Ruling: Bono vs. Atlasia

[KEmperor]

In the case of Bono vs. Atlasia, the Supreme Court of Atlasia finds the Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill unconstitutional.  We find that several sections of the bill violate the Constitution.  Proponents of the bill argue that Section 1, Clauses 16 and 17 of the Powers Amendment gives the Federal Government the power to implement this program.

Clause 16 says “To provide for the humanitarian relief of the distress caused by unpredictable events of natural or man-made origin.”  We find that this clause is clearly intended to apply to natural disasters such as a tsunami or violent events such as a terrorist attack.  It is not intended to apply to everyday events such as childbirth. 

Clause 17 says “to provide for systems of Insurance and Annuity for Unemployment, Disability, and Retirement.”  We find that this clause is clearly intended to apply to Unemployment benefits, Disability benefits, and retirement programs such as Social Security.  We do not view pregnancy and childbirth as a disability.

Furthermore, this bill violates the equal protection clause of the Civil Liberties Amendment.  By only applying to unwed and teenage mothers, this bill discriminates against certain women on the basis of marital status.

Finally, this bill violates Section 2, Clause 7 of the Powers Amendment which states “No Law requiring any action to be taken or to be not taken by a Region shall be passed, except to preserve the rights of the Senate or of the People enumerated under the Constitution.”.  Because the bill regulates how state funds will be spent, it violates Regional rights as determined by Section 2, Clause 7.

Due to all these violations, the Court rules the Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill grossly Unconstitutional.

-Justices KEmperor and John Dibble for the majority, Texasgurl dissenting.

[Bono]

AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBA!!!!!





 

[King]

*ding, ding*

And the libertarians win!

[Peter]

Will Texasgurl be filing a dissenting opinion?

[John Dibble]

Will Texasgurl be filing a dissenting opinion?

Yes, but at a later time. She had to go.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is this some kind of sick joke or something?

I am utterly disgusted by the complete lack of humanity shown by Justices Kemperor and Dibble.

I won't say any more as I'll just get very, very angry.

[KEmperor]

Will Texasgurl be filing a dissenting opinion?

Yes, but she had to go to Illinois.

[John Dibble]

Is this some kind of sick joke or something?

I am utterly disgusted by the complete lack of humanity shown by Justices Kemperor and Dibble.

I won't say any more as I'll just get very, very angry.

This was discussed in the case, actually - it is not the job of the Supreme court to determine whether a bill/law/government action/ect. is noble, just, right, wrong, evil or whatever. The job of the Supreme Court is to determine whether or not such things are constitutional.

Our personal feelings regarding this bill have nothing to do with our decision today - if we allow our personal feelings to affect our decisions, then we are not fit for the job. Even if we had approved of the bill personally, that does not change that it is unconstitutional. If we apply favoritism to bills we like or don't like, that would be an abuse of power. As a Justice, I can not allow myself to abuse power because of my own personal feelings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As a Justice, I can not allow myself to abuse power because of my own personal feelings.

But you seem happy to do it for ideological reasons

[John Dibble]

As a Justice, I can not allow myself to abuse power because of my own personal feelings.

But you seem happy to do it for ideological reasons

It's my job to interpret the constitution. I did that. And don't contend that my ideology isn't part of my personal feelings - it is.

Let me give you a different situation - tsunami relief. I personally and ideolgically oppose government foreign aid - I don't think that's something the government should do. But let's say the Atlasian Senate makes up a bill for relief for the tsunami - I would personally oppose that bill(though before you call me a coldhearted bastard, I have given personally to charitable relief for that, I just oppose government doing it with other people's money, meaning forced charity). However, if a court case was brought up against the bill, I would rule in favor of the bill - it's clearly constitutional by Section 1, Clause 16 of the Powers Amendment. I can personally oppose a bill, but that doesn't mean I won't do the job I was appointed to do. If you can't accept that, that's your problem.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's my job to interpret the constitution. I did that.

No Comment

[Moorein08]

I must say that this was an excellent ruling by the Supreme Court and I support it 100%!

[12th Doctor]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.  It is clearly the responsability of the Federal government to provide for the common good of its people.  At no time does this bill enforce restrictions upon the regions or any municipality.  Any other other Supreme Court in the history of this nation would have found in favor of my bill.  I find it nothing more than strange couriosity of history that we have at this time the most libertarian, hyper-individualistic, anti-social, selfish, and self-interested Supreme Court in the history of Atlasia.

I strongly believe that this bill is in the spirit of the powers amendment.  The man who wrote the ammendment agrees with me.

I am sadden by the precedent set by this court has set and encourage all fellow citizens living in poverty or who might be endanger of hitting hard times in the near future to move to our lovely neighbor to the north, if this nation countinues on its present course.

I appologize sincerely for all young women and fetuses who were left defensless by the actions of this court.  Truely, it appears that government of the plutocrats, by the few over meek has triumphed this day.

I would also like ot appologize to all my colleagues who struggled so hard to make this bill a reality.  Measured against the actions of the true governing body of this land, the Senate is a useless joke.

