Weatherboy vs The South

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Greetings honorable justices,

I am filing suit to declare Title VI of S.22.1-5, also known as the No C.R.A.P. In Schools Act, unconstitutional. For the convenience of the court, this is the text of Title VI:

TITLE VI: SCHOOL BUSES

1. The School is Cool Act shall be amended to include the following:

Section 4: Transportation

...

4. Within one (1) year of the passage of this amendment, all public school systems receiving Regional funds shall permanently affix to all of its public school buses the following:

A. On both exterior sides decals stating “One Region Under God” of a size and font so as to be visible by motorists passing the school bus.

B. On the exterior back a decal stating “In God We Trust” of a size and font so as to be visible by motorists directly behind the school bus,

C. Any public school system failing to mark all of their public school buses as such shall have their Regional funding cut by 5% per year until such time as all public school buses comply with the law. Public School systems may use currently appropriated regional funding to offset any costs incurred in marking school buses pursuant to this act.

Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Fifth Constitution states:

The Senate shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor withholding the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances.

The Senate shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor obstructing the freedom of worship.

And in Article VII, Section 1, Subsection 1 of the Constitution, it is laid out that this clause applies to the regions.

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

My case rests on the unconstitutionality of compelled speech, and especially compelled religious speech. The phrases "One Region Under God" and "In God We Trust" are not mottos of the southern region, they are religious phrases.

By forcing public institutions, in this case school districts, to adopt religious language and phrases, and threatening to pull funding from schools districts that do not comply, the Southern Region is in turn violating the school district's right to free speech, as well as the right to freedom of worship.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Pursuant to the Attorney General Enhancement Act, I have been asked by the Governor to respond on behalf of the Southern Region.

We ask the Court to deny certiorari and dismiss this case as frivolous.

The courts have long determined that the National Motto is not the establishment of religion in violation of the Bill of Rights. "In God We Trust" has been present on Atlasian currency for 150 years since Abe Lincoln added it during the Civil War. I take it Petitioner will not be ceasing his use of money. The display of the motto as a show of unity and patriotism is very common, not only dotting City Halls and Court Houses but also existing in schools in all 3 Regions. (See Exhibit A).

The federal Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal have all upheld the Constitutionality of the National Motto and there is not at this time a circuit split warranting a Supreme Court decision. In fact, all courts hearing similar frivolous cases have determined the Motto falls into the Constitutionally protected category of "secular deism", in other words, a rote civic function to foster patriotism and unity that is clearly within the powers of the Regions.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, Justice O'Connor noted:

There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution – no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them. Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve, however, I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of "ceremonial deism" most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto ("In God We Trust"), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as "The Star-Spangled Banner", and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.

Similarly, this Court in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) held that a passive reference to religion in a public setting is not establishing a religion if the nature of the [reference] represented historical value and not purely religious value. That was in reference to a statue of the 10 commandments.

In other words, the mere reference to [a] God in a public setting is NOT establishing religion. Literally in the Supreme Courtroom, your chamber, is a beautiful frieze depicting the biblical Moses holding the 10 Commandments and the Prophet Muhammad. (See Exhibit B 1 and B 2). The National Motto is carved above the rostrum in the Atlasian Senate chamber. (See Exhibit C) One of the first acts of our government in 1789 was hiring a Congressional chaplain. Almost every legislative session is opened with a prayer, something protected by this Court less than a decade ago in Town of Greece v. Galloway 572 US 565 (2013).

There is no new argument being made by Petitioner that hasnt been litigated repeatedly in a dozen courts and always lost. To hold that the National Motto is unconstitutional would be a radical, radical, radical reinvention of the establishment clause, an abandonment of stare decisis, and the upending of thousands of State and local ordinances and decorating schemes. Not to mention risk the legality of our money.

The National Motto is a political question, much like the National flag. It does not establish a religion, there is no compelled worship, no funding of worship, no conversions. Its tradition. And civic traditions that dont establish a religion are legislative determinations, not judge determinations.

We also dispute the characterization of a School Bus decal as compelled speech, any more than the requirement that school buses be required to display say "Washington County Schools" or "Stop while unloading kids". This bill does not force any person to say anything, it merely requires school buses to display the National Motto to qualify as funding. Since this will apply uniformly to all school buses, no reasonable person will think such decal is speech by the school district rather than identifying information any more than they would a non-vanity license tag, the name of the school district, or a vehicle number. See Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), which held that personalized license plate designs are not presumed to be private speech but rather the speech of the issuer. We dont have to fund school districts with inadequately labeled buses anymore than the federal government has to fund roads in regions with drinking ages below 21 per this Court. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Our conditioning optional funds on complying with uniform bus labeling is perfectly lawful.

Alternatively, the same law similarly authorizes advertising on the sides of school buses.

3.) Any public school system may sell advertising space on the sides of their school buses, provided the revenue generated from such sales is used for educational activities within the school system

If school buses can display commercial advertisements, then it can display the National Motto. A judicially invented rule banning the National Motto, but allowing an ad that lets say says "In Science We Trust" would itself be unconstitutional content discrimination per this Court's precedents. See Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993). In that case, this Court flat out rejected the idea that there is some mystical rule preventing references to God in public schools. See also Reed v. Town of Gilbert 576 U.S. 155 (2015); Rosenberger v. Rector of UVA 515 U.S. 819 (1995).

So in conclusion:

1. Petitioner is raising a long discredited argument, routinely rejected by federal courts including this court, without presenting any new arguments.

2. The National Motto is long established as ceremonial deism, constitutionally protected with a valid secular purpose.

3. We can choose to condition our own funding on school bus uniformity, much the same as several states have done with classroom displays of the Natiinal Motto for many decades.

