [that is unrelated to electoral oversight] can supercede a regional action.

Further support of this decision is based upon Clause 14 of the Civil Liberties Amendment:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Barring a constitutional amendment stating that federal laws are binding in the regions, and also specifically spelling out what the Senate has the power to legislate on, all federal laws are essentally "suggestions" that the regional governments can or cannot accept as they so please.

This decision has been certified by Justices KEmperor, King and DemRepDan.

[Platypus]

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well be it's Grim Reaper.

[King]

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well bet's Grim Reaper.

IF the Senate passes a Constitutional Amendment stating that all laws set forth by the federal government overrule any regional law. This ruling would be nullified.

So Senators of the 4th Congress, get on your butts and start amending!

[KEmperor]

And one year after it's creation, Atlasia's fall begins. The moment we decentralise, we lose it.If Dan was the father of out constitution, Ernest may well bet's Grim Reaper.

IF the Senate passes a Constitutional Amendment stating that all laws set forth by the federal government overrule any regional law. This ruling would be nullified.

So Senators of the 4th Congress, get on your butts and start amending!

It can't just be a supremacy clause though.  It must actually spell out what powers the Senate has the power to legislate on.  (See Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution)

[Peter]

Basically this decision boils down to the fact that Dan did a crap job of writing the Constitution because he left massive loopholes in the following respects:

1. He failed to enumerate the powers of the Senate despite the fact that Article I states "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Senate of the Atlas Forum." - no such powers are granted.

2. Also Article III Section 2 Clauses 2 & 3 appear contradictory (certainly under this ruling):

Clause 2. The Supreme Court may make any ruling they see fit to uphold the Constitution of the Atlas Forum.

Clause 3. The Supreme Court may only interpret the law, and if they pass any ruling that usurps the Senate’s lawmaking authority, they are guilty of abusing their power and therefore subject to impeachment.

----
Really the entire SC is open to impeachment under Clause 3 but it isn't because it was doing its duty under Clause 2. Basically its ed. I have a solution, give me a 24 hours to solidify it and I will present it to the Senate. BTW, you guys ought to have discussions about impeaching this bench because they have actually contradicted clause 3 in following clause 2. I return to my original point - its ed.

[Nym90]

While I am not happy about this decision, I will accept it, and I anticipate a healthy debate in the Senate on a proposed Constitutional Amendment.

[The Duke]

Might I point out that this isn't that big a deal, since we do have an amendment process.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

Might I suggest we get back to the Dunn constitutional proposal?

[Platypus]

Basically this decision boils down to the fact that Dan did a crap job of writing the Constitution

He did a great job. Yes there are some problems, but NONE of us spotted them when it was 'open for inspection' so to speak-nobody including yourself. Your're a good bloke, and I like you, but don't beat up on Dan who did so much work because of a problem we ALL missed.

[Peter]

He did a great job. Yes there are some problems, but NONE of us spotted them when it was 'open for inspection' so to speak-nobody including yourself. Your're a good bloke, and I like you, but don't beat up on Dan who did so much work because of a problem we ALL missed.

Sorry. May I take this chance to extend my apologies to Dan. I am simply angry at the decision and state of affairs in general - frankly, we didn't need this sort of crisis because passing Constitutional amendments is not the sort of thing we should be doing once a week; Once we have a setup a Constitutional framework, we don't want to change it all the time.

Should I be nominated and confirmed to the post of AG I will establish a Special Commission to review the Constitution and look for inconsistencies within it so that we can nip any potential problems in the bud.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

One big problem is the eleventh-hour invention of the moderator, which changed the rules very much. Another problem is that clause in the Civil Liberties amendment. The thing has several highly problematic clauses, this being one of them. Its defects (some of them) were discussed but people agreed that it was on balance a good thing. Stuff in there should really have been voted on clause by clause, would have made for a far superior law. Also, bills used to get changed a lot between proposal and passage in the early days of the Senate, something bad's happened since. Basically the third Senate did much more work than its predecessors but also work of much inferior quality.

[Colin]

One big problem is the eleventh-hour invention of the moderator, which changed the rules very much. Another problem is that clause in the Civil Liberties amendment. The thing has several highly problematic clauses, this being one of them. Its defects (some of them) were discussed but people agreed that it was on balance a good thing. Stuff in there should really have been voted on clause by clause, would have made for a far superior law. Also, bills used to get changed a lot between proposal and passage in the early days of the Senate, something bad's happened since. Basically the third Senate did much more work than its predecessors but also work of much inferior quality.

Making sure that the Central government doesn't usurp the powers delegated to the individual states isn't a defect. It is made to ensure that the powers of government remain constrained. Now people are immediately hoping to pass an amendment to the constitution to dilute the powers that are given to the regions. This is an exgregious example of the Congress strong arming any opposing body into submission. I hope that the Senate will vote against this amendment and that the people will be smart enough to vote against this amendment should it every come to referenda.

[Peter]

Making sure that the Central government doesn't usurp the powers delegated to the individual states isn't a defect. It is made to ensure that the powers of government remain constrained. Now people are immediately hoping to pass an amendment to the constitution to dilute the powers that are given to the regions. This is an exgregious example of the Congress strong arming any opposing body into submission. I hope that the Senate will vote against this amendment and that the people will be smart enough to vote against this amendment should it every come to referenda.

The Court just ruled that the Senate has no power to do anything. We need a constitutional amendment to avoid the Senate becoming a talking shop and all the power actually lying with the Regions. I'm not saying the Regions don't deserve some power, just not all of it.

