Tmthforu94 vs. Fremont

[tmthforu94]

On behalf of The People of the great state of Kansas, I am filing a lawsuit against the Fremont region due to its recent ratification of the "Free Kansas Amendment." While no Kansan was involved in the effort to change its region, this lawsuit is strictly focused on the constitutionality of the amendment to the Fremont Preamble, not the merits of which region Kansas should reside in.

Text of the amendment as passed by the Fremont Parliament:

AN AMENDMENT
to acknowledge and codify the true borders of the Commonwealth

Section 1 (Title)
The title of this Amendment shall be, the "Free Kansas Amendment." It may be alternatively cited by its ordinal number in order of ratification.

Section 2 (Amendment)
i. The Preamble of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont is amended to read as follows:

We, the people of the States of Alaska, Arizona, Atlasian Samoa, California, Colorado, Guam Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, the Northern Mariana Islands, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, united by common fealty to the great and unshakable truth that all people are born free and equal, that the blessings of liberty may be secured for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the COMMONWEALTH OF FREMONT.

Passage of the amendment by the Fremont Parliament:

Free Kansas Amendment
Frémont Parliament Bill 15.06 - Sponsored by AustralianSwingVoter, MFP

	LAB	PAX	IND	TOTAL
Aye	3	1	1	5
Nay	0	0	0	0
Abstain	0	0	0	0
Not Present	0	0	0	0

	FF	TR	ML	UL	TOTAL
Aye	1	1	2	1	5
Nay	0	0	0	0	0
Abstain	0	0	0	0	0
Not Present	0	0	0	0	0

First Minister HARRY S TRUMAN of North Dakota (LAB/FF)
Mr. AUSTRALIANSWINGVOTER of Washington (IND/ML)
Mr. ISHAN of Guam (LAB/UL)
Ms. KOOPADAQUICK of Iowa (PAX/TR)
Mr. OREGON BLUE DOG of Oregon (LAB/ML)

The bill passes the legislature by a unanimous vote. If signed by the first minister and enacted via referendum, the amendment will be added to the Constitution of Frémont.

Ratification of the bill by a public vote of 15-12, with an additional 1 blank and 2 invalid votes:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=367488.msg7278472#msg7278472


The Atlasian Constitution, as decided by the Constitutional Convention and ratified by The People, clearly states Kansas as a member of the Southern region in Article II, Section I:

The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

The western Region shall consist of the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. (Amended June 2016)

The Fremont Preamble, by claiming Kansas as a state in Fremont, is in clear, direct violation of the federal constitution which supersedes the regional constitutions and is the ultimate decider in how regions are comprised. No power is granted to the regions to add states or territories to its composition.

I ask the Court to take up this matter and quickly rule in favor of The People of Kansas to avoid any confusion and confirm that Kansas is only a Southern state and not Fremont, as they are illegally claiming.

Thank you for your time.

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I request the court dismiss this case. The amended preamble does not make an actual or practical claim to the territory of the State of Kansas, does not claim jurisdiction over Kansas, and does not effect the territorial sovereignty of the Southern Region as established under Article II of the Fourth Constitution. As such it must be considered a political statement and outside the jurisdiction of the court.

[tmthforu94]

Your honors, our constitutions are the sets of principles and guidelines that we live and abide by. They are not the place for symbolic gestures or political statements. If making a political statement was the only thing the Representative and Prime Minister wanted to accomplish, it should have been done via resolution, as I had suggested at the time. Instead, they took it a step too far and passed this amendment.

The Fremont Constitution, as is now written, claims Kansas as part of the region...."We the People of...Kansas." This, as Mr. Truman also is aware of, is in direct violation of Article II, Section I. We now have two regions that are laying claim to a state. The federal constitution is clear on where Kansas belongs, and I ask the Supreme Court to take this case to strike Kansas from the Fremont Constitution. Arguing this is outside the jurisdiction of the court is in essence an argument that regions should be able to do whatever they want, even if it is in direct violation of the federal constitution, which would set a dangerous precedent. As our federal constitution lays out, Fremont has no standing to claim Kansas or any other state, that is a decision for the federal government to decide.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Everything the honorable gentleman just said is wrong, but it would be inappropriate to commence with formal arguments at this juncture, so I will wait to explain exactly why until a later date. Suffice to say that the court has never considered a preamble to be binding law and it would be a very bad idea to start doing so now.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Seems like the Frist Minister of Fremont believes constitutions aren't worth diddly squat.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Kansas is only a Southern state and not Fremont

For the record, I do not dispute this as a matter of law, nor do I believe the constitution of Frémont as amended disputes this. It is not, and has never been, my intent to forcibly detach Kansas from the region to whom her allegiance is owed by Article II of the Fourth Constitution, nor do I believe it to be within my power to do so either under the Fourth Constitution or under the constitution of Frémont, as amended. If all the petitioner seeks from the court is a confirmation that the federal constitution and it alone determines the legal relationship between Kansas and a region, I will not contest his case.

