S019 v. The South

[Former President tack50]

Greetings Honorable Justices!

Today I am filing suit on behalf of my client, Lincoln Speaker S019; in order to present a case of anti-constitutionality in the regional "Bane of S019 Act".

Here is the bill in question, as signed by Governor MB:

Bane of S019 Act

1. Lincoln Council Speaker S019 shall not interfere in the affairs of the South while he holds elected office in another region, unless personally requested by the Southern Chamber of Delegates.

2. If S019 does not abide, the government of the South shall fine him for disturbing the peace.

3. If S019 still does not abide, the government of the South shall have the authority to recommend to the regional government of the region he resides in to impose a SALT (State and Local Tax) cap on him.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/482074486632349697/708600048212115456/signature.png

I believe that this is an extremely arbitrary piece of legislation that is a mockery of any sort of due process or legal rights and it breaks multiple sections of the Atlasian constitution.

The most important and notable section that this bill most clearly breaks; and therefore the simplest reason as to why it is unconstitutional, is my client's right to equal protection under the law is being obviously breached, as established in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, given that by its very nature it treats S019 very differently from every other Atlasian citizen:

All persons born or naturalized in the Republic of Atlasia, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Region in which they reside, and shall in all cases be afforded equal protection under the law.

This also impairs my clients liberty and right to free speech, without any sort of trial or due process; as well as my client being deprived of his property when the government of the South fines him, which is clearly in contravention of Article I, Section 5 of the Atlasian Constitution:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Furthermore, this is a bill targeting a single person and automatically punishing them for no reason. It is a textbook example of a Bill of Attainder, a kind of bill that is explicitly banned by the Atlasian Constitution:

No Region shall pass any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law, nor pass any act impairing the obligation of contracts.

Finally; I believe this bill might break the rights of my client, compared to other citizens of the South, as established in Article VII, Section 1.1.

The citizens of each Region shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several Regions.

My requested remedy would be to declare this bill unconstitutional in its entirety.

If needed I would be more than glad to elaborate on any of my points before making the proper brief (assuming this is granted certiorari of course).

x tack50, Attorney for Petitioner S019

[fhtagn]

I request the court dismiss this case on the grounds that the bill in question does not actually violate the Constitution, especially per the arguments laid out by the petitioner.

There is nothing in the bill that suggests that anyone, including the petitioner, would be deprived of their due process rights, nor can the petitioner even cite specifically what property he has been deprived of or will be deprived of under the law in question. In his attorney's own words, he in fact has not actually been deprived of anything as of his filing, which is relevant when it comes to the next point in my request to dismiss this case.

There is no valid argument to be made that the bill in question is a Bill of Attainder, as the petitioner in question has not actually been declared guilty of any crime, by the legislature, or any government body in the South. The bill in question simply says, like many laws, "if you do X, then the punishment is Y". As referenced in the point above, the petitioner's attorney even mentions in his filing that the petitioner has not actually been punished under this law at the time of filing. Nothing in the bill's text suggests that he would be denied due process of a trial prior to "punishment".

There is no argument to be made that the petitioner's right to free speech was violated, as the bill's text only mentions that he shall not interfere in affairs of the region. Nothing in the bill's text prevents him from speaking on Southern issues, expressing approval or disapproval of Southern legislation or Southern officeholders. The bill itself only applies in situations in which he interferes in legislative proceedings. There is nothing in the Atlasian Constitution that prohibits the Regions from maintaining order in the Chamber and removing those who seek to disrupt the Chamber doing it's business.

Finally, in practice, the bill is effectively a censure resolution. As is the case with any censure resolution, there are no legal consequences that come with the bill in question. As there is no way to actually collect on any fines issued in game per Section 2 of the bill (which is why no actual number is listed in the bill itself), the fine, in practice, is $0. Section 3 of the bill also provides no real legal consequences, as it gives the South the authority to make a recommendation to the petitioner's home region. Making a recommendation does not indicate that any punishment will be carried out, nor does it result in any legal consequences for the petitioner if the South makes such a statement. If any legal consequence is carried out as a result of such a statement, then the petitioner would need to file suit against his home region, not the South.

[S019]

Confirming that Tack50 will be my attorney in this case.

[windjammer]

This has been seen.

[windjammer]

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether Bane of S019 Act violates the Atlasian Constitution.

Schedule

Petitioner has seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00 PM EDT on  Friday, Juni 26, 2020.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 1:00 PM EDT on Monday , Juni 29, 2020.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 1:00PM EDT on Tuesday, Juni 30, 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.

[Former President tack50]

If I may, for the sake of clarity I will split the "main" brief and argument (involving equal protection); from the other lesser but still important arguments (involving due process, Bills of Attainder and Privileges and Immunities).