4. No one is being "compelled" to speak anything, any moreso than say the warnings on cigarette packaging. And since the law will have school buses uniformly display the motto, no one will reasonably think it is the school board, rather than the Regional government speaking. This is made even more apparent given that school buses can sell advertising space, which is not viewed as school board speech bur rather that found in a quasi public forum.

5. Allowing ads for the Freedom From Religion Foundation on a school bus but not the National Motto is unconstitutional content discrimination under freedom of speech.

6. The contents of the National Motto are a nonjusticiable political question left to the people's represenatives and not the courts. If the Petitioner hates the National Motto so much he can get Congress to change it through the legislative process. This Court is not the appropriate venue.

7. All Court precedent, including much precedent from this very Court, cuts in our favor, meaning a decision for the Petitioner would represent a radical, unprecedented, and unconscionable break from hundreds of years of ceremonial deism.

Therefore, we respectfully ask this court to deny the petition for certiorari and grant our motion to dismiss. Thank you.

- Mr. R, Esq.

Exhibit A



Exhibit B 1



Exhibit B 2



Exhibit C

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I’d rather not get into a long argument before the court even decides whether or not to hear the case, but there is one point the defendant seems to have a crucial misunderstanding of. The national motto is not “In God We Trust”. It is “POPULIS, POPULI”. That is all I will say for now, and I hope the court will decide to hear this case.

[windjammer]

This has been seen

[Bacon King]

Please note that the following clarification has no bearing on the court's deliberation on this matter, and should simply be understood as an unrelated aside

Literally in the Supreme Courtroom, your chamber, is a beautiful frieze depicting the biblical Moses holding the 10 Commandments and the Prophet Muhammad. (See Exhibit B 1 and B 2). The National Motto is carved above the rostrum in the Atlasian Senate chamber. (See Exhibit C) One of the first acts of our government in 1789 was hiring a Congressional chaplain. Almost every legislative session is opened with a prayer, something protected by this Court less than a decade ago in Town of Greece v. Galloway 572 US 565 (2013).

I don't mean to single you out Mr. Reactionary but I see a misconception here that's become increasingly common as of late, to the point that I feel it necessary to address. To be clear, I'm not criticizing you or your brief, I wish only to edify the Supreme Court bar as a whole to keep everyone on the same page going forward

Atlasia is not the United States, but a distinct polity that maintains an independent (if simulated) existence. While Atlasia is inspired by the USA of the real world, it's not a 1:1 replacement. The presence of something irl does not necessarily imply its presence in Atlasia except as noted by the GM

The Atlasian Supreme Court is not the US Supreme Court, and we have no physical court building. We don't hear cases in the US Supreme Court building, we hear them in the Atlas Fantasy Government forum of talkelections.org

Likewise, US Supreme Court precedent is not binding upon this court - their opinions have never been the opinions of this court. Furthermore Atlasia operates within a distinct and unique constitutional framework that makes it impossible to meaningfully apply US legal precedents in any logically consistent way. This court is authoritatively beholden to no precedent but its own.

However on that note it is still perfectly reasonable, and encouraged, to cite irl case law in terms of how to apply our own constitutional principles, especially in circumstances where the language of the Atlasian constitution deliberately mirrors the that of the US constitution. So while we are not bound by irl US jurisprudence, they can indeed serve as the best guide for the court as we build Atlasia's own body of case law.

for reference, note the following excerpts from this court's opinion in Politics Fan v South:

   The Supreme Court of Atlasia finds it necessary to recognize the existence of Reality. Our nation must be understood within the confines of its existence as a government simulation; the Atlasian Constitution itself establishes this framework. For example, citizens are granted the right to vote not by reaching adulthood, but by registering an account on the internet discussion forum upon which “Atlasia” is hosted. Article VI of our Constitution even specifically defines the authority responsible for “simulating” the impact of citizens’ actions and controlling their interactions with various “non-playable entities”.

We can safely assume the right to privacy exists within our own jurisprudence by judging the original intent of the authors of Atlasia’s current Constitution. The framers were obviously familiar with United States Bill of Rights and the inferred right to privacy contained therein. They were not merely inspired by the Bill of Rights, they deliberately copied its Amendments verbatim for inclusion within Article I of our own Constitution. This direct transfer of such precise language indicates a clear desire to apply contemporary American Bill of Rights jurisprudence upon Atlasia as they would have understood it – which includes a right to privacy.

   Therefore, while the right to privacy can be discerned from various components of Article I, it can with certainty and simplicity be understood to exist as an unlisted natural right for the purposes of Article I, Section 13 (which states in full: “The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed as to deny or disparage those natural rights and liberties herein unlisted”).
In addition to covering personal privacy, this right also has some extension that covers marriage, procreation, contraception, as well as family planning; this is evident in cases such as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut, both of which were decided within the common law jurisdiction of the United States based upon Constitutional language in their Bill of Rights that is verbatim identical to our own Article I. Again, the intention of our Constitution’s authors is clear: inclusion of identical language means our own judiciary can look to its real-world United States counterpart for guidance. This does not mean real-world precedent applies to our nation in any meaningful way, of course, but it is a natural element of common law judicial systems that we can look to other common law systems for guidance whenever no controlling precedent exists.

Thanks for taking the time to read my tangent everyone. It's not necessarily the MOST important stuff - when someone (for example) makes an argument that treats US case law as binding, or otherwise doesn't understand the distinction between America and Atlasia, I don't hold it against them. I'll always do my best to infer what they mean within Atlasia's constitutional framework -- and where possible I endeavor to bridge that understanding gap with my questions during oral arguments, to help ppl reframe their case.

Hopefully my explanation makes sense and it can help everyone crafting arguments in future cases. If nothing else, I suppose this post will be a useful resource, and in the future I will link ppl back to this post so they will understand me when I'm asking what their argument means within a strictly Atlasian constitutional context

[ilikeverin]

Writ of certiorari in the case of Weatherboy v the South has been granted.

