Emsworth
Junior Chimp
Posts: 9,054
|
 |
« on: July 06, 2006, 08:46:24 PM » |
|
Sam Spade v. Ebowed
Justice Emsworth delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice (TCash) and Justice Colin Wixted joined.
Part I
On June 17, 2006, the President of Atlasia appointed a news organization, Atlasia World News (AWN), to the position of Game Moderator. The organization consisted of two individuals, EarlAW and jerusalemcar5.
Two days later, on June 19, Sam Spade filed a lawsuit challenging the appointment. He argues, first, that the President has no constitutional authority to appoint a Game Moderator. He also argues that, even if the President has the authority to make such an appointment, the Game Moderator’s statements are nothing more than “suggestions” that the citizens may follow or ignore as they please.
Part II
The Constitution makes only one reference to the office of Game Moderator. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 2, it states: “The GM must provide the Senate with comprehensive economic figures […] at the above-specified times of drafting and approving each and every budget.” It does not contain any language relating to the appointment, term, or removal of the Game Moderator.
We are of the opinion that the power to make this appointment is vested in the President. The plaintiff is correct in asserting that such a power is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. However, the powers of the President (unlike the powers of the Senate) are not limited by any particular enumeration.
There is an important difference between the vesting clauses of Articles I and II. The former provides that “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia” (emphasis added). This clause does not actually grant any powers to the Senate. Rather, it merely provides that the legislative powers granted “herein” (that is to say, in the Constitution) shall belong to the Senate. In other words, it does not grant power; it merely provides where powers enumerated in other parts of the Constitution will be situated.
On the other hand, the vesting clause of Article II provides: “The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of Atlasia” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 1). Unlike the first clause of Article I, this clause does not merely identify the locus of powers granted elsewhere in the Constitution. On the contrary, this clause is, in and of itself, a substantive grant of authority. Hence, the President’s power flows from the general grant made in Article II, Clause 1, whereas the Senate’s power flows from the specific grants made in several different clauses.
When determining the precise extent of the President’s authority, the court must keep legal history in mind. Historically, the function of appointing government officials has been regarded as an executive one. Even when the officials do not belong to the executive branch (for example, judges), the President is responsible for their appointment. The only exception to this principle is that the legislative branch appoints its own officers. However, this exception is not relevant here; the Game Moderator is clearly not a legislative officer like the President pro tempore. It follows, then, that without constitutional or statutory directive to the contrary, the power of appointing the Game Moderator belongs to the President.
Part III
The plaintiff’s second argument is that the Game Moderator may not do anything other than report economic figures to the Senate. In support of this claim, he cites our decision in Fritz v. Ernest, which held that, because no legislative powers were enumerated in the Constitution, laws passed by the Senate were mere “suggestions” that the regions could follow or ignore at pleasure.
It should be noted that, in Fritz v. Ernest, the defendant questioned the validity of a particular law (the Death Penalty Abolition Act). The Supreme Court subsequently overturned the law. Here, however, there is nothing for this Court to overturn. The plaintiff has not pointed out any particular action of the Game Moderator that he considers invalid or unconstitutional. As a result, there is nothing for this Court to decide with respect to the plaintiff’s second argument.
For the reasons given above, the Court rules in favor of the President.
|