Perhapes FDR's court packing scheme was not such a bad idea afterall.  If Senators have no power, perhapes we should eliminate the Senate and all become Justices.  That way our opinion might acctually matter when compare to that of the fringe.

Once again I have been forced to call into question m support of the Chief Justices Presidential bid in the up coming race.  If he true is so against the concept of social justice that he will make up reasons to act against it, perhapes Senator Al Realpolitik will make the better choice after.  I believe that Christian Socialism is better than the absolute tyranny of the individual.

I believe that the people of Atlasia deserve a better explanation that the one given for the actions of this court.

[Peter]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.

I don't honestly think any decision this Court will make could beat Harry v. M. Justices may have let ideology affect their judgement, but certainly the Court's reasoning stands up to a basic credibility test in that it has basis in the Constitution even if its not the correct interpretation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually the author insisted on removing the phrase "general welfare" from what is in the real US constitution. So I would strongly dispute that the Constitution authorises the federal government to act in the common good on matters outside its specifically enumerated powers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean like the migrendel court?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm a big opponent of the "spirit" of the law interpretations that people try to put on the Constitution. It is either legal or its not, there's no grey area where you claim the "spirit" of the law.

[KEmperor]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.  It is clearly the responsability of the Federal government to provide for the common good of its people.  At no time does this bill enforce restrictions upon the regions or any municipality.  Any other other Supreme Court in the history of this nation would have found in favor of my bill.  I find it nothing more than strange couriosity of history that we have at this time the most libertarian, hyper-individualistic, anti-social, selfish, and self-interested Supreme Court in the history of Atlasia.

I strongly believe that this bill is in the spirit of the powers amendment.  The man who wrote the ammendment agrees with me.

I am sadden by the precedent set by this court has set and encourage all fellow citizens living in poverty or who might be endanger of hitting hard times in the near future to move to our lovely neighbor to the north, if this nation countinues on its present course.

I appologize sincerely for all young women and fetuses who were left defensless by the actions of this court.  Truely, it appears that government of the plutocrats, by the few over meek has triumphed this day.

I would also like ot appologize to all my colleagues who struggled so hard to make this bill a reality.  Measured against the actions of the true governing body of this land, the Senate is a useless joke.

Perhapes FDR's court packing scheme was not such a bad idea afterall.  If Senators have no power, perhapes we should eliminate the Senate and all become Justices.  That way our opinion might acctually matter when compare to that of the fringe.

Once again I have been forced to call into question m support of the Chief Justices Presidential bid in the up coming race.  If he true is so against the concept of social justice that he will make up reasons to act against it, perhapes Senator Al Realpolitik will make the better choice after.  I believe that Christian Socialism is better than the absolute tyranny of the individual.

I believe that the people of Atlasia deserve a better explanation that the one given for the actions of this court.

I wish people would stop assuming this has anything to do with politics.  This decision is based on Constitutional law.  My personal opinions have nothing to do with this.  I didn't write the Constitution, I didn't write the Amendments, and I am simply working with what I have been given.

[12th Doctor]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.  It is clearly the responsability of the Federal government to provide for the common good of its people.  At no time does this bill enforce restrictions upon the regions or any municipality.  Any other other Supreme Court in the history of this nation would have found in favor of my bill.  I find it nothing more than strange couriosity of history that we have at this time the most libertarian, hyper-individualistic, anti-social, selfish, and self-interested Supreme Court in the history of Atlasia.

I strongly believe that this bill is in the spirit of the powers amendment.  The man who wrote the ammendment agrees with me.

I am sadden by the precedent set by this court has set and encourage all fellow citizens living in poverty or who might be endanger of hitting hard times in the near future to move to our lovely neighbor to the north, if this nation countinues on its present course.

I appologize sincerely for all young women and fetuses who were left defensless by the actions of this court.  Truely, it appears that government of the plutocrats, by the few over meek has triumphed this day.

I would also like ot appologize to all my colleagues who struggled so hard to make this bill a reality.  Measured against the actions of the true governing body of this land, the Senate is a useless joke.

Perhapes FDR's court packing scheme was not such a bad idea afterall.  If Senators have no power, perhapes we should eliminate the Senate and all become Justices.  That way our opinion might acctually matter when compare to that of the fringe.

Once again I have been forced to call into question m support of the Chief Justices Presidential bid in the up coming race.  If he true is so against the concept of social justice that he will make up reasons to act against it, perhapes Senator Al Realpolitik will make the better choice after.  I believe that Christian Socialism is better than the absolute tyranny of the individual.

I believe that the people of Atlasia deserve a better explanation that the one given for the actions of this court.

I wish people would stop assuming this has anything to do with politics.  This decision is based on Constitutional law.  My personal opinions have nothing to do with this.  I didn't write the Constitution, I didn't write the Amendments, and I am simply working with what I have been given.

Anyone who ever claims that his personal opinions had nothing to do with any decision that they make is obviously lying.  That causes me to automatically distrust anything that yousay.