Petitioner's brief is expected by 5:00 pm default forum time on 03/08/2022. Respondent's brief is expected by 5:00 pm on 03/11/2022. Any amicus curiae briefs are expected by 5:00 on 03/12/2022. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the court.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Not my brief but I ask the court to issue an immediate injunction against S.22.1-59: Totally Secular Act due to its relevance to this case and what I believe is an attempt to interfere in it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Not my brief but I ask the court to issue an immediate injunction against S.22.1-59: Totally Secular Act due to its relevance to this case and what I believe is an attempt to interfere in it.

As stated elsewhere:

Wouldnt it be better for your brief for there to be a fixed, certain fact pattern? If we are just going to pass this after how ever many weeks this case drags on itll just wind up back at the court all over again.

The whole theory of the case (and the body of your legal research) will be on displays related to the national (or regional) motto. Let's at least give you your fact pattern.This way it solves the question of public display of the motto in classrooms as well in the same case. You can tack that into your argument so its not just the school buses; that way we can get a clean resolution for the entire issue with this case without unnecessarily pingponging cases back and forth on classrooms, school buses, mottos, etc. Even if this bill doesnt pass now, a majority of our states already require In God We Trust in the classroom. That wouldnt be immediately invalidated at regardless of the outcome of the pending case; nor our current motto that references God.

Its honestly in both of our interests to settle the issue cleanly in 1 case, because we'd just pass a bill fix after and youd be back at square 1. You still have "one region under God" for your argument as to speech thats not a regional motto.

That way this case would solve the issue of:

- Mottos mentioning God
- Non-Motto speech mentioning God
- compelled display of motto in classrooms
- compelled display of motto on buses
- compelled display of non-motto God reference on buses

Otherwise, if we dont pass this bill, the bill will at best solve:

- Non-Motto speech mentioning God
- compelled display of non-motto God reference on buses

Further, as far as perception, it is neither improper, uncommon, or usually unwanted for a government to change its contested laws in response to litigation. Thats usually what the other side wants: policy change. There is no damages and no harm, irreparable or otherwise at play, and as this issue has been settled "Atlasian common law" forever the Petitioner in this case is unlikely to succeed on the merits. The federal standard for a preliminary injunction under "Atlasian Common Law" requires a Petitioner show both irreparable harm and a likelihood to succeed on the merits. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).

The Southern Region therefore asks that the injunction be denied, and WB be given leave to amend his complaint in light of the bill so that we dont have to waste the Court's valuable time with 15 similar lawsuits that can be resolved cleanly in this 1 case. We are trying to be reasonable here and we feel we are being very generous by suggesting on behalf of WB that he be given leave to amend.

We can make this fun or we can make this tedious and duplicative.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Fair enough. Request withdrawn.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

PETITIONER BRIEF IN THE CASE OF WEATHERBOY v. THE SOUTH

Honorable justices,

My case primarily rests upon precedent. The old Supreme Court of the United States addressed a similar issue to the one I have raised in the case of Wooley v. Maynard. That case asserted that it was unconstitutional for a state to force citizens to display the state motto when it is offensive to their moral convictions.

We are thus faced with the question of whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public. We hold that the State may not do so.

…

The Court in Barnette, supra, was faced with a state statute which required public school students to participate in daily public ceremonies by honoring the flag both with words and traditional salute gestures. In overruling its prior decision in Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S.Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375 (1940), the Court held that "a ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may (not) be imposed upon the individual by official authority under powers committed to any political organization under our Constitution." 319 U.S., at 636, 63 S.Ct., at 1184. Compelling the affirmative act of a flag salute involved a more serious infringement upon personal liberties than the passive act of carrying the state motto on a license plate, but the difference is essentially one of degree. Here, as in Barnette, we are faced with a state measure which forces an individual, as part of his daily life indeed constantly while his automobile is in public view to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable. In doing so, the State "invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control." Id., at 642, 63 S.Ct., at 1187.

This case, as well as West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (which the court cited in Wooley) establish a precedent that compelled speech is unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and similarly Article I, Section 2 of the Fifth Atlasian Constitution. This includes forcing persons to display mottos they find offensive to their moral convictions.

The next logical question is, then, if Title VI of S.22.1-5 is an example of compelled speech. This is answered by simply looking at clause C:

C. Any public school system failing to mark all of their public school buses as such shall have their Regional funding cut by 5% per year until such time as all public school buses comply with the law. Public School systems may use currently appropriated regional funding to offset any costs incurred in marking school buses pursuant to this act.

By cutting funding to school systems not complying with this act, the Southern Region is compelling said school systems to affix decals making a statement.

So, the question this case considers is not these that I have posed already, but rather, whether the precedent set by Wooley can apply to public schools as well. I believe it does.

I ask the court to consider, for a moment, a town large enough to support its own school district. Said town is majority atheist and most of the citizens have strong feelings on the issue. Should the citizens of this town be forced to affix a motto to their personal vehicle that goes against their moral convictions? The decision in Wooley says no. Should the taxpayers of this town, who fund the school district, be forced to have part of their taxes go towards affixing a motto to their own school buses that go against their convictions? I believe they should not. To do so would be, indirectly, forcing taxpayers to say things against their own moral convictions.

Thus, I ask the court to strike down Title VI of S.22.1-5 as unconstitutional.