[tmthforu94]

I have already stated above what I am requesting from the Supreme Court - Kansas should not be listed as a state in the preamble of the Fremont constitution. As Mr. Truman said before his last post, though, it is inappropriate to start a back and forth in this thread before The Court decides on whether or not to hear the case, so I will await their decision and look forward to answering any questions they (and others) may have.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I have already stated above what I am requesting from the Supreme Court - Kansas should not be listed as a state in the preamble of the Fremont constitution. As Mr. Truman said before his last post, though, it is inappropriate to start a back and forth in this thread before The Court decides on whether or not to hear the case, so I will await their decision and look forward to answering any questions they (and others) may have.

Duly noted. It was not clear to me from the wording of your petition what you were asking the court to do.

[windjammer]

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether the preamble of Section 2 of the Fremont constitution violates the Atlasian Constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00 PM EDT on  Wednesday, April 22, 2020.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 5:00 PM EDT on Saturday, April 25, 2020.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 5:00PM EDT on Sunday, April 26, 2020.

Additional time may be granted to either party, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[tmthforu94]

Tmthforu94, Petitioner
v.
Fremont Region, Respondent

Petitioner's Brief

In 2015, Atlasians united to create a new constitution during the Constitutional Convention. Early on, the decision was made to reduce regions from 5 to 3, requiring the creation of new boundaries. On November 1, 2015, the convention ratified an amendment proposed by Truman to put Kansas in the Rayburn (later renamed the southern Region). Several months later, our new constitution was approved by the convention and later ratified by the regions, creating a reset in the game.

This background lays the foundation for the establishment by the federal constitution for Kansas to be placed in the southern Region - Article II, Section I, Clause 3 clearly lists Kansas in the southern Region and omits the inclusion of Kansas in the western Region (Fremont).

Comments have been made in the past year about moving Kansas to Fremont; what started as a joke becoming more serious. On March 11, 2020, a constitutional amendment was introduced in the Fremont Parliament to add Kansas. As already referenced in my initial petition, the amendment was passed and ratified by The People of Fremont. To date, no action has been taken by the federal government to move Kansas out of the southern Region and into Fremont - it is my interpretation tha a federal constitutional amendment would be required to move Kansas.

This brings me to my first request for the Court: to confirm that Kansas is a member of the southern Region and not Fremont. I do not expect a contest by the defendant on this matter, but I believe it is important due to the current ambiguity in the texts of the federal constitution with Fremont and the southern constitution.

I understand it was not the defendant's intent to claim Kansas when passing this amendment, but intent does not equate impact, and their intent was predicated on the false notion that anything can be added into the Preamble without any legal ramifications. I disagree with that notion. I would concur that the U.S. constitution makes no legal claims, rather, sets the stage for the rest of the document. I argue that the Fremont constitution makes a specific claim: “We the People of...Kansas.” This line, which sets the stage for the rest of the document, makes the implication that The People of Kansas are a part of Fremont and are to abide by the document.

Nowhere does our constitution define the powers of the Preamble, but my question would be, if the preamble is meaningless in power, as the defendant will argue, why does it require a constitutional amendment to make alterations to it? There is no other part of the Fremont constitution where states are mentioned except for the Preamble. The Preamble should be considered a part of the Fremont Constitution, and thus, should be subject to having any portion struck down that is in violation of the federal constitution.

Another argument the defendant has made is over jurisdiction, with the claim that the Preamble has no power and the Supreme Court should not step in. I’ve addressed that above, but to elaborate on jurisdiction, I believe our constitution clearly outlines this. Article V, Section 3, Clause 1:

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution and all official acts made under its authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which this Republic shall be a party; to controversies between two or more Regions, or between a Region and citizens of another Region; between citizens of different Regions; between citizens of the same Region claiming lands under grants of different Regions, and between a Region, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.