[KEmperor]

It is my oppinion that this is the most politically motivativated decisions I have seen in the history of Atlasia.  It is clearly the responsability of the Federal government to provide for the common good of its people.  At no time does this bill enforce restrictions upon the regions or any municipality.  Any other other Supreme Court in the history of this nation would have found in favor of my bill.  I find it nothing more than strange couriosity of history that we have at this time the most libertarian, hyper-individualistic, anti-social, selfish, and self-interested Supreme Court in the history of Atlasia.

I strongly believe that this bill is in the spirit of the powers amendment.  The man who wrote the ammendment agrees with me.

I am sadden by the precedent set by this court has set and encourage all fellow citizens living in poverty or who might be endanger of hitting hard times in the near future to move to our lovely neighbor to the north, if this nation countinues on its present course.

I appologize sincerely for all young women and fetuses who were left defensless by the actions of this court.  Truely, it appears that government of the plutocrats, by the few over meek has triumphed this day.

I would also like ot appologize to all my colleagues who struggled so hard to make this bill a reality.  Measured against the actions of the true governing body of this land, the Senate is a useless joke.

Perhapes FDR's court packing scheme was not such a bad idea afterall.  If Senators have no power, perhapes we should eliminate the Senate and all become Justices.  That way our opinion might acctually matter when compare to that of the fringe.

Once again I have been forced to call into question m support of the Chief Justices Presidential bid in the up coming race.  If he true is so against the concept of social justice that he will make up reasons to act against it, perhapes Senator Al Realpolitik will make the better choice after.  I believe that Christian Socialism is better than the absolute tyranny of the individual.

I believe that the people of Atlasia deserve a better explanation that the one given for the actions of this court.

I wish people would stop assuming this has anything to do with politics.  This decision is based on Constitutional law.  My personal opinions have nothing to do with this.  I didn't write the Constitution, I didn't write the Amendments, and I am simply working with what I have been given.

Anyone who ever claims that his personal opinions had nothing to do with any decision that they make is obviously lying.  That causes me to automatically distrust anything that yousay.

Sigh....ok, I will point you to an example.  In the Ernest vs. Fritz case I would have ruled in favor of Fritz if I would have let my personal opinions decide the case.  I am strongly against the concept of nullification.  But the way the Constitution was written, I was forced to rule in favor of Ernest.  I didn't like it, but it was legally right.

[Beet]

It seems to me if there be a problem it lies with the constitution itself and not with the nature of the rulings.

[12th Doctor]

Yes it does.

The only part of the bill that pertains to the regions is Article 2.  Article 2 is only a response to the bill past by Migredel that stated that no CHIP program was to reard the fetus as a human being.  i wish the Supreme Court Justices would acctually pay attention to the comings and goings of the government.  If they cannot do this, perhapes we can appoint some competent justices who can.

[John Dibble]

Yes it does.

The only part of the bill that pertains to the regions is Article 2.  Article 2 is only a response to the bill past by Migredel that stated that no CHIP program was to reard the fetus as a human being.  i wish the Supreme Court Justices would acctually pay attention to the comings and goings of the government.  If they cannot do this, perhapes we can appoint some competent justices who can.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to tell the states(which are part of the regions) what to do with their money. If this was not your intent, that's too bad, but you wrote it in this manner. For this section to be constitutional(disregarding constitutional questions on CHIP programs) you can not require the states to resume their funding for these programs at any level.

You are more than free to write a new version of this bill, but it must conform to the limits imposed on the Senate by the Constitution.

[The Dowager Mod]

O.k. here goes:
I'm no good at legalese so bear with me here.
It is my belief that the paramount responsibility of government is the welfare and safety of it's citizens.
Clauses 16 and 17 were clearly an attempt by the senate to do just that.
In striking down this attempt to further the welfare of societies most helpless citizens, the court has forced countless desperate mothers to resort to abortion or prostitution for a lack of any alternative.

No one was harmed by this legislation and no one was realisticaly discriminated against.
this is simply a matter of too narrow an interpretation of the intent of the senate in regards to the Powers of the Senate and Regions amendment.

I know i suck at expressing myself, hopefully i explained myself sufficiently.

[Jake]

This is interesting.  Texasgurl makes a good point.  It is about interpreting the constitution.  KEmperor and Dibble looked at the constitution and interpreted it narrowly, and Texasgurl interpreted it slightly more broader.   

Personally, I feel this law is an excellent idea, and I would probably support it if it came back up again in a refined form.  Constitutionally, I would interpret this bill as mostly constitutional except for the part about the regions.

And one last thing, when the court looks at my case, look at it based on whether the constitution allows it, and don't let your opinion intrude at all.  I trust that you will.

[A18]

Good ruling.

[Peter]

My commentary on this ruling

Feel free to add your own commentary on the act in a new section on the wiki page or to make points here, but please do not edit my commentary.

As you can see, I think the Court went crazy with the equal protection argument.

[John Dibble]

My commentary on this ruling

Feel free to add your own commentary on the act in a new section on the wiki page or to make points here, but please do not edit my commentary.

As you can see, I think the Court went crazy with the equal protection argument.

A very good commentary. I agree we may have went a little overboard with the equal protection argument - probably could have used another voice of dissent, but oh well. We're human, we make mistakes. We can reverse the interpretation as a mistake in the future if it becomes necessary to do so.