Sam Spade v. President Porce

[Sam Spade]

To the Supreme Court:

I wish to file suit against the President concerning his appointment of EarlAW, Jerusalemcar5, et al, aka Atlasia World News, to the position of "GM" or "Game Moderator".

I intend to pursue the argument that this appointment is illegal because the President has no individual power under Article II of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia to appoint a person or group of persons known as the "GM" or Game Moderator" to such a position.

I also have a secondary argument to pursue, but it requires the dismissal of the first.  If the court wishes to hear this, I will make it known.

I would also like to ask the court for a temporary injunction against the installment of the EarlAW, Jerusalemcar5, et al, aka "Atlasia World News" while this case is being argued and debated.

The plaintiff asks for a speedy trial.

Thank you.

[Sam Spade]

Although I'm sure that TCash would be impartial concerning this matter, as a matter of point I wish to ask for his recusal due to his involvement with the organization "Atlasia World News".

[TomC]

I am willing to recuse myself from this case, or from AWN. Please note Justice Wixted is gone through the 25th, and without me, he would have to be present.

[Sam Spade]

I am willing to recuse myself from this case, or from AWN. Please note Justice Wixted is gone through the 25th, and without me, he would have to be present.

Either is fine with me, TCash, as long as the temporary injunction is granted.

If it is not granted, I would prefer recusal from AWN, so that the matter can be judged on with speed.

[TomC]

I believe one justice can issue an injunction, with other justices given the right to overrule.

[Ebowed]

I will be happy to represent myself in this case.  When does the Court wish to have my argument by?

[Emsworth]

In order for a temporary injunction to be granted, it is necessary to show that "irreparable harm" would occur by a failure to grant the injunction. Is it likely that AWN would perform some irreversible action if it became Game Moderator?

I also have a secondary argument to pursue, but it requires the dismissal of the first.  If the court wishes to hear this, I will make it known.

I'd like to hear this second argument as well.

I will be happy to represent myself in this case.  When does the Court wish to have my argument by?

There's no specific deadline, but the sooner the better.

Furthermore, as AWN is in effect a co-defendant in this case, it may submit arguments as well.

[Ebowed]

It has been an unwritten rule for quite some time that the President appoints a GM, the Senate does not need to confirm the appointment, and the appointment assumes the role at his leisure.

The position of "GM" is only mentioned once in the constitution, that of course being Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 ("The GM must provide the Senate with comprehensive economic figures (such as GDP estimates, estimates of tax revenue, or needed additional appropriations, etc.) at the above-specified times of drafting and approving each and every budget").  No rule or law exists as to where this "GM" comes from, or what "GM" even stands for.  The constitution was likely written this way because its writer never saw a legal loophole like this making its way to the court whenever an unpopular appointment was finally made.  The writer of our current constitution was probably of the philosophy that some things are better left unsaid, if only to keep people from getting too obsessed with technical details.

That's the beauty of this case, because a constitutional argument will not simply suffice.  My best argument therefore comes from Atlasian precedent.
     -  On August 26, 2005, President Siege40 appointed the plaintiff to the position of GM.  The plaintiff formally accepted this appointment, soon resigned his seat in the Senate, and on September 8, 2005, created the official GM thread with the formation of SAM News Corp.  No record exists of the plaintiff swearing into this position as though it were similar to other types of office.  It should be noted that throughout this period (which was operating under the same constitution as we are currently using), the plaintiff did not seek an injunction against his appointment, nor did he seek legal action against the President for his allegedly unconstitutional appointment.
     -  Upon the plaintiff's resignation from the position of Game Moderator, which he served in because he was appointed to do so by a President, the defendant (which shall be used interchangeably in reference to myself throughout the rest of this argument), on April 24, named a replacement.  The replacement, Mr. True Democrat, formally accepted the appointment.  No record of him swearing himself into this office exists.  Later that day, Mr. True Democrat created his official GM thread and announced the formation of True News Inc.  It should be noted that at no time did the plaintiff cite any constitutional opposition to this appointment.  It should also be noted that in the plaintiff's resignation he stated that his move allowed him to return to "political life", again solidifying the well-established yet unwritten rule that the GM was not a regular political position.
     -  Mr. True Democrat resigned on May 16, 2006.  The defendant named a new GM on June 17, 2006, and citing that the position was mostly based on precedent, attempted to name an entire news organization as Game Moderator, resulting in the lawsuit set before this honorable court.
     -  The defendant was unable to find a record of any person swearing into the position of GM as one would for any other office.  Additionally, amongst Senate debate regarding the removal of the position, the plaintiff claimed that he found the position to be generally necessary in order to give real-world consequences to what the President and Senate do.  Another Senator remarked that the position of GM was not a constitutional one, implying that the existence of the position was based on unwritten rules and common sense.
     -  When a citizen stated that having a media source sticked was unconstitutional, the then-current Chief Justice of this court remarked that "The GM thread has been stickied since virtually it's [sic] inception.  It's part of the game."  Then-current GM John Ford added the following: "The GM thread is stickied because it is different than all other news threads.  Its [sic] not just some newspaper.  I don't just report the news.  I am the Game Manager, or GM, an official position appointed by the President.  I don't report news, I make it.  I determine the outcomes of all government policy and what our world looks like so the government can act accordingly."  He went on to nominate the citizen who had accused the thread stickying to be unconstitutional as the "laughing stock of Atlasia," despite the fact that there is no basis in the constitution to allow the GM to establish who the LSoA is at any moment in time.  The plaintiff later bumped this thread because he found it amusing at the expense of the citizen who had cited constitutional concerns with having a sticked news thread.