TACK50, Petitioner
v.
REGION OF THE SOUTH, Respondent

Main brief of the petitioner

Introduction

Lincoln citizen and Council Speaker S019 has a long history of commenting on political events that happen on the Southern region. To combat this supposed problem, the Southern Region passed and Governor MB signed the "Bane of S019 Act".

I will now challenge the constitutionality of this bill on 4 main arguments.

Equal Protection under the law

The Atlasian Constitution, in its very first article, already establishes that all citizens shall be equal under the law.

All persons born or naturalized in the Republic of Atlasia, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Region in which they reside, and shall in all cases be afforded equal protection under the law.

Equal protection can essencially be defined as the idea that the state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Therefore, A bill singling out S019 as an individual, compared to every other Citizen of Atlasia, is very obviously against equal protection. The equal protection clause tends to generally be invoked in reference to groups of people (so for example, a law that discriminated based upon race would obviously be unconstitutional). However it is my view that a law that singles out a single person is just as inconstitutional based on equal protection as one bill that singles out a group of people.

The "Bane of S019 Act" very obviously discriminates against my client by singling him out.

Now, it is true that some forms of discrimination are legal, generally when they further some compelling government interest, and you could argue that S019's interventions in the Southern Chamber are to be avoided. However it is my position that the Bane of S019 Act greately exceeds these permissible boundaries.

In general, if positive discrimination is to be allowed, it must be narrowly tailored to such an specific objective and use the least restrictive means to reach said objective. However there are lots of alternatives the Southern Chamber could use if this was a problem.

I will also note that similarly disruptive actions from other citizens of Atlasia would not be punishable, and I fail to see what sort of compelling government interest could be that S019 and only S019 is to be stopped from "interfering in the affairs of the South" (which is in itself something that is way to broad and is yet another reason to strike down this bill as unconstitutional)

Therefore this is a bill that actively discriminates against my client and since it is not furthering any compelling government interest; nor is doing so by narrowly tailored means and objectives, is an unconstitutional bill

Requested remedy

The requested remedy to the court is very simple; that the Bane of S019 Act is declared unconstitutional; and therefore null and void in its entirety.

[Former President tack50]

TACK50, Petitioner
v.
REGION OF THE SOUTH, Respondent

Additional brief of the petitioner

In this brief I will discuss the other 3 secondary arguments as for why this bill is unconstitutional

Due process

The Due Process Clause of the Atlasian constitution, essencially specifies that no individual shall be stripped of their life, liberty or property; except through due process of law; in other words, involving courts and a fair trial of my client.

As for what liberty and property my client has been stripped of, there are basically 2:

1) Section 1 of the bill prohibits my client from the very loosely defined clause of "interfering in the affairs of the South". I will note that, as written it does not even limit itself to my client speaking on the legislation threads from the Chamber of Delegates, but it is so broadly defined that even my client making some random post on the AFE board to denounce something happening in the South would qualify as "interfering in the affairs of the South"

Therefore, Section 1 the Bane of S019 Act takes away my client's right to free speech and therefore should be deemed unconstitutional.

2) Section 2 of the bill specifies that my client shall pay an undisclosed fine for breaking the peace. The crime of "breaking the peace" is not defined anywhere, so it can almost be described as the government of the South fining my client whenever it feels like it, without any sort of due process.

I will note that fines usually involve some sort of due process, even for administrative fines that do not constitute proper crimes.

Therefore, Section 2 of the Bane of S019 Act takes away my client's property (in this case, his money) without due process and shall be deemed unconstitutional.



Bill of Attainder

This is a rather obscure and rare provision, even in real life; since it is uncommon for such blatantly and obviously unconstitutional bills to be passed.

In any case, a Bill of Attainder can be defined as an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime and punishing them. This bill; and specifically Section 2 is a textbook example of a bill of Attainder.

In it, the Southern Legislature is declaring my client automatically guilty of the supposed crime of "Breaching the Peace" and punishing him by fining him.

Sections 1 and 3 also establish various punishments, though they do not establish a crime for my client to be guilty of. In any case they also qualify as part of a Bill of Attainder.

Bills of Attainder are a special category of bill that regions are explicitly banned from passing in Article II, Section 3.3 of the Atlasian Constitution. Based on the Bills of Attainder clause; the Bane of S019 Act shall be considered unconstitutional in its entirety for being a Bill of Attainder.



Privileges and Immunities

First of all, let's quote again the Atlasian Constitution clause:

The citizens of each Region shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several Regions.

In more modern terms, you could define this clause as a clause that stops regions from treating citizens from other regions in a discriminatory manner.

Therfore, any rights that are generally afforded by Southern Citizens shall be awarded to all citizens from all the other regions. This bill breaks that point by establishing that my client may not "interfere in the affairs of the South".

Now, you could argue that regional legislatures have the right to protect themselves from derailings and what not in government. I am aware that at least the Federal Congress used to do so way back in the day though I am not sure of the specifics about how it worked.