I thank the court for their time. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

RESPONDENT REPLY BRIEF

First, to address the matter of case law interpretation, we do plan on citing pre-reset U.S. Supreme Court case law. This entire case involves the interpretation of the free speech clause (Art. I, Sec. 2) and the religious freedom clause (Art. I, Sec. 3) of the Atlasian Constitution, formerly contained in substantially similar language in the pre-reset U.S. Constitution (Amdt. I). Given the substantial similarity of these clauses between Constitutions, where no operative language has been changed, it should be clear and obvious that the original intent of the drafters as well as The People of Atlasia through adoption was to preserve the entire body of pre-existing federal case law interpreting the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Atlasian Constitution preserves all pre-existing statutory law, so logically, without any language change between the Constitution, it is apparent that pre-existing case law, or “common law” as Justice BaconKing has labeled it would remain of force and be binding on future interpretations of the free speech and religious freedom clauses to the same extent that such case law would be binding on the U.S. Supreme Court pre-reset. Accordingly, this brief, will be referring to a multitude of pre-reset case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, none of which involve opinions or topics that have been subsequently overturned by this Court post-reset or amended out of the current Constitution. Thus, we submit that any references to U.S. Supreme Court case law in this brief be considered as controlling.

My friend on the other side is arguing that the uniform Regional labeling rule for school buses is compelled private speech. We however submit that while the inclusion of the Regional Motto is compelled, at least to the extent that Regional funds are conditioned upon it, the mandatory decal is government speech not private speech, and thus the compelled speech doctrine does not apply.

Under the government speech doctrine, the typical rules for determining the constitutionality of compelled speech like my friend has referenced in the mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance case (Barnette v. WV Bd., 319 U.S. 624 (1943)) do not apply. While not absolute, government speech can often be compelled to be displayed or disclosed without running afoul of the free speech clause of the Constitution. Once speech is deemed government speech, it almost always falls outside the purview of the free speech clause and does fall outside strict scrutiny review. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). In this case, no human being is being forced to say anything or perform any communicative gesture or act. Rather, discretionary Regional funding is being conditioned upon subordinate governmental entities labeling school buses in compliance with standards set by the Regional government. Regional law now requires public schools buses to include a decal containing the Regional Motto on each side, and a portion of the pledge of allegiance on the back. This is government speech, the same as license plates, the school district name, the stop sign, and other identifying information. See Id.

Government speech is what it sounds like: it is communication that represents the viewpoint of the government, not the person purportedly communicating it. Government speech is inevitable; the government cannot operate without speaking.  Because government speech can educate, inform, and make positive contributions to the marketplace of ideas, government speech affecting private property has long been recognized and protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There are a myriad of examples of government speech overriding pure private property rights. All employers, public and private, are required to conspicuously display a bunch of different posters from the Department of Labor on everything from the minimum wage, family medical leave, overtime availability, and even the specifics of the polygraph protection act. See  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/posters for a complete list. Persons making certain repairs to their home are required to conspicuously post active building permits at the worksite. Public schools can be required, as a condition of federal funding, to allow military recruiters to speak and advertise on school property, even when the public school similarly excludes all other outside speech. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. 47 (2006). Farmers can be forced to fund generic advertisements like “Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner” if such advertisements come from a government marketing board. See Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005). Private homes can be required to display the address number on the sides of the home. Restaurants can be required to display a health inspection certificate in their lobby and anyone who operates an elevator or a swimming pool can similarly be required to physically and publicly post health and safety inspection reports. Cable companies can be required to display government warnings and age ratings prior to broadcasting a television program and movie theaters can be required to display similar ratings prior to showing movie previews. See Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). Robocalls can be required to affirmatively state that they are coming from a non-human prior to concluding. See the Ethical Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Act (PL 13-4). And private cars can be required to display a license plate number, tax decal, inspection decal, and other mandatory information. In all of these examples, the speech being mandated to be passively displayed is all government speech, not private speech. We submit that our decals containing the Regional Motto are similarly government speech, not private speech, and thus the compelled speech doctrine would not apply.

My friend on the other side further argues that the identification decals required for public school buses is akin to the situation in Wooley v. Maynard. We distinguish our law from Wooley, because public school buses are not private vehicles. In Wooley, a Quaker who was morally opposed to the violent connotations of the New Hampshire State Motto was criminally sanctioned for covering the State Motto on the license plate on his private vehicle. In this case, there is no private vehicle; there is a government vehicle partially funded by Regional funds. That was not at all the case in Wooley, where the Court repeatedly points out that a private car was at issue. Further, we are not imposing criminal penalties on anyone, merely limiting discretionary funding to misidentified school buses, so whatever coercion may be felt is minor. Finally, unlike in Wooley, public school buses have already been opened up for messages that the local school district may disagree with, as under existing Regional law public school buses are already displaying commercial advertisements.

3.) Any public school system may sell advertising space on the sides of their school buses, provided the revenue generated from such sales is used for educational activities within the school system

.

The Court, in Walker v. Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), clearly found that a license plate is government speech, even when displayed on a private vehicle. And yet, this case is even further removed, since we are discussing a government-owned vehicle partially funded by Regional funding that also allows commercial advertising on the side. As this is not about private vehicles, we submit that Wooley is not particularly relevant in this case. The Southern Region shares the view of my friend on the other side we he states that a Regional government may not punish a private citizen because he covers up the Regional Motto on the license plate of his private vehicle. But in this case, we are discussing government speech on public vehicles the Region funds, so we submit that the typical rules allowing for conditioning government funds on the display of government speech apply. See SD v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Thusly, we ask the court to find that our school bus identification rule is not compelled speech but rather government speech as a condition to receive discretionary funds, something that has been upheld repeatedly in the “common law” of U.S. Supreme Court cases.

If my friend on the other side is upset with this law, the solution to the is to run for Regional Office. The Court has argued that the primary check on government speech is the democratic process. See Walker. Under the government speech doctrine, the government can choose its own words. If the electorate does not like the government’s chosen viewpoint, it can act to change the government. It is not the role of this Court to make such a legislative decision.

