Opinion on Jerusalemcar5 vs. The Senate of Atlasia

[TomC]

JerusalemCar5 vs. The Senate of Atlasia

Chief Justice TCash delivered the opinion. Justices Emsworth and ColinWixted's opinions to follow.

Statement of Facts

On June 13, Masterjedi, PPT of the Atlasian Senate, opened up a vote to override the President's veto of  The Atlasian Bahrain Free Trade Bill. During the vote, Senator Yates of the Midwest resigned his seat. According to procedure, the Midwest governor appointed Speed of Sound to the vacant seat on June 15 at 3:08 pm. At 4:16 pm on June 15, Masterjedi closed the vote on the veto override, declaring with 6 "aye" votes out of 9 Senators, the override had met the 2/3rd threshhold and the bill had become law. SpeedofSound took the oath of office at 4:30 pm the same day.

JerusalemCar5 has sued, claiming that, since the appointment had been made, SpeedofSound should be counted in the number of the Senate, making the number 10 and that the 2/3rds majority has not been met. Masterjedi claims that since SpeedofSound hadn't taken the oath of office, he should not be counted as a voting member of the Senate, and thus, not counted in its number.

Opinion

According to the Atlasian Constitution, Article V, Section 1, clause 6,

"In order to exercise their powers, all officers of the Federal government must first be sworn into office. "

The plaintiff claims that since the appointment had been made, that Senator SOS counted in the number of the Senate because he had been named by the Midwest governor. We reject this claim because SpeedofSound had not taken the oath that, constitutionally, grants him the power to vote. If a senator does not have the power to vote, he should not be counted in the number of possible voting Senators. The two are not isolated criteria; they go hand-in-hand. To be counted in the number, a senator must have the power to vote. That requires taking the oath.

In addition to the aforementioned clause from Article V, the precedent set in Cheesewhiz v Senate of Atlasia further upholds this definition of "number" in terms of Senate membership. The case puts forward two possible interpretations of determining number:

"1. "[T]wo-thirds of [the] number" of the Senate refers to two-thirds of the total number of Senators sworn into office at a particular time. 2. "[T]wo-thirds of [the] number" of the Senate refers to two-thirds of those voting in the particular vote. "

Actually, under either of these definitions, the Senate had a membership of nine at the time the PPT closed the vote. But, to clarify, the court chose the first definition in deciding this case. Now, the Cheesewhiz case was talking about a two-thirds needed for a constitutional amendment, not a veto override, but determining the number is done in the same way in both instances. In determining what would make a two-thirds vote for a Constitutional Amendment, the court said (italics mine):

"If The Amendment is declared to have passed at some point in the future with a two-thirds majority of the number of Senators sworn into office, new public polls will need to be opened."

This decree also upholds the rule that for a senator to be counted in the number of the Senate, he/she must be sworn into office. Clearly, based on the time of his swearing in (4:30), SpeedofSound was not a voting member of the Senate at the time the PPT closed the vote.

The Senate successfully overrode the President's veto, and Masterjedi's declaration that the Atlasian-Bahrain Free Trade Bill is law is valid.

[Emsworth]

Justice Emsworth, concurring.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 of the Constitution authorizes the President to veto any bill passed by the Senate, but allows the veto to be overridden "if the Senate shall approve the legislation by two-thirds of its number." The parties in this case dispute the meaning of the phrase "two-thirds of its number." According to Jerusalemcar5, it means two-thirds of the total number of Senators; according to the Senate of Atlasia, it means two-thirds of the number of Senators sworn into office.

Under Article V, Section 1, Clause 6, "In order to exercise their powers, all officers of the Federal government must first be sworn into office." This clause makes it clear that a Senator may not vote until he has taken the oath of office. It would be highly inconsistent if a Senator who is forbidden from voting could nevertheless influence the outcome of a vote. But if the plaintiff's interpretation is correct, this is precisely what would happen: a Senator who has not taken the oath could block a veto override even though he is prohibited from exercising any powers until he has been sworn in. Thus, while the plaintiff's proposed interpretation is not completely unreasonable, it does lead to an awkward inconsistency. For this reason, I believe that the Senate's interpretation is more appropriate. 

Precedent also supports this conclusion. In CheeseWhiz v. Senate of Atlasia, it was decided that "two-thirds of [the Senate's] number" means "two-thirds of the total number of Senators sworn into office at a particular time." I see no compelling reason to overturn this ruling.

[Peter]

To clarify:

Since Emsworth's opinion is a "concur[rence] in the result", there is actually no precedent setting opinion until Colin signs on to either one (or indeed neither). Is this correct?

[Emsworth]

Since Emsworth's opinion is a "concur[rence] in the result", there is actually no precedent setting opinion until Colin signs on to either one (or indeed neither). Is this correct?

That was an oversight on my part. It's just a normal concurrence.

[The Duke]

I can think of only one word to describe this decision, and that word is "sound".

[MAS117]

While I agree with the verdict here because of the questions posed, I think the Justices are looking at the wrong questions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At the time the voting was opened, there was 10 Senators. Therefore the voting should be out of 10 not 9, despite the fact that Yates resigned. If the vote opens and theres 10, then theres 10. Just my opinion, feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

[TomC]

While I agree with the verdict here because of the questions posed, I think the Justices are looking at the wrong questions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At the time the voting was opened, there was 10 Senators. Therefore the voting should be out of 10 not 9, despite the fact that Yates resigned. If the vote opens and theres 10, then theres 10. Just my opinion, feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

Yes, I wondered about this, and even asked a question along these lines, but this argument was never addressed by the plaintiff bringing the grievance (well, by either party).

However, according to Senate rules,

"For the purposes of a Veto Override only, any Senator who Abstains from voting shall be counted as a vote Against the legislation under consideration."

Thus, the argument you bring up is not one of constitutionality, but one of Senate procedure; if there is a lack of clarity or agreement of Senate procedure in this type of situation, it is probably best addressed by the Senators. Either way, I believe what we were asked to consider by the party bringing suit was whether or not Speed of Sound was a Senator due to the Midwest governor's declaration of appointment, despite the fact he had not taken the oath.

[MAS117]

Thank you Mr. Chief Justice. I said I agreed with your ruling because this issue was not brought up by the plantiff. My argument was indeed one of Senate precedure more then constitutionally of the subject. However, I think it was be prudent of the Senate to alter their procedural tatics to say if there are 10 Senators at the beginning of the vote, then the vote is out of 10 Senators.

[Colin]

I concur with the ruling of Chief Justice TCash in this matter.