The thing is that the Southern region does not limit the interventions from Southern citizens. In fact, the Southern Constitution does the exact opposite, and explicitly protects and encourages the citizens of the South to assemble and petition the Southern officials:

(...)The Southern Legislature shall make no law limiting the right of southern citizens to submit petitions to their elected officials, as is their right under free expression and for the guarantee of government accountability. (...)

Therefore, through the Privileges and Immunities Clause, I would argue that the right of S019 (and indeed, of all non-Southern Citizens) to submitting petitions and holding the Government of the South accountable is being breached; and that legislatures cannot stop citizens from other regions from commenting in their supposed affairs.

This means that my client's rights to petition for the redress of grievances are being breached and therefore the bill shall be struck down in its entirety.

[fhtagn]

If the court is fine with this, I may not be able to get my brief in by the 1PM EDT today expected timeline, but I can get it in before the 1PM EDT deadline Tuesday that was set. IRL work stuff set me behind on my plan to get it finished up.

[windjammer]

If the court is fine with this, I may not be able to get my brief in by the 1PM EDT today expected timeline, but I can get it in before the 1PM EDT deadline Tuesday that was set. IRL work stuff set me behind on my plan to get it finished up.

Take the time you need

[windjammer]

Bump

[Saint Milei]

LMAOOOOO

[fhtagn]

Bump

Sorry, I thought I had posted my brief already, must have gotten mixed up. I'll get it up once I'm at my computer (where the file I have it typed up in is saved).

[windjammer]

Bump

Sorry, I thought I had posted my brief already, must have gotten mixed up. I'll get it up once I'm at my computer (where the file I have it typed up in is saved).

No problem, take the time you need

[fhtagn]

Thank you Chief Justice windjammer for your patience and allowing me to take extra time in my response. I apologize for the massive delay, work IRL has taken up quite a bit of extra time and with my computer not working on me, I have to type this up on my phone (which isn't as easy to do).

TACK50, Petitioner
v.
REGION OF THE SOUTH, Respondent

Brief of the Respondent

Nothing in the "Bane of S019 Act" suggests that anyone, including the petitioner's client would be stripped of any rights. For the sake of reference, here is relevant text of the bill in question that the petitioner is arguing against:

1. Lincoln Council Speaker S019 shall not interfere in the affairs of the South while he holds elected office in another region, unless personally requested by the Southern Chamber of Delegates.

2. If S019 does not abide, the government of the South shall fine him for disturbing the peace.

Addressing the first section, it makes pretty clear that the Southern Government only wishes to prevent the petitioner's client from interfering in legislative proceedings, as evidenced in several threads in which legislation has been discussed.

For example, during discussion of the Leinad Did Dumb Things Act, it was requested numerous times of the petitioner's client by the Speaker and Deputy Speaker to stop his behavior, a request he refused to respect.

There has never been an interpretation which would suggest he would have been prohibited from posting on the Atlas Fantasy Elections board, as there is no valid argument to be made that it would be considered interfering in affairs of the South. His right to free speech has never been violated, as the Chamber has every power to regulate how the debate process works in their proceedings. To suggest otherwise would allow people like Ben Kenobi to troll legislation threads in Lincoln or Fremont, preventing their respective legislatures from doing their jobs. In real life, those who are speaking in front of their legislatures, whether that be City Council, County Board of Supervisors, State House or Senate, and so on, citizens that are actually affected by the legislation are always given priority for speaking over those living outside of said areas, and those legislative bodies have the power to regulate how much they can speak during legislative sessions. This equally applies to the powers the Southern Region has to maintain order in their legislature.

Addressing the second section, in most jurisdictions, disturbing the peace is merely an infraction. Infractions are typically dealt with in the form of fines or community service. An example of this outside of the case in question is a traffic ticket. In most cases, one either pays the fine associated with the ticket, or they can show up in court to fight it so they can have that removed from their record and avoid paying the fine associated with the ticket. In this particular instance, if the petitioner's client is issued a citation for disturbing the peace, he can either choose to pay the fine associated with it, or he can take the matter to court to fight the infraction. There simply is no valid argument to be made that his client's due process rights are being violated in any way.

This also ties into why the petitioner's argument that the bill in question is a Bill of Attainder simply doesn't hold up. Nothing in the bill in question suggests that the petitioner's client is guilty of any crime. As already stated, the citation the client would be issued, if any, is the equivalent of a traffic ticket. If the client does not want to pay the fine and have the citation for disturbing the peace on record, he can choose to fight it in court. If he does not want to appear in court, he can choose to simply pay the fine associated with it.

A brief point but there was a third section to the bill in question, but considering the petitioner doesn't seem to be fighting that portion, I'm not going to waste the court's time addressing it.

