Dwarven Dragon [Wulfric] vs. The South

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

Evening Justices,

Today I come before the Supreme Court of Atlasia to bring the challenge that S 22.2-94, known as the "Promoting Holy Courts Act" is Unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution. The text can be found here: https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=514897.0

First, to stipulate this is law for purposes of standing, and as the governor has not been signing bills lately, I quote the following from the Southern Constitution:

8. The governor has veto power over any piece of legislation passed by The Southern Legislature. The governor may have the power to veto parts as opposed to the whole of any legislation. The governor must either sign or veto a piece of legislation within one week of its passage, otherwise it will go into effect.

The legislation was passed as of July 22, 2022, 19:49:37 Central, it is currently (approx.) July 29, 2022, 22:32:08 Central (as of me writing this line), therefore this bill has passed the one week period and become law via inaction.

Now for why the bill is unconstitutional. The Federal Constitution states the following:

Section 3.
The Senate shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor obstructing the freedom of worship.

And applies it to the regions via:

Section 1. Reciprocity.
The citizens of each Region shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several Regions.

The bill in question repeatedly references scripture to back up its enforcement and key provisions, for instance:

2. In all criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be not be found guilty absent a finding by the trier of fact that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Exodus 23:7

5. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the trier of fact must allow the admission of relevant testimonial evidence, pursuant to Leviticus 5:1.

9. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, no sentence of death or corporal punishment shall be given except by the trier of fact pursuant to Exodus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 25:2 and 3.

(Title II) C. Determination of lineal descent and inheritance pursuant to Numbers 27:8

In these cases, the bill is relying on the scriptural reference, and could not be implemented without it. In Section 2, an enforcer of the law would be forced to refer to Exodus 23:7 in order to know the proper definition of the required evidentiary standard. In Section 5, an enforcer of the law would be forced to refer to Leviticus 5:1 to understand what constitutes "relevant testimonial evidence". In Section 9, an enforcer of the law would be required to refer to multiple scriptural passages to determine whether a given punishment could be issued. In Title II, C. an enforcer of the law would have to refer to Numbers 27:8 to determine how lineal descent works.

And these are just some examples. Should the Court take this case, I will pleased to dive deep throughout the bill. Aside from three very minor lines, two of which are arguably dependent on prior or later scriptural references, and the final of which is simply the effective date, every section of the bill is directly dependent on a scriptural reference without which it would have no force or effect. These references are not in some meaningless preamble, rather they are directly listed in the actionable sections of the bill.

Therefore, it is my argument that in this bill, the Southern government is not merely referencing scripture to enhance secular reasoning, but is instead using scripture as a primary and sole basis on which to enact, interpret, and enforce the law, and is therefore "respecting the establishment of religion", in direct violation of the Constitution of Atlasia. Due to the intense nature of which the religious references are woven through the bill, the bill cannot stand without them, and the Court's only recourse is to strike down the bill entirely.

I thank you for your time.

[windjammer]

This has been seen

[Mr. Reactionary]

On behalf of the Southern Region, we ask the Court to deny the writ of certiorari challenging the constitutionality of the Promoting Holy Courts Act (PHCA).

The PHCA does not establish a religion in violation of the Atlasian constitution. Rather, the PHCA establishes minimal due process requirements for Southern courts that are required by the Atlasian and Southern constitutions. That these fundamental due process principles were inspired by external sources, including the Bible, does not establish a religion.

Our government structure is inextricably linked to fundamental principles of law and justice from society's collective past. Hammurabi's Code. The Athenian Constitution. The Corpus Juris Civilis of Rome. The Siete Partidas of Spain. Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. And yes, books like the Bible and the Quran. Transformational compilations of law and justice have inspired and influenced governments for millenia and it is impossible to excise that influence. We all stand on the shoulders of giants who came before.

Let's look at what the PHCA actually does. In accordance with the Bills of Rights of the Atlasian and Southern constitutions, it requires in all Southern courts:

- The presumption of innocence

- Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

- Fair notice of proceedings and freedom from Ex Parte hearings

- No court on the weekend

- the right of the accused to offer evidence

- Mens Rea mental intent to be guilty

- Impartial juries

- A ban on judicial bribery and conflicts of interest

- Sentencing of capital crimes lying with the trier of fact

- the Writ of Habeas Corpus

- Civil remedies for torts, contracts, and estates

Which of these fundamental principles of law and justice establish a religion? These principles are found not just in the Bible, but in other external sources as well, such as the Athenian Constitution, the Corpus Juris Civilis, Magna Carta, and the constitution of the former United States. These principles have guided the laws of nations for millenia. The Bible also prohibits murder and theft; such prohibition doesn't mean our murder laws establish a religion. So we dispute the claim of my friend on the other side who mistakenly thinks Biblical inspiration in law establishes a religion.