Therefore the defendant concludes that the issue of whether or not a President may appoint a Game Moderator is not strictly an issue of Constitutionality, but rather one of Atlasian tradition and essentiality in order for the game to function in its current form.  Should the Court rule the actions of the defendant on June 17, 2006 to be unconstitutional, the defendant simply asks:  If the President does not appoint the "GM", who does?  There is nothing to suggest that the appointment of the "GM" is the responsibility of any person except the President.  And while the Constitution does not grant the President this power, this is likely for good reason; as implied earlier in my argument, the author of the Constitution likely felt that it was better that the issue of the GM was kept out of the law.  On a purely functional basis, the President appoints a GM so that real events happen and news exists that the government can respond to.  To jeopardize where the GM comes from would be detrimental to the continuation of the game.  Therefore I ask the Court not to ignore the Constitution but rather recognize that this is not an issue of Constitutionality, and therefore reject the initial argument of the plaintiff.

Thank you for your time.

[Peter]

The position of "GM" is only mentioned once in the constitution, that of course being Article I, Section 8, Clause 2 ("The GM must provide the Senate with comprehensive economic figures (such as GDP estimates, estimates of tax revenue, or needed additional appropriations, etc.) at the above-specified times of drafting and approving each and every budget").  No rule or law exists as to where this "GM" comes from, or what "GM" even stands for.  The constitution was likely written this way because its writer never saw a legal loophole like this making its way to the court whenever an unpopular appointment was finally made.  The writer of our current constitution was probably of the philosophy that some things are better left unsaid, if only to keep people from getting too obsessed with technical details.

For the record, Article I, Section 8 was the one part of the Second Constitution that the Second convention did not have ownership of. It was written by the Senate and was never checked over by me. It was simply added to the Constitution after the Senate proposed it as an Amendment (duly ratified) to the First Constitution when it was in its dying days.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'll be happy to answer any questions the court may have for the AWN.

[Sam Spade]

I will present my arguments this evening when I get home from work.

Thank you for your speedy movement in this manner.  I would like to withdraw my request for temporary injunction as a result.

[Brandon H]

Question for AWN:

Is there a head of AWN? Since the GM decides what events occur in Atlasia, if there is a disgreement among its members, who has the final say, or how is it resolved?

As stated in this thread, John Ford resigned as GM to run for governor and when Sam was appointed GM, he resigned his Senate seat. I believe a current official serving as GM is a conflict of interest. I am not completely sure who the entire staff is, but it seems either all are either current members of the senate or candidates for senate.

On the other other hand, this position has been vacant for a while and it is becoming harder and harder to find qualified people for all the positions in Atlasia. One only has to look at the low number of candidates running for Senate in the coming election.

Given there were very few people active enough to fulfill the role of GM that were not already in office, and given that AWN was an active (and the only currently active) news outlet, I am not sure the President had many options available. However, I do think the Senate needs to address the issue of the GM such as the requirements, nomination process, and checks and balances on the position.

Also due to the limited number of active participants in the game, something else should be considered. I have suggested that as the number of people increase in the game, so should the available positions, particularly the number of senators. Perhaps we should look at cutting down the number of positions as the number of active participants decrease.

[jerusalemcar5]

In response to the Attorney General:

All articles that create actual news must be approved by a majority of the staff.  The staff does consist of Senators Earl AW and SoS as well as candidates Captain Vlad and Jerusalemcar5.  We are all confident that we would not allow conflicts to make us biased should we all become members of the Senate.  If a president felt that this did happen, he would dismiss us.