The bolded sections are what applies here. As a resident of Kansas, my state is now being claimed by the constitutions of two regions - the southern Region and Fremont. The federal constitution clearly states that Kansas is part of the southern Region. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn the portion of the constitutional amendment passed in Fremont that concerns Kansas, and there is past legal precedent of the Supreme Court intervening when states/regions pass constitutional amendments that violate the federal constitution. It is my belief that by letting this stand, it would set a court precedent that regions can pass amendments that are in violation of the federal constitution. As stated above, by including "We the People of...Kansas" within their constitution, regardless of section, Fremont is laying claim to Kansas, and per the above mentioned section of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has full jurisdiction to step in and act.

The facts are there: the Preamble is part of the Fremont constitution. It was originally ratified by The People as part of the Fremont Constitution, and the amendment that was recently passed to include Kansas in the region followed the guidelines of amending a constitution. Having Kansas in the Fremont constitution is confusing and misleading to citizens not fully versed on the political and legal matters of the issue, which I believe bolsters the justification for the Supreme Court stepping in on this matter.

My second and more important request: that the Supreme Court strike Kansas out of the Preamble of the Fremont Constitution over violation of Article II, Section 1 of the federal constitution.

Amended second request (4/26): I will fully admit I am not a constitutional expert. After speaking with an attorney friend on a general overview of the case and doing additional research, I recognize that the court cannot strike Kansas out of the Fremont Constitution, but still ask that it be ruled unconstitutional and struck down and ruled unenforceable, based on arguments made above. It will be up to the People of Fremont to take action and amend so that the section is constitutional again.

I thank the court for its time and consideration and will answer any questions it may have.

[FairBol]

Honorable Justices,

I will be representing the petitioner in this case. 

(Also, as I was involved in RL matters, and missed the deadline for filing....I'll be submitting an Amicus Brief to the Court)

[FairBol]

AMICUS BRIEF

In the matter of Tmthforu94 v. Region of Fremont
On behalf of the petitioner

Honorable Justices of the Court,

In this matter, we see two regions, that of the South and Fremont, claiming the State of Kansas as part of their territory.  It is now for you to decide which region is correct.  

On March 28 of this year, the Parliament of the Region of Fremont, in their capacity as the legislature of that region, passed a bill known as the "Free Kansas Amendment".  The purpose of this bill was and is to define Kansas as part of Fremont.  I present it as Petitioner Exhibit A.  

AN AMENDMENT
to acknowledge and codify the true borders of the Commonwealth

Section 1 (Title)
The title of this Amendment shall be, the "Free Kansas Amendment." It may be alternatively cited by its ordinal number in order of ratification.

Section 2 (Amendment)
i. The Preamble of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont is amended to read as follows:

We, the people of the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, united by common fealty to the great and unshakable truth that all people are born free and equal, that the blessings of liberty may be secured for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the COMMONWEALTH OF FREMONT.

Sponsor: AustralianSwingVoter, MFP (Meadowlark—Independent, Washington)

Subsequently, this bill was signed into law, and included as part of the Regional Constitution. My client is protesting the passage of this bill, and asking you to declare it unconstitutional.  

Let us look at what the Atlasian Constitution has to say regarding regional matters.  We find the relevant portion of text in Article II, Section 1, sub-section 3.  

To wit:

3. The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Now, let us turn to Article VIII, Section 1,,sub-section 1; a portion of the Constitution that I will call the "Atlasia Supremacy Clause".  

1. This Constitution, and those laws, treaties, and other acts made by the Republic of Atlasia in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the executive and judicial officers of this government and of the several Regions shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of the several Regions notwithstanding.

The language of this clause is clear in its meaning; that in cases of disagreements between the regional and federal constitutions, the Atlasian Constitution takes precedence.  Thus (and keeping Article II in mind), any declaration of sovereignty by Fremont regarding Kansas is improper at best, and unconstitutional at worst.  

We now come to a question regarding Article VII, Section 2, sub-section 1 of the Constitution, which states:

1. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union, and apportioned among the several Regions as may be appropriate; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the Regions concerned as well as of the Congress.

When speaking of states, I will admit that Kansas is not a "new state" per se.  To that, I direct your attention to the definition of the word "new" (as presented by "Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary"), which I present as Petitioner Exhibit B.  

Definition of new (Entry 1 of 3)
1: having recently come into existence : RECENT, MODERN

4b: made or become fresh

If upheld, the law in question would result in Kansas being the most "fresh" and"recent" addition to Fremont.  Thus, it can rightly be argued that in such a manner, Kansas would be a "new state" in the region.  