My friend takes issue with the passive references to an inspirational source for each of these fundamental due process requirements, however acknowledging the inspirational sources of our laws has been commonplace for centuries. In the Atlasian Senate Chamber there are 23 marble reliefs carved into the wall of inspirational lawmakers of history, including Moses (for the 10 Commandments), Pope Gregory IX and Pope Innocent III (for religious Cannon Law), and Maimonides (for his treatises on Jewish religious law). The Supreme Court chamber similarly depicts 18 marble reliefs carved into the wall of inspirational lawmakers of history, including Moses and Solomon from the Bible, the Prophet Muhammad holding a Quran, and other religious figures like Confucius and Emperor Augustus. One of the most cited thinkers by the founders of the United States was St. Paul from the Bible. Many a courthouse displays the 10 Commandments to recognize inspirational legal sources, a practice upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). Acknowledging the historical inspiration of fundamental principles of law does not establish a religion.

Finally, my friend is mistaken in describing the references to the inspired source as being operative law. In each provision the operative clause is the text requiring Southern courts to protect certain fundamental due process protections. The reference to the inspiration does not modify the operative clause. While at the end of the sentence rather than the beginning, such reference functions as a prefratory clause, a clause expressing an opinion on why the operative clause has been adopted. Such a clause is similar to a preamble clause, that has been previously been determined by this court as not being legally binding and thus non-justiciable. See TMTH v Fremont (2020). It makes no sense to say an inoperative reference to an inspirational source establishes a religion.

We therefore ask this Court to deny the petition for certiorari, as the PHCA does not in any way establish a religion in violation of the Atlasian constitution. Rather it establishes fundamental due process protections we believe are required by the Atlasian and Southern constitutions, while passively acknowledging an original source of inspiration for such principles in a way that neither modifies nor establishes law.

Thank you.

- R., Esq.
Southern Attorney General

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

In response, There is nothing necessarily wrong with things being inspired by religious sources, and indeed I introduced legislation that indicates just that in Lincoln, see https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=512822.msg8694917#msg8694917 ; and indeed other legislation in the South like S 22:2:89, https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=514892.0 and S 22:2:85, https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=514887.0, that I have no plans to challenge, has religious references. It is also not uncommon for principles found throughout the law to be influenced by various outside sources, which can certainly include religious texts. The issue with the religious references is not their presence, but their location and operation within the legislation. In each of the three legislative cases I just mentioned, the reference is within the preamble, where there is strong precedent allowing for such. Second, there is no role for the religious reference in the implementation of the legislation. Finally, in those pieces of legislation, the legislation can stand on its own even if the religious reference is removed. None of these are true with the legislation being challenged in this case.

In the legislation being challenged, there is reliance on the religious references in order to properly enact and enforce it, and they are contained right in the main clauses of the bill, thus establishing state religion in the law. The fact that some of the principles desired by the legislation being challenged can be found in non-Christian religious sources, or indeed in secular material, does not matter. The legislation being challenged directs officials to use the bible as their sole source for implementing, enforcing, and interpreting the law.


Just look at some of the clauses of the bill. Let's start with Title I, Clause 4.

4. In all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, no hearing or proceeding shall take place in Saturday or Sunday pursuant to Exodus 35:3.

Notice the explicit religious reference given as the reason for the very existence of the restriction on hearing timing, and thus the method of defending such a restriction. Thus, any explanation of why a hearing could not be held on Saturday, given to a party to a case, would presumably read something like "In accordance with the provisions of Exodus 35:3, as referenced in Title I, Clause 4, of S 22:2:94, such a hearing cannot be allowed". Further, any citizen examining the clause would come to the conclusion that it wouldn't exist if the religious reference did not require it. If that's not state religion, I'm not sure what is. If you remove the religious reference, the clause would appear as some sort of meaningless bureaucracy that there might not even be a rational basis to enact. Further, there is no severability clause or any other indication that the legislature would have even supported the restriction if not required by the religious reference.

Let's look at Title II, Clause C, and the directive text from Title II, Clause 1:

1. (...) such polity shall have available for the residents thereof courts of civil law that are capable of providing civil remedies (...)