[The Duke]

There is no way that AWN can assume the responsibilities of GM until all its members resign their government positions.  These are good people, but it is such a conflict of interest it should not be allowed.

When I became GM, it was (rightly) insisted upon that I wait for my Senate term to end.  When I became Governor, I had to abdicate my post as GM.  This is the tradition, and as the President himself pointed out, the role of GM has only tradition as a guide.

There are good reasons for these precedents, and they should be followed.

[jerusalemcar5]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm not resigning my seat as Senator until my term is complete. If that means losing the AWN as GM, then so be it.  We were approached for being GM, and therefore I dont feel that I have to resign anything.  I didn't start the AWN with the intention of resigning from the Senate. However, now that I am in this position, I can promise not to run for re-election.

[The Duke]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

The "How dare you wuestion my morals" defense is, quite frankly, not reassuring.

The conflict of interest exists, regardless of how good a person you are.

[Hatman 🍁]

The thing is, since we have a team at the AWN, we have checks and balances to prevent a conflict of interest.

[jerusalemcar5]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

The "How dare you wuestion my morals" defense is, quite frankly, not reassuring.

The conflict of interest exists, regardless of how good a person you are.

I was not saying you should not "wuestion" my morals.  I said that there was no need to fear a conflict of interest.  We have each other as well as the President to check us.  The only conflict I could forsee if the President took over since he is the overseer.  If there is an overseer, Mr. Ford, then unless you expect that person to also have no ethics there is no problem.  Why don't you actually say something with some merit?

[The Duke]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

The "How dare you wuestion my morals" defense is, quite frankly, not reassuring.

The conflict of interest exists, regardless of how good a person you are.

I was not saying you should not "wuestion" my morals.  I said that there was no need to fear a conflict of interest.  We have each other as well as the President to check us.  The only conflict I could forsee if the President took over since he is the overseer.  If there is an overseer, Mr. Ford, then unless you expect that person to also have no ethics there is no problem.  Why don't you actually say something with some merit?

This raises a brand new cause for concern.  You are supposed to be objective to be GM, yet you can't carry on a conversation without making things personal or throwing around insults.  This isn't the kind of thing that will earn people's trust.

As for ethics and morality, you were the one that brought that up, not me.  You said that you were ethical, that in fact we are all ethical people here, and therefore there is no cause for concern about conflict of interest.  I don't think that defense is good enough, and never before in Atlasia has anyone thought that this defense was good enough.  Whether you are a good person or not is irrelevant, all that matters is the existence of a conflict of interest.

That conflict exists, and it shouldn't be allowed.

[Sam Spade]

Just letting the Court know that I wasn't able to get the argument done tonight.  It will be complete by tomorrow.

[Sam Spade]

I pose this question to all of you who are afraid on the GM(s) being in the Senate or in other positions.  Does anyone believe that any Atlasian would ever create news to better their bills or positions on the Senate.  No one here is that unethical.  I am disappointed that anyone believes there would ever even be an issue of that happening since everyone here has good ethics and the President has the right to immediately dismiss GMs if they are determined to be biased or unethical.  This is a non-issue.

The "How dare you wuestion my morals" defense is, quite frankly, not reassuring.

The conflict of interest exists, regardless of how good a person you are.

I was not saying you should not "wuestion" my morals.  I said that there was no need to fear a conflict of interest.  We have each other as well as the President to check us.  The only conflict I could forsee if the President took over since he is the overseer.  If there is an overseer, Mr. Ford, then unless you expect that person to also have no ethics there is no problem.  Why don't you actually say something with some merit?

This raises a brand new cause for concern.  You are supposed to be objective to be GM, yet you can't carry on a conversation without making things personal or throwing around insults.  This isn't the kind of thing that will earn people's trust.

As for ethics and morality, you were the one that brought that up, not me.  You said that you were ethical, that in fact we are all ethical people here, and therefore there is no cause for concern about conflict of interest.  I don't think that defense is good enough, and never before in Atlasia has anyone thought that this defense was good enough.  Whether you are a good person or not is irrelevant, all that matters is the existence of a conflict of interest.

That conflict exists, and it shouldn't be allowed.

Yep, couldn't agree more really, Ford. 

[Sam Spade]

Just wanted to apologize to the Court for taking y'alls time on this.  The last two days, I've been around for about an hour total.  I should have it done either tonight or tomorrow, but if it's Sunday and I'm not done, I'll withdraw the case.  I don't want the case to go on forever.