As the text explains, it is necessary for the government of the Region of the South to consent to this action by Fremont.  The South did not give this consent, nor was it given by the Atlasian Congress.  Therefore, the Fremont law in question must be declared null and void.

I have detailed how the law in question specifically violates the Constitution, which is indeed the "law of the land".  It is now the prayer of my client, and myself as his representation, that you will declare this law to be unconstitutional, thus striking it down.  

-- FairBol

[FairBol]

Aaaand....I've just been informed that my representation has been terminated, LOL.  

Services Are No Longer Required

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

TMTHFORU94

V.

COMMONWEALTH OF FRÉMONT


BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT

Statement of Facts: On 11 March 2020, an amendment to the constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont (the "Free Kansas Amendment") was introduced in the parliament of that region. The substance of the amendment, following alterations proposed and adopted by the legislature, was to expand the preamble of the aforementioned document to refer to several states not named in the original text, among these the Southern state of Kansas. The intent of the amendment was explained in debate by its advocates as a "symbolic" declaration of their opinion that the incorporation of Kansas within the Southern Region by the Fifth Constitutional Convention was inadvisable for various historical reasons. The members expressed hope that passage of the amendment would encourage Congress to amend the Fourth Constitution to transfer Kansas to Frémont. The amendment was passed by parliament and subsequently ratified by a majority of the voting citizens of Frémont.

Questions: Does the "Free Kansas Amendment" affect the constitutional status of Kansas as a constituent state of the Southern Region? If so, may the court cause the instance of "Kansas" in the constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont to be struck?

Argument: The "Free Kansas Amendment" does not and cannot affect the constitutional status of Kansas. The incorporation of Kansas as a constituent state of the Southern Region is established by Article II§1(iii) of the Fourth Constitution, which reads

The southern Region shall consist of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Article VIII§1(i) states, "This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land, and the executive and judicial officers of this government and of the several Regions shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of the several Regions notwithstanding." The inescapable conclusion of these two provisos in combination is that the constitutional status of Kansas, or any state, with respect to the regions is that established in Article II§1. Put simply, Kansas is a Southern state; it was made a Southern state by the Fourth Constitution; and only an amendment to that constitution, approved in accordance with the provisions of Article IX of the same, may alter the present status of Kansas as a state constituent to the Southern Region. Any act by a region or regions which would declare otherwise, would therefore be, for all constitutional purposes, null from the moment of its inception.

The Free Kansas Amendment, however, is not in contravention of this reality. The petitioner states the amendment "adds Kansas" to Frémont, but he fails to demonstrate how it does so, except by "implication." The preamble to the constitution of Frémont, as amended, in fact makes no claim to exercise jurisdiction over Kansas and critically does not function as a definition of the region within the context of that document. Of greater importance, the amendment was not accompanied by any attempt by the government of Frémont to extend her laws to Kansas, or obstruct or administer justice within her territory, or to otherwise exercise legislative, judicial, or executive jurisdiction over Kansas. The petitioner has failed to establish an injury done by the amendment. The complaint is therefore of a hypothetical and political nature. The Court should decline to rule on the propriety of a symbolic flourish and leave the resolution of these grievances to the appropriate channels, viz. the political process.

(a) The amendment does not annex Kansas to Frémont. It would be impossible for it to effect such an annexation, owing to reasons previously discussed. Even if it were possible, the amendment as constructed could not reasonably be interpreted to extend the laws and government of Frémont to include Kansas.

Whatever the "implication" of the amendment in the eyes of the petitioner, implication alone is not sufficient grounds for the Court to act to grant the petitioner's second request, viz. "that the Supreme Court strike Kansas out of the Preamble of the Fremont Constitution." In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, the court ruled that

The power of courts, and ultimately of this Court, to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress arises only when the interests of litigants require the use of this judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. A hypothetical threat is not enough.

The Court does not possess the authority to declare hypothetical actions unconstitutional. It may only intervene when the interests of the litigants require it, that is when one or more litigants has suffered injury.

However, no injury to the sovereignty of Kansas or to that of the Southern Region has been done by the amendment. Injury in this case would constitute an attempt by the government of Frémont to exercise actual jurisdiction over Kansas: to act to extend her laws or the power of her government over Kansas. This view is supported by Article VIII§1(i), which specifically refers to executive and judicial officers in proclaiming the supremacy of federal law. We may compare the alleged "annexation" of Kansas to actual annexations which have occurred throughout history. There has been no effort by the government of Frémont, or by any actors affiliated with them, to occupy the territory of Kansas; no attempt to administer Frémontian law in Kansas; no acts passed by the parliament, which claim to legislate for or on behalf of Kansas; no effort to obstruct the regular administration of justice in Kansas, or to otherwise disrupt the activities of the Southern authorities in that state. In light of these facts, there is no injury for the Court to remedy in this matter.