C. Determination of lineal descent and inheritance pursuant to Numbers 27:8

This is even more egregious than the last example. Numbers 27:8, and the verses immediately following, which would almost assuredly be used for additional guidance, state:

8 "And give the following instructions to the people of Israel: If a man dies and has no son, then give his inheritance to his daughters. 9And if he has no daughter either, transfer his inheritance to his brothers. 10If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father’s brothers. 11 But if his father has no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan." (NLT)

So, not only is the reference in an operative clause of the bill, but it is also a necessary thing for any official to reference in implementing the clause. If the religious reference is removed, it is not clear what the proper method "determination of lineal descent" is. As no guidance is provided for such determination in the balance of the clause, or in title II, I. ; the official would be powerless to implement the clause without making direct use of the religious reference involved, which provides clear guidance. This is clearly the state imposing a religion.

The same is true in the other parts of Title II:

A. Negligence and other torts pursuant to Exodus 21:18, 28, 33, and 37 and Exodus 22:4-5;

B. Enforcement of wage and debt contracts pursuant to Exodus 22:6, 9, and 13;

In both, without explicit use of the religious reference, the legislation cannot be implemented because there is no reveal of what such "torts" are or how debt contracts should be enforced, until the religious reference is consulted, thus establishing religion on the citizens of the South.

This is a recurring theme throughout the legislation that I'll go more into when the Court takes the case.


The respondent's response to this appears to be, in part:

The reference to the inspiration does not modify the operative clause. While at the end of the sentence rather than the beginning, such reference functions as a prefratory clause, a clause expressing an opinion on why the operative clause has been adopted. Such a clause is similar to a preamble clause

Each of these statements are nonsensical however. The references to the inspiration help guide the proper operation of the clause. They are hardly prefatory, or merely expressing an opinion - they express instruction or offer a defense for the existence of a restriction or a protection. Further, they are right there in the operative clause of the bill rather than in a separate preamble, and no secular reasoning is provided, providing a clear implication that the state is implementing the restrictions and protections solely and only because they are required by the religion it cites.

Other responses by the respondent appear to be:

In the Atlasian Senate Chamber there are 23 marble reliefs carved into the wall of inspirational lawmakers of history, including Moses (for the 10 Commandments), Pope Gregory IX and Pope Innocent III (for religious Cannon Law), and Maimonides (for his treatises on Jewish religious law).

These marble reliefs, however, represent multiple religions and religious figures without preference between them. By contrast, in the legislation being challenged, only one religious text is provided, namely the bible, as a method to operate and defend the law, thus enforcing that specific religious text upon society in violation of the constitution.

The Supreme Court chamber similarly depicts 18 marble reliefs carved into the wall of inspirational lawmakers of history, including Moses and Solomon from the Bible, the Prophet Muhammad holding a Quran, and other religious figures like Confucius and Emperor Augustus.

Similarly, the Supreme Court Chamber indicates the wide breath of possible religious references and inspiration. The legislation at issue, by contrast, forces society to use just one - the bible.

Many a courthouse displays the 10 Commandments to recognize inspirational legal sources, a practice upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

While only one text is provided here, it is merely displayed as a simple recognition of such inspiration. The legislation at issue, by contrast, directs its enforcers to explicitly use such religious text to assist it in implementing, understanding, or defending the law.

Thus, S 22:2:94 hardly contains passive or preamble-esque references. It contains direct operative references that enforce one specific religion upon the populace and the government, in direct violation of the constitution. Therefore, the court should take this case and promptly strike down the legislation.

[windjammer]

Writ of certiorari in the case of Wulfric vs the South has been granted.

Petitioner's brief is expected by 3:00 pm default forum time on 08/10/2022. Respondent's brief is expected by 3:00 pm on 08/13/2022. Any amicus curiae briefs are expected by 3:00PM on 08/14/2022. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the court.

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

My brief is in the works. Might be up tonight if primaries wrap up early enough, otherwise tomorrow night.

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

--Petitioner's Brief in the Case of Dwarven Dragon [Wulfric] vs. The South--

I. Chronology and Thesis

On July 22, 2022, The Southern Chamber of Delegates passed S 22.2.94, the "Promoting Holy Courts Act", https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=514897.0 . Due to gubernatorial inaction, it became law 7 days later under the Southern Constitution. It is my argument that the bill violates Article I, Section 3 of the Federal Constitution and should be struck down in its entirety.


II. Examination of the Constitutional Provision and Precedent

The Article in question states:

Section 3.
The Senate shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor obstructing the freedom of worship.