[Sam Spade]

Main argument:

It is the plaintiff's contention that the President has no defined power under the Atlasian Constitution to appoint or dismiss a "GM" or "Game Moderator" or group of persons functioning as such.  Neither does the President have such a power to appoint and dismiss above proper considerations by any branch of government or the citizenry of Atlasia and without recourse to abuse or wrongdoing in his position.

First, there is considerable evidence to show that the position of "GM" should be subject to rules and regulation by the Atlasian Constitution.

The position of "GM" or "Game Moderator" is not mentioned in the First Constitution.  It is mentioned once in the Second Constitution, in passing within Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, concerning a provision which requires this individual(s) to provide the government with comprehensive economic figures.  The rest of the scope of the office, its powers and prerogatives and its limits and restrictions are left undefined by the Constution, except for the responsibility listed above.   Yet, the position of "GM" is specifically given powers within the Atlasian Constitution in this above-stated clause, and must therefore, if the plaintiff's argument is to be accepted, receive sanction under rules and regulations provided for by the same Constitution.

Moreover, the position of "GM" holds ceremonial influence over the Atlasian government and population.  As past instances have shown, the "GM" can influence public policy through oil shocks, fears of budget imbalances, and Chinese insurgency, but to name a few.  Citizens and politicians have believed and reacted according to these outside stimuli in many instances, so the relationship must be considered active and consequential.  The "GM" has a seminal role in Atlasian affairs, as these past instances illustrate, and cannot be considered a separate foreign entity to the Atlasian government.

If we accept that the "GM" has responsibilities under the Atlasian Constitution and holds many powers of unwritten influence over the government of Atlasia, it is necessary and logical to view the position of "GM" as being a governmental position of importance and regulation.

The President attempts to imply that he is granted the power to appoint and remove "GMs" through matters of tradition and informal precedent.  This assertion of power is weak and lacks thoroughness in either design or action.

First, the Court should note that there is no record of a "GM" having ever been removed from his position by the President, so there simply is no precedent for a removal.  Second, there is no guarantee, save the informal power of influence, that if a President were to ever remove a "GM", he would necessarily allow himself to be removed.  Appointment of another "GM" could lead to conflicting reports of duties required under Article I, Section 8 and more importantly, mulitple GMs could lead to conflicting scenarios, every dividing and splintering public opinion at large.

The plaintiff would simply point out that if there is no real power to remove a "GM", then wherein lies the power to appoint one.

Article II, Section I lays out the depth and quantity of Presidential powers.  Within these powers, there does not lie a power to appoint or remove a GM, nor is the power present within the powers of the Senate.  The decision of Fritz v. Ernest prescribed the limits of the government power as to those powers which had consititutional basis for the exercise thereof.

Without such a Constitutional basis to appoint or remove a "GM", it is therefore logical to assume that President Ebowed cannot appoint or remove a "GM" to perform the responsibilities outlined to the position in Article I, Section 8, and that his appointment to that position of the Atlasian World News (AWN), is illegal and without merit.

Secondary Argument (if necessary)

If the court decides that the President does have the inherent right (through precedent or power) to appoint a "GM" to his position and/or remove him from such, I would like to present this argument towards the overall power of the "GM", based on the principles established in Fritz v. Ernest.

Fritz v. Ernest laid out the guiding principle that there must be a constitutional basis for the exercise of power within the Atlasian Constitution.  If these powers do not exist, then these powers must be considered "essentally 'suggestions' that the regional governments can or cannot accept as they so please."

It would therefore be the assertion of the plaintiff that without rules, regulations and powers defining the office of the "GM", that with the notable exception of the "GM's" power under Article I, Section 8, that any other statements, scenarios, comments by the "GM" should be considered "suggestions" that the Atlasian citizenry or government may accept or ignore as they please.

If the President is denied power to appoint a "GM" under the Constitution, as my earlier argument contends, then it would also be logical for the President to have the authority to suggest a "GM" to the Atlasian population at large for either acceptance or disapproval.

I would like to thank the Court for its time.

[Ebowed]

There are, however, several compelling reasons to consider why the GM has never been considered an ordinary government position that has any relevance to constitutionality:

• no person who has been appointed GM has ever sworn into the office as one would for any other position, federal and often regional;
• no GM appointment before this one was objected to on the grounds that the President had no authority to appoint a GM;
• if the position of GM is not to be appointed by the President, regardless of the specific procedure in which this appointment was made, no other person has ever made such an appointment or assumed the authority to do so;
• whilst no GM has ever been dismissed by a President, this does not mean that the authority to do so was not inherently there when the tradition of appointment was formed.