[Colin]

Well I do agree to the admendment now that I have seen it. But I also think that the power of the regions should not be curtailed. The Senate makes federal laws while the regions make regional laws. I think that if a federal law wants to be accepted by the region then either the Lt. Governor, the Governor, or a group of people with a signed petition can declare that a referendum would be held concerning whether that law should become law in the Region. I except though your attempts as well as Ernest's as good and well thought out. We need an enumeration of the powers of the Senate that way we can control what powers are given over to the central government and what powers are delegated to the people and the regions respectively.

[Platypus]

we don't have enough people for a decentralised system!

No matter what tyour views on centralism are, the fact is, its the ONLY way the system will work.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

Also, the regions were created by the Feds in our case. This isnay America.

[True Federalist]

What's the point of having Regions if we aren't going to explore the issue of co-sovereignity?  We certainly don't have enough people to have State governments, but with the inititaive process all of our Regions use so that the Regional legislature is the people, I think we have enough people to support Regional government.  That said, this decision threw out the baby with the bathwater, so we need to adopt a new baby soon.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

What's the point of having Regions if we aren't going to explore the issue of co-sovereignity?  We certainly don't have enough people to have State governments, but with the inititaive process all of our Regions use so that the Regional legislature is the people, I think we have enough people to support Regional government.  That said, this decision threw out the baby with the bathwater, so we need to adopt a new baby soon.

The idea was to have an additional office to run for, give some more semblance to the US.
That was really the whole idea behind the Senate, too...there once was a proposal that every registered voter would be considered a Representative unless elected or appointed to something else.

[2,868,691]

oh dear, i leave for a little while and I return to this horrendous decision

[Fritz]

This is the most ridiculous ruling ever made.  The court has just ruled that the Senate has no authority to make law whatsoever, and has set up Governors as virtual dictators of each region- apparantly able to make legally binding declarations without so much as calling for a vote among the citizens, as Ernest has done.  This undermines the entire fantasy election government process.  Laws passed by the Senate are nothing more than "suggestions"?  Governors can decide whether or not any law is valid in their region?   I am sorry, but even in the broadest interpretation of the constitution I fail to see how this conclusion is reached.

My region may soon be without a governor, but perhaps that will be a good thing.  Better to have anarchy than dictatorship.

The entire Supreme Court ought to be impeached, under Article III clause 3 of the Constitution, for usurping the Senate's lawmaking authority.  I call upon the Senate to reclaim its rightful position as the lawmaking authority in Atlasia by beginning impeachment proceedings against Justices KEmporer, Demrepdan, and King.

[KEmperor]

You're right about Clause 3 Fritz.  But it's contradicted by Clauses 1 and 2.  So either way, we would have been screwed whenever we rule on a case.

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

So impeach us if you wish, all we were doing was trying to enforce the Constitution YOU provided us to work with.

[King]

Besides, Fritz, only President PBrunsel can call for the impeachment of a Justice. (See Article III, Section 1)

[Fritz]

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

Which section of the Civil Liberties Amendment explicitly repeals the Senate's authority to pass law?  If you are referring to clause 14, that is an explicit copy of Amendment 10 in the United States Constitution (right down to using the word "states" instead of "regions").  No court has ever suggested that Amendment 10 explicitly takes away Congress's ability to make law.  I still do not follow your logic here.

Besides, Fritz, only President PBrunsel can call for the impeachment of a Justice. (See Article III, Section 1)

Actually, Article III section 1 has nothing to do with impeachment, the word "impeachment" does not appear there.  That section deals with another method of removing Justices from office.  Apparantly an easier one, too- it does not require a public poll or 2/3 of the Senate; just a Presidential mandate and a simple majority in the Senate.

[KEmperor]

If you actually read the decision Fritz, you will realize that we were exactly correct on the fact that with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amdt., the Senate has no power to pass laws concerning anything except concerning elections and the rights of voters.  The Constitution never really gave it any to begin with.  It was always implied.  But with the passage of the Civil Liberties Amendment, they were explicitly taken away.

One of the reasons we did what we did was so that this Senate would stop passing Constitutional amemdments like they're just new laws.  A Constututional amendment is actually quite serious, and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.  I advise everyone to remember that in the future.

Which section of the Civil Liberties Amendment explicitly repeals the Senate's authority to pass law?  If you are referring to clause 14, that is an explicit copy of Amendment 10 in the United States Constitution (right down to using the word "states" instead of "regions").  No court has ever suggested that Amendment 10 explicitly takes away Congress's ability to make law.  I still do not follow your logic here.

The reason it doesn't in the real world is because in the real world Congress's powers are spelled out in the constitution(Coin money, fund armies, ratify treaties, etc.).  The 10th amendment says that any powers not given to the Federal Goverment in the Constitution are retained by the States or the people.  But the Congress is given powers in Article I, Section 8; so they can still make laws based on those powers.

The problem we have in our fantasy constitution is that there are NO legislative powers spelled out in our constitution, except for those that apply to election law.  This was not really a problem until we passed the amendment that said that any powers not given to the Senate go to the States(Regions) or the people.  Now, we have the bizzare situation where the Senate has been given NO explicit powers to make law other than election law, and at the same time having an amendment that says that any powers not given to it, it doesn't have.

Do you understand the problem?

[Fritz]

Well, since you put it that way...

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5. The Senate may pass a bill for the purpose of making laws, or a resolution for the purpose of declaring war, a majority of the Senators voting concurring. But all such bills and resolutions shall first be submitted to the President before taking effect; and the President may either declare his or her approval or veto it. If the President approves, or if he or she neither approves nor vetoes the bill or resolution within seven days, the bill or resolution shall take effect. But if he or she shall veto it, the bill or resolution shall be of no effect unless the Senate shall vote, two-thirds of the Senators concurring, to override the President's veto.



Doesn't that explicitly give the Senate power to make laws?