If the government cannot even require government property to be identified with government speech, then the entire government speech doctrine becomes invalid. Restaurant inspection certificates in dining rooms, Department of Labor posters in employee break areas, address numbers and building permits on private houses … all of these examples of government speech affect much more intimately private property than a public school bus. Yet, all would have to fall if the Court strikes down our school bus identification law.

We therefore submit that my friend’s argument that this Court must strike down our Regional law conditioning discretionary Regional funds on public school buses displaying uniform government speech decals under the case law of Barnette and Wooley fails and our law should be upheld as valid.

We do wish to briefly discuss the legality of our Regional Motto. My friend on the other side has argued that our Regional Motto, in referencing “God” violates the establishment clause. We submit that such argument is totally wrong. The courts have long determined that the phrase “In God We Trust” when used as a Motto is not the establishment of religion in violation of the Bill of Rights. "In God We Trust" was present on U.S. and Atlasian currency for 150 years since Abe Lincoln added it during the Civil War. The display of the motto as a show of unity and patriotism is very common, not only dotting City Halls and Court Houses but also in schools in all 3 Regions.

The federal Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal have all upheld the Constitutionality of this Motto and there is not at this time a circuit split warranting a Supreme Court decision on the matter. In fact, all courts hearing similar frivolous cases have determined the Motto falls into the Constitutionally protected category of "secular deism", in other words, a rote civic function to foster patriotism and unity that is clearly within the powers of the Regions.

In Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, Justice O'Connor noted:

There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution – no constitutional harms so slight that the courts are obliged to ignore them. Given the values that the Establishment Clause was meant to serve, however, I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of "ceremonial deism" most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto ("In God We Trust"), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as "The Star-Spangled Banner", and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.

Similarly, in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) the U.S. Supreme Court held that a passive reference to religion in a public setting is not establishing a religion if the nature of the reference represented historical value and not purely religious value. That was in reference to a statue of the 10 commandments.

In other words, the mere reference to [a] God in a public setting is NOT establishing religion. For example, almost every legislative session is opened with a prayer, something deemed constitutional less than a decade ago in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 US 565 (2013). Especially in the case of a Motto, such speech is akin to that found in the preamble to legislation. And as this Court recently held in Tmthforu94 v. Fremont (2020), such speech “shall be considered only as an irredentist claim that shall be protected by the constitutional right of free speech".

There is no new argument on the phrase “In God We Trust” being made by Petitioner that hasn’t been litigated repeatedly in a dozen courts prior to the reset and always lost. To hold that our Motto is unconstitutional would be a radical, radical, radical reinvention of the establishment clause, an abandonment of stare decisis, and the upending of thousands of State and local ordinances and decorating schemes, again without any indication from the drafters of the 5th Constitution that such radical departure was intended.

Just like the decision to require it on school buses receiving our discretionary funding, our Motto is a political question. It does not establish a religion, there is no compelled worship, no funding of worship, no conversions. It’s tradition. And civic traditions that don’t establish a religion are legislative determinations, not judge determinations. So we again emphasize that the solution to my friend’s discomfort with Southern law is to run for Regional office and seek to change it.

So in conclusion:

1. Petitioner’s argument that it is unconstitutional compelled speech to require the display of the Regional Motto and a portion of the National Pledge of Allegiance on public school buses as a condition of receiving discretionary funding is wrong, as the speech in question is government speech from the Southern Regional government, not the bus driver or school system.


2. No one is being "compelled" to speak anything, any more so than say having to display inspection stickers on cars or the warnings on cigarette packaging. And since the law will have school buses uniformly display the motto, no one will reasonably think it is the school board, rather than the Regional government speaking. This is made even more apparent given that school buses can sell advertising space, which is not viewed as school board speech.


3. We can choose to condition our own funding on school bus uniformity, much the same as several states have done with classroom displays of the same Motto for many decades.


4. The Motto “In God We Trust” and the phrase “One Nation Under God” are long established as ceremonial deism, constitutionally protected with a valid secular purpose, and do not establish religion any more so than a local mayor wishing his staff a “Merry Christmas”. In many ways banishing any reference to a God or a higher power in the public square is what would run afoul of the free speech clause of the Constitution, like this Court noted in Tmthforu94 v. Freemont .


5. The contents of the Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance are a nonjusticiable political question left to the people's representatives and not the courts. If the Petitioner hates the Motto so much he can get run for Regional office and change it through the legislative process. This Court is not the appropriate venue.


6. All “common law” from the U.S. Supreme Court and subordinate court precedent, cuts in our favor, meaning a decision for the Petitioner would represent a radical, unprecedented, and unconscionable break from intent the framers of the current Constitution. This issue was not unknown when the most recent Constitution was ratified and yet no structural changes were made to Free Speech and Freedom of Religion Clauses. It is apparent that the intent of the framers and The People was for U.S. case law to control here. And such case law clearly favors the South.


Therefore, we respectfully ask this court to rule that our Southern law is Constitutional and dismiss this case with prejudice. Thank you and happy Friday.


- Mr. R, Esq.
Southern Attorney General

[ilikeverin]

To my mind, it is imperative to this case to determine whether, in Atlasia, the phrases "One Region Under God" and "In God We Trust" serve a "historical value and not purely religious value". Would either side like to present evidence that, in Atlasia (not the United States of America), that those phrases have a meaningful historical value?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Your honor, answering your question is as simple as searching those terms within the wiki, which, while outdated, has a good record of Atlasia's history, including bills and mottos. "In God We Trust" appears a grand total of zero times. While "One Region Under God" shows some results, those results do not include that exact phrase.

However, wanting to ensure this was correct, I decided to also search through the boards consisting of the Atlasian government and regional governments. The only time "One Region Under God" is mentioned before this year is in a 2015 bill, PA.2, attempting to re-instate the Pledge of Allegiance in the Pacific, as well as make their motto "In God We Trust". The bill passed but the portions including those phrases were vetoed and seemingly not overridden.