Finally, citing someone for disturbing the peace isn't limited to the petitioner's client, it is simply addressing an existing issue in the Southern Chamber, which brings me to my last point. The bill in question, while formatted as a bill, is effectively a censure resolution. As there is no way for the Southern Government to actually collect on any fine associated with disturbing the peace (this is a game, after all), the actual fine affecting the petitioner's client is $0. Since every other aspect of the bill in question also bears no real legal consequences for the client, the bill in question is easily interpreted as a censure resolution, a power any legislature has to carry out, even if it is formatted as a bill.

[ilikeverin]

For fhtagn: could the provisions of this bill be applied to anyone other than S019?

[fhtagn]

For fhtagn: could the provisions of this bill be applied to anyone other than S019?

The bill in question only addresses a specific situation the Southern government was dealing with, which as my argument outlines, makes this more of a censure resolution than an actual bill.

That being said, issuing a citation for disturbing the peace would apply to anyone who interferes in legislative proceedings, much like what would happen in real life. Nothing in the bill specifically states any special charges for the petitioner's client. It simply says if he continues to interfere, there are legal actions that can be taken against him, which is fully within the scope of the region's powers.

[windjammer]

Thank you both for your briefs, I will look at it more closely this week end.

[windjammer]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

[Sirius_]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

What is the reason for this delay?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

What is the reason for this delay?

Opinions take time to write? Reaching a consensus and translating that consensus into a document that will be used as precedent by future courts are two separate and consecutive processes, both of which when rushed yield disastrous results.

[Former President tack50]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

What is the reason for this delay?

Opinions take time to write? Reaching a consensus and translating that consensus into a document that will be used as precedent by future courts are two separate and consecutive processes, both of which when rushed yield disastrous results.

For what is worth, remember when I complained about the court taking too long in Politics Fan v. The South? Much to the annoyance of Windjammer?

Assuming the decision gets posted on the 31st of August, this case will have taken 82 days since filing and 69 days since certiorari. In both cases breaking the current records of 78 and 53 days respectively.

Though unlike in the Politics Fan case, the "blame" in this case would fall on fhtagn (you could argue the judges should have been a bit more "pushy" I suppose but they don't have the "main" blame). Plus I think that fhtagn (much like Bacon King in the Politics Fan case) had personal problems of her own when posting her brief.

I have certainly learned to be patient from the Politics Fan case, hence why I did not post on this even when I remembered about it. (I actually do still think the judicial system is too slow, both IRL and in Atlasia, but in Atlasia I am more than willing to overlook that if people have personal problems). Plus like Truman says, good opinions take time to write.

My only worry would be if we get some sort of election dispute that has to be resolved fast, but I would expect everyone to act faster there as well, and people to be more "hands-on". In that case I assume a scenario like the one that unfolded in October of 2017 is likely to happen (the "decision" gets published fast but the actual opinion takes a long time to be written)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

What is the reason for this delay?

Opinions take time to write? Reaching a consensus and translating that consensus into a document that will be used as precedent by future courts are two separate and consecutive processes, both of which when rushed yield disastrous results.

For what is worth, remember when I complained about the court taking too long in Politics Fan v. The South? Much to the annoyance of Windjammer?

Assuming the decision gets posted on the 31st of August, this case will have taken 82 days since filing and 69 days since certiorari. In both cases breaking the current records of 78 and 53 days respectively.

Though unlike in the Politics Fan case, the "blame" in this case would fall on fhtagn (you could argue the judges should have been a bit more "pushy" I suppose but they don't have the "main" blame). Plus I think that fhtagn (much like Bacon King in the Politics Fan case) had personal problems of her own when posting her brief.

I have certainly learned to be patient from the Politics Fan case, hence why I did not post on this even when I remembered about it. (I actually do still think the judicial system is too slow, both IRL and in Atlasia, but in Atlasia I am more than willing to overlook that if people have personal problems). Plus like Truman says, good opinions take time to write.

My only worry would be if we get some sort of election dispute that has to be resolved fast, but I would expect everyone to act faster there as well, and people to be more "hands-on". In that case I assume a scenario like the one that unfolded in October of 2017 is likely to happen (the "decision" gets published fast but the actual opinion takes a long time to be written)

I suppose in a truly must-rush case the judges could simply proceed without the brief or testimony of whoever and make a decision based on the information they have. But this was non-urgent as the Southern Government has not been attempting to force S019 to pay a fine (i.e. through venmo or a similar service) to the best of our knowledge.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

Well well well......

[windjammer]

The Supreme Court has reached a unanimous decision. It will be posted at the beginning of the next month.

Well well well......

I'm frankly annoyed by this kind of remarks. It will take the time it needs. I have absolutely 0 report to make to Congress because the SC isn't some sub of legislative committee.

[windjammer]

The court case has been written. Just need some feedbacks.