(b) The preamble serves no definitional function. The petitioner presumes that the preamble serves to define the territory and jurisdiction of Frémont within the context of the Frémontian constitution, because "There is no other part of the Fremont constitution where states are mentioned except for the Preamble." He therefore concludes that the legislative, executive, and judicial powers granted by that constitution to the government of Frémont extend to Kansas in absence of an injunction by this Court. This interpretation, however, fundamentally misunderstands the preamble and its role within the Frémontian constitution.

(1) It is generally accepted that preambles are not legally binding. In Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Court ruled

Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.

A preamble is a symbolic statement of the spirit in which a law or constitution is ordained. It does not carry force of law, and confers no power on the governments that creates it. Therefore, if the parliament of Frémont intended to annex Kansas by the adoption of the amendment (and their testimony indicates that they did not), they did so in the one way guaranteed to have no practical effect on the constitutional status of Kansas and that does nothing to improve their ability to achieve that end.

(2) The preamble has never served as a definition of the region. The constitution adopted in 2017 used the definition of the western region set forth in Article II§1(iv). That definition was expanded by the Second Atlasian Territorial Statehood Act made by Congress in 2019, which admitted Atlasian Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands as states of the Commonwealth of Frémont. Significantly, the parliament did not at that time amend the preamble to include these new states. If we take the petitioner's view that the preamble serves a definitional function, such that the constitution applies to those states —and only those states —listed in the preamble, we must conclude the parliament deliberately exempted the Pacific island states from its laws for more than six months. This is evidently absurd.

It is not the convention of the Frémontian constitution to reiterate passages of the federal constitution that pertain to the structure, jurisdiction, and powers of the regional governments. For instance, it carries no description of the regional circuit court, in deference to Article V§2 of the Fourth Constitution establishing the regional judiciaries. It likewise recognizes federal rules governing voting rights and voter qualifications without repeating them. From these examples, we see that where the federal constitution provides a definition, the Frémontian constitution adopts this without repetition, and does not provide its own. The preamble does not create the western region and it does not define the jurisdiction of the government of Frémont, and has never been used for that purpose.

The amendment does not alter the definition of the jurisidiction of the government of Frémont because the preamble never served that purpose in the first place. It is a declaration of the spirit in which the constitution of Frémont is ordained, and nothing more.

(c) The Court has no power to change the text of the regional constitutions. To the extent that the constitution of a region may be found to be unconstitutional, the Court may only block the implementation of measures which contradict the federal constitution, or which were made by the exercise powers which a region may not of right possess. In this sense, the Court is a referee, and not an editor. It has already been shown that the amendment is not unconstitutional precisely because it does not make any injury against the Southern Region or the state of Kansas. In any event, however, the extent of the Court's authority is to prevent the government of Frémont from making an unconstitutional action. It may not physically delete words from the text of the constitution of Frémont.

The act of ratifying an amendment is not unconstitutional. To the extent the Court feels the amendment confers powers on the government of Frémont which they may not of right exercise, they may act to block the implementation of these measures. There is no legal or constitutional basis for deleting a word from the constitution of a region save by the normal amendment process, and the Court must therefore decline to grant the petitioner's second request.

Conclusion: Under Article II§1(iii), the state of Kansas is constituent to the Southern Region and not subject to the laws of any other. The petitioner is, however, incorrect in his assessment of the Free Kansas Amendment, and the remedy he proposes is beyond the power of the Court to effect. The amendment does not injure the sovereignty of the Southern Region or the state of Kansas, and it does not extend the jurisdiction of the government of Frémont to incorporate the state of Kansas. In the absence of an injury, the Court may not rule the amendment unconstitutional, nor may it delete "Kansas" from the preamble of the Frémontian constitution in any event. Accordingly, the Court should rule that Kansas is constituent to the Southern Region and that the laws and constitution of Frémont do not apply there, but that it has neither power nor grounds to physically change the words of the Frémontian constitution.