Mr. Governor this bill has passed the Pacific Legislative Council unamiously and it has arrived on your desk to await your action.
Best Regards,
Speaker Classic Conservative

Getting Rid of Bad Laws Act of 2015
1. The Religious Freedom Act is hereby repealed and all things banned by it are reinstated the pledge of allegiance to the Pacific Flag shall be
          "I, pledge of allegiance to the flag of the Pacific Region, and to the Region for which its stands one region under God, indivisible with liberty and life for every citizen from the moment of conception to death."
2.  The Regional Motto Act is hereby repealed and it shall be replaced with the new motto "In God We Trust."
3. The Sodom and Gomorrah Act is hereby repealed and its former names for those two cities are hereby reinstated.

I hereby veto Sections 1 and 2 of the aforestated bill and sign the remainder.

x Simfan

It is true that "In God We Trust" was once the Atlasian motto. However, it has not been so for over 16 years now.

Selection of a National Motto, December 2005
RESULTS
 
ROUND 7
Ad astra per aspera – 28
Thefactor, Dean, CheeseWhiz, BRTD, Htmldon, EarlAW, Defarge, J-Mann, Yates, Bacon King, Alcon, John Dibble, jfern, phknrocket1k, Smash255, Afleitch, Jens, Peter Bell, Nclib, TCash101, Sarnstrom, MHS2002, Old Europe, DanielX, Opebo, Ebowed, Akno21, Brandon H

Don't Tread on Me – 12
Brian from Family Guy, Emsworth, Blerpiez, Boss Tweed, Nini2278, TexasGurl, MAS117, Sam Spade, Bono, True Independent, Hughento, Cosmo Kramer
 
Deus ex Machina – 10
Al, John Ford, Joe Republic, Everett, WMS, Q, Siege40, Jas, Gabu, Jesus

With a majority of the votes, the candidate Ad astra per aspera is elected.

I hereby certify this election.
x  Q
Secretary of Forum Affairs

All this is to say that there is little evidence to say that "In God We Trust" or "One Region Under God" have meaningful historical value in Atlasia. There are Atlasian citizens who now are only a year from adulthood who never lived under this phrase. A whole generation has grown up without it. In fact, if my memory is correct, our current Vice President hasn't lived under it! Around 90% of Atlasia's existence has been spent without this motto. That, in my opinion, is more than enough to say that it does not hold much historical value.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

Apologies justices, I meant to attach this to my previous post, to further show that the motto changed:

Needless Celebrations Removal Bill
Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

...

Section 25: Recognition of Atlasian Motto

Subsection 1: Findings
1. F.L. 9-8, Atlasian Symbols Act, states that after a vote is held on a choice between ten proposed mottos, the winning motto will become the official motto of Atlasia.
2. On December 21, 2005, then-Secretary of Forum Affairs Q certified the winning proposed motto to be ``Ad astra per aspera'', replacing ``In God we trust.''

[Mr. Reactionary]

To my mind, it is imperative to this case to determine whether, in Atlasia, the phrases "One Region Under God" and "In God We Trust" serve a "historical value and not purely religious value". Would either side like to present evidence that, in Atlasia (not the United States of America), that those phrases have a meaningful historical value?

I'd be happy to. I have to strongly disagree with what my friend on the other side has argued about the rich history Atlasia has with those particular phrases, and I will explain why.

Briefly, I need to point out the last major Constitutional Convention. A majority of the justices on this Court were delegates to this Convention so I doubt I need to spend too much time on this point, however I wish to point out the archived thread from 2015 entitled "Wiping All Current Laws". In such thread, the framers of the Constitution evidenced clear, unambiguous agreement that in adopting the 4th Constitution, all previous in-game laws were nullified and the status quo of Atlasia was reset to all current real life U.S. and State laws at the time of ratification. Discussion included whether or not to exempt some prior laws from the reset, however it was overwhelmingly agreed by the drafters that ALL laws were to be reset; not all laws except laws affecting the National Motto. The final vote on whether or not ALL laws were to be reset to U.S. and State laws in effect in 2016 was opened on Halloween 2015, and was approved by a vote of 16-4-1 including affirmative votes from yourself, Justice PiT, and Chief Justice Windjammer. The intent of the drafters in clear: no in-game laws prior to the reset survived, and thus any pre-reset U.S. and State law takes precedence unless subsequently amended by the Constitution or statute.

Accordingly, while my friend mistakenly believes the National Motto of Atlasia to be something other than "In God We Trust", presumably because the Wiki erroneously does so, he is wrong. Under valid federal statute, found at 36 U.S.C. 302, "In God We Trust" is declared the National Motto, clearly and unambiguously. Thus, for 100% of the history of post-reset Atlasia, "In God We Trust" has served as a unifying maxim through all presidential administrations, Labor and Federalist. This was reaffirmed by House Concurrent Resolution 13 (2011) by both houses of the U.S. Congress, which is again valid, binding law post-reset absent a subsequent statutory change. I have read every post-reset statute twice and poured through the executive orders and checked the Constitution, and I can find literally no law subsequently changing the National Motto post-reset. So while my friend is correct that there have not been many recent bills involving the phrase, that is because the phrase is already law and already being used ubiquitously throughout Atlasia without complaint.

Additional valid, binding, federal statutory law supports this argument. House Resolution 548 (2000) expressly recommends that public buildings display the phrase "In God We Trust" and has not been subsequently amended post reset thus, for 100% of the history of post-reset Atlasia, Atlasian law has encouraged the use of "In God We Trust" in public buildings.