Whether or not the amendment is, in the opinion of the petitioner, "confusing" is a political question and not within the jurisdiction of the Court. Neither is a presumption of implied intent sufficient to prove injury, especially when that which is called implicit is directly contradicted by the explicit language of the authors for the amendment.


I thank the Court for their time.

[ilikeverin]

I thank both petitioner and respondent for their briefs.

Tmthforu, under your reading of the constitutional significance of the preamble, do you believe that any resident of Fremont should be able to sue the region for laws that do not "secure the blessings of liberty"?

For either respondent: were there any states enumerated in Fremont's ratification that had no registered voters at the time of the ratification of the Fourth Constitution?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

For either respondent: were there any states enumerated in Fremont's ratification that had no registered voters at the time of the ratification of the Fourth Constitution?

I assume the honorable justice refers to the time of Frémont's ratification of the Fourth Constitution. In that case, yes —according to data archived by the Census Bureau, there were no citizens registered to vote in Montana as of July 2016. (Source) As of this writing, the states of Atlasian Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands have no registered voters.

[tmthforu94]

Tmthforu, under your reading of the constitutional significance of the preamble, do you believe that any resident of Fremont should be able to sue the region for laws that do not "secure the blessings of liberty"?

I am hesitant to speak on that specific portion as it isn't relevant to the case I am making, but speaking generally (and hopefully this adequately answers your question), if there is an amendment or wording in a preamble that is used to make a specific claim, as I've argued adding Kansas does, then yes, I think that it should be held to the same standard as the rest of the constitution and be susceptible to a challenge of constitutionality. Historically, preambles haven't been used to make such claims, which is why I believe courts have generally ruled it powerless in the past. I think that with the portion of the preamble you used, the argument that a claim is being made would be much weaker, especially with the inclusion of "may" that follows what you quoted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To the petitioner (and the respondent is free to respond to this too): has the region of Fremont taken any steps, beyond the law currently being challenged, to reify a claim on the state of Kansas?

[tmthforu94]

     To the petitioner (and the respondent is free to respond to this too): has the region of Fremont taken any steps, beyond the law currently being challenged, to reify a claim on the state of Kansas?

Beyond the constitutional amendment, no formal action has been taken, to my knowledge. Since the respondent is more familiar with the region's actions over the past few months and beyond, I'll defer to him if I am wrong on this.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

     To the petitioner (and the respondent is free to respond to this too): has the region of Fremont taken any steps, beyond the law currently being challenged, to reify a claim on the state of Kansas?

No.

[ilikeverin]

For either respondent: were there any states enumerated in Fremont's ratification that had no registered voters at the time of the ratification of the Fourth Constitution?

I assume the honorable justice refers to the time of Frémont's ratification of the Fourth Constitution. In that case, yes —according to data archived by the Census Bureau, there were no citizens registered to vote in Montana as of July 2016. (Source) As of this writing, the states of Atlasian Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands have no registered voters.

Quite so! Me no word-say so good, but you inferred what I was getting at. Now, the first Constitution of Fremont was adopted in July 2016, but the Fourth Constitution took effect in June 2016. Montana was considered a part of Fremont for that month, was it not? By what authority was that sovereignty granted?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

For either respondent: were there any states enumerated in Fremont's ratification that had no registered voters at the time of the ratification of the Fourth Constitution?

I assume the honorable justice refers to the time of Frémont's ratification of the Fourth Constitution. In that case, yes —according to data archived by the Census Bureau, there were no citizens registered to vote in Montana as of July 2016. (Source) As of this writing, the states of Atlasian Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands have no registered voters.

Quite so! Me no word-say so good, but you inferred what I was getting at. Now, the first Constitution of Fremont was adopted in July 2016, but the Fourth Constitution took effect in June 2016. Montana was considered a part of Fremont for that month, was it not? By what authority was that sovereignty granted?

By Article II of the Fourth Constitution, quite plainly. That has been and remains the only operative definition of the western region (Frémont).

[windjammer]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Tmthforu vs Fremont

Opinion of the Court.

(Chief Justice Windjammer delivered the opinion of the Court)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision.

It is the opinion of the Supreme Court that preambles of constitutions have no legal weight. Thus, the recent modification of the preamble of the Fremont constitution shall be considered only as an irrendentist claim that shall be protected by the constitutional " right of free speech".

Kansas shall be part of the Southern region until an amendment to the Federal Constitution passes and declares it shall be part of the Fremont constitution.

The Supreme Court would like to thank Truman and Tmth for their full cooperation.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I thank the court for their time and wisdom on this matter.