31 U.S.C. § 5112 which sets the legal requirements for coins and currency mandates the use of "In God We Trust" no less than 8 times within the statute and has not been subsequently amended post reset thus, for 100% of the history of post-reset Atlasia, Atlasian law has required the use of "In God We Trust" on all Atlasian money.

Additionally, 36 U.S.C. 301, which declares the National Anthem to be "The Star Spangled Banner" became valid law upon the reset. This law WAS subsequently amended in 2019. This suggests that yes, even the honoraria portions of the law reset to the U.S. Law. It also means that from 2016 to 2019, or half of the entire history of post-reset Atlasia, the National Anthem of Atlasia was a song containing the lyric "and this be our motto, "In God Is Our Trust".

At the Regional and State level, the Seal of the State of Mississippi, the Motto of the State of Florida, and the flags of Georgia and Florida contain the phrase "In God We Trust", and have in real life since before the reset and have not been subsequently amended post reset thus, for 100% of the history of post-reset Atlasia, several States have prominently featured "In God We Trust" in its symbiology.

At the time of the reset, 12 States (23%) expressly authorized the display of "In God We Trust" in public school classrooms. Subsequent to the reset and prior to this year, an additional 9 States (17%) adopted similar laws, decisions that were not overturned by the GM, thus making them valid in-game. This year, an additional 8 States (15%) in-game will by-law authorize "In God We Trust" in public school classrooms. None of these have yet been overturned by in-game statutes. Thus, as of now 29 States in Atlasia (55%) authorize "In God We Trust" in public school classrooms, and half of these have done so for 100% of the history of post-reset Atlasia. And these States are located in all 3 Regions.

Similarly, at this time 20 States (38%) authorize "In God We Trust" on license plates. There has been no indication that these authorizations have been subsequently repealed in-game, and are thus valid. And these States are located in all 3 Regions.

So again, I just want to reemphasize that my friend on the other side is grossly mistaken in suggesting that the phrase "In God We Trust" does not have a rich history in Atlasia. Legally, it has been the National Motto and State Motto of Florida for 100% of modern Atlasian history, it has been encouraged to be displayed in public buildings by the federal government for 100% of modern Atlasian history, it has been required by law to be on all currency minted or printed in Atlasia for 100% of modern Atlasian history, it has been incorporated into the flags and seals of multiple States in Atlasia for 100% of modern Atlasian history. It was contained in the National Anthem for half of modern Atlasian history. It has been displayed in a quarter of all States' schools for 100% of modern Atlasian history and has since expanded to being displayed in more than a majority of all States' schools. It has been available on government issued license plates for more than a third of all States for 100% of modern Atlasian history. To suggest that "In God We Trust" is not a part of modern Atlasian history is to ignore the clear, unambiguous intent of the drafters of the Constitution and the myriad of examples of it being used in valid, unchanged statutory law.

As to "One Region Under God", that is clearly a reference to the Pledge of Allegiance for which the above argument equally applies. 4 U.S.C. 4 clearly and unambiguously lists the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase "One Nation Under God" as part of the flag code. This has never been changed by statute post-reset and thus for 100% of modern Atlasian history, the Pledge of Allegiance has contained that phrase. Every State in Atlasia has statutory laws on the book setting aside time in public classrooms each morning for the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by schoolkids. I am not aware of any Regional law changing this, so presumably for 100% of modern Atlasian history, schoolkids have been encouraged daily to state "One Nation Under God". Local government meetings are similarly required in many cases by statute to open with the Pledge of Allegiance, as are immigration naturalization ceremonies, as are military events, as are even Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts meetings. Again the ubiquity of the Pledge matches the ubiquity of the National Motto. And my friend on the other side has not provided any evidence that post-reset any of this has been changed, such that the real life equivalents would not apply.

Thusly, it is overwhelmingly apparent that these phrases are extremely common and have a rich history in Atlasia, as well as the Untied States (the history of which cannot just be divorced from discussions of Atlasia). Even now, "In God We Trust" remains the very motto of our nation. So I reemphasize that to magically declare now that despite the ubiquity of the use of these phrases, despite the valid and binding statutory law upholding these phrases, despite the lack of binding statutory law changing the long-held assumptions about the phrases, despite the mountain of "common law cases" from the U.S. defending the use of these phrases, despite the total lack of "common law cases" from the U.S. striking down these phrases, and despite the clear and unambiguous intent of the framers of the Constitution to invalidate in-game laws, elevate real life laws post-reset, and retain the original meanings and related "common law cases" from the U.S. for the free speech and establishment clauses of the Constitution, would be a radical, radical, radical departure from the truth with no basis in law.

Thank you.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The Defendant is simply incorrect in that statement. The FSA, passed and signed after the reset in 2016, clearly states that there would be a new motto, that being "Populis, Populi".

AN ACT
to inspire national spirit and to invoke
a sense of commonality by the adoption
of the national symbols of the republic

Section 1 (Title)
i. The long title of this act shall be, the Federal Symbology Act of 2016. It may be cited as the Symbology Act or as the FSA.

...

Section 3 (Motto)
i. The national motto of the Republic of Atlasia shall be, "POPULIS POPULI;" in English, "Of the People, for the People."

[Mr. Reactionary]

Notwithstanding a obscure post that is apparently of such little importance to the game that its neither archived on the Wiki nor any of the compiled legislative threads provided for our so-called assistance, nothing has been presented that supersedes 31 USC 5112 meaning Atlasian currency has and currently does feature the phrase "In God We Trust" which is referenced in its own right 8 times directly. The same holds true for the State symbiology, public building displays, public classrooms, and license plates. The phrase is ubiquitious. It is our Regional Motto, as protected by Tmthforu94 v. Fremont. It has a long and consistent history of use older than anyone playing this game.

Given that the binding, pre-2016 U.S. law is built upon 200 years of history its impossible to ignore such history when determining historical value. We arent all 6 year olds born in 2016 with no common history. If this Court can impute that the mere existence of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s U.S. has a controlling impact in Atlasia it would be beyond unreasonable to now pretend that 200 years worth of American history didnt happen. The framers of the Constitution were every bit aware of the phrase "In God We Trust" and yet they didnt add language against it to the literally recopied establishment clause. Under the holding of PoliticsFan v. South this Court held that if the framers copied the text of a part of the constitution, they are imputed to have been aware of the real life history and case law of that part. Thus if they didnt add extra language to the constitution modifying the text to reflect this history and case law, then the framers were bootstrapping in that history and case law. You cannot reconcile the opinions in Politicsfan v. South or Tmthforu94 v. Fremont with a decision to deny us our right to have a motto of our choice, especially when that motto has been consistently used for centuries including on Atlasian money to this day.

So once again the history, the law, the precedent, its all on our side.

[windjammer]

Thank you all for your contribution

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To the petitioner, do you see the case of Wooley as pertaining to speech by public entities?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

     To the petitioner, do you see the case of Wooley as pertaining to speech by public entities?

At the very least, in this case, yes.

In the example I gave when I submitted my brief to the court, I described a situation where individuals were being forced to pay for a motto to be affixed to their school district's buses. One that they had moral objections to. One could argue that, by forcing this, the regional government would be breaking this precedent set by Wooley, as although the individuals do not own the school buses themselves, it is property they paid for.

If one finds this to be an overly broad interpretation of the ruling, I also assert that this law has issues in our system of federalism.

The regional government is coercing localities to display their message. Such an arrangement goes directly against the idea behind the ruling in Wooley.

The State's second claimed interest is not ideologically neutral. The State is seeking to communicate to others an official view as to proper appreciation of history, state pride, and individualism. Of course, the State may legitimately pursue such interests in any number of ways. However, where the State's interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message.

It is reasonable to say that similarly to this situation, the region's interest cannot outweigh the locality's rights to avoid becoming the courier for their message.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Briefly in reply, your honor.

While it may be the case that a taxpayer does not agree with the government speech that his taxes are funding, such objection does not make the government speech a free speech violation.

In the case of Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 544 U.S. 550 (2005), several ranchers sued over a federal tax on beef producers that was used to fund generic advertisements that the ranchers disagreed with. The U.S. Supreme court held that the fund was for government speech and that therefore the government could not be sued for violating freedom of speech. The Court pointed to the rule that while compelled funding of private speech raises free speech concerns, compelled funding of government speech does not.

The government, as a general rule, may support valid programs and policies by taxes or other exactions binding on protesting parties. Within this broader principle it seems inevitable that funds raised by the government will be spent for speech and other expression to advocate and defend its own policies. We have generally assumed that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns. 544  U.S. at 559.

We reemphasize that unlike in Wooley this case involves government speech on a government vehicle. While a private taxpayer may object to the message, the pre-reset common law has consistently held that such objection does not serve as a veto over the government expressing its own message.

As to the alternative argument, we again wish to distinguish our case from Wooley. The question decided in that case, according to Justice Burger in his majority opinion was:

We are thus faced with the question of whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public. We hold that the State may not do so. 430 U.S. at 713.

We again stress that these buses are not private property as in Wooley but rather government vehicles partially funded by the Region. The U.S. Supreme Court in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) considered a federal law conditioning school funds on allowing access to military recruiters, even if the school opposed the government speech of the recruiters. The Court unanimously held that including military recruiters in receptions and interviews does not necessarily indicate university endorsement of the recruiters, so requiring their inclusion does not constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and thus the statute did not place an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds. If its ok to require government speech on school real property as a condition of funding, logically such condition could equally apply to school personal property. School property is thus not "private property" in the sense that Maynard's car was in Wooley.

And if we might add, Wooley concerned the enforcement of a criminal statute punishable by jail against a private citizen who covered the State Motto on his license plate. The holding of the Court was not that the Motto couldnt be placed on the license plate generally, but rather that Maynard could not be punished for covering the Motto with tape. Our law is not criminal like in Wooley, rather it is a condition on discretionary public funds like in Rumsfeld. Therefore, we submit that our law is not restrained by the decision in Wooley.

Thank you.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     To the petitioner, do you see the case of Wooley as pertaining to speech by public entities?

At the very least, in this case, yes.

In the example I gave when I submitted my brief to the court, I described a situation where individuals were being forced to pay for a motto to be affixed to their school district's buses. One that they had moral objections to. One could argue that, by forcing this, the regional government would be breaking this precedent set by Wooley, as although the individuals do not own the school buses themselves, it is property they paid for.

If one finds this to be an overly broad interpretation of the ruling, I also assert that this law has issues in our system of federalism.

The regional government is coercing localities to display their message. Such an arrangement goes directly against the idea behind the ruling in Wooley.

The State's second claimed interest is not ideologically neutral. The State is seeking to communicate to others an official view as to proper appreciation of history, state pride, and individualism. Of course, the State may legitimately pursue such interests in any number of ways. However, where the State's interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message.

It is reasonable to say that similarly to this situation, the region's interest cannot outweigh the locality's rights to avoid becoming the courier for their message.

     But understanding that all actions of the state are in some sense paid for by taxpayers, would that then imply that expressing ideological stances is a power that does not belong to the government?

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

The region is not expressing an ideological stance, it is coercing localities to express an ideological stance.

[Mr. Reactionary]

By that logic your honor the federal government wouldnt be allowed to require workplace postings at private worksites, fair housing notices at home loan banks, or lead disclosure pamphlets from real estate agents. As the speech is being determined 100% by the Regional government, my friend's argument would serve to invalidate any law that involves the display or dissemination or government information by anyone other than that government. Such has never been the case.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thank you both for your time, those are all of the questions I have.