While at first glance this might appear to apply only to the Senate, Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution tells us otherwise.

Section 1.
The citizens of each Region shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several Regions.

Thus, the Southern Chamber of Delegates, like the Federal Senate, cannot pass laws "respecting an establishment of religion".  'respecting' means "about or relating to something" (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/respecting) and establishment here refers to the state creating a religion, forcing membership in a religion, or running or regulating any existing religion.

Of course, it is impossible and unavoidable for many actions of the state to avoid implicating or being influenced by religion somehow, and the state shouldn't seek to establish a preference for Atheism - that would be just as much as of a violation as establishing a Christian theocracy would. The state must also pay attention to the second part of Exhibit A, where it is also prohibited from preventing citizens from engaging in Worship. Further, many seemingly religious actions like "In God We Trust" being printed on Money, or opening legislative sessions with Prayer, have deep roots in the nation's history and tradition and are not designed to force citizens into any particular religion, and so are rightfully allowed to exist. Further, in Tmthforu v. Fremont, this Court took the view that preambles of constitutions, and by extension preambles of legislation, hold no legal weight. Therefore, a legislature can say anything it wants, including a religious reference, as long as it does so by way of a preamble or other action carrying no binding force. The line is crossed not where the state merely acknowledges existence of a religion or is influenced by it, but where it attempts to directly control a given religion, force membership therein, or directly force its provisions upon the populace. The legislation at issue crosses the line by directly forcing the provisions of a religion, namely Christianity, upon the populace.

III. Examination of the Legislation

Throughout the legislation in question, there is direct dependence on the religious references provided. None of them are contained in a beginning or preamble-like clause as Tmth v Fremont prescribes, but rather are in the operative sections themselves. This is suspicious from the start - if the state feels these religious references are merely superfluous, why not include them in a way that would remove any doubt as to that being the case? Indeed, there is no preamble to the bill at all. Further, as we look through the sections of the bill, we find that the state's argument above suggesting that the legislature is merely noting inspiration for long-held principles of Courts is ridiculous - the references to religion are listed and phrased into the bill in a way where the state, and by extension the people, becomes reliant on them to assist in implementing, enforcing, understanding, or defending the law. Nearly every section of the bill has such a reference, and all of them are from just one source - the Bible. Unlike say, the Supreme Court Chamber, where a multitude of religions are represented with no preference provided, here the religion preferred by the state, which it intends to impose upon the populace at least in part, is very clear, and is that prescribed by the Bible. Even where no reference is provided in the specific clause, the provision is dependent on religious references contained elsewhere or implies religious preference of the state. Let's go through the bill, clause-by-clause, and take a deeper look.

First, the bill's Title is the "PROMOTING HOLY COURTS ACT". While not justiciable on its own pursuant to Tmth v Fremont, it immediately raises suspicion. "Holy" is generally used in a religious context. What is the state trying to impose? Well, we don't need to look very far.

The first clause of Title I:

"1. In all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent pursuant to Leviticus 19:15."

The issue here is not necessarily with the provision imposed. Indeed, presumption of innocence has a clear rational basis and is a bedrock principle of society. Rather, the issue here is with the rationale issued, that the state presents as its sole basis for having this law in the first place. The state points not to the strong history behind presumption of innocence. The state also elects not to simply leave out the reasoning entirely, letting the history behind it become self-evident. Rather, the state asserts a new reasoning in the form of Leviticus 19:15, and indeed the language suggests that the presumption of innocence would not exist if not for this specific reasoning existing. Leviticus 19:15, of course, refers to the book of Leviticus in the Bible, the key document to the Christian Faith. This is part of a pattern, and the state will continue to use this very book, without ever citing any other faith or source or justification, showing its clear mission to establish state religion in violation of the Constitution.

For the record, I will show the Court what is stated by the verse in question. I briefly note that there are a multitude of english translations of the Bible. For the purposes of consistency in my brief and providing a version that is easily understandable in the modern world, I will be using the New Living Translation, or NLT, throughout this brief. That being said, I do not believe using a different translation would substantially change my case in any way, and I would note that none of the clauses require me to take any position in major Christian doctrinal debates.

Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly.

As you can see, the verse closely hues to the prescription of the clause. The verse is chosen well. Unfortunately, there isn't much for us to glean here. Simply note the beginnings of a pattern. The state asserting some seemingly unobjectionable court function, but then asserting it only exists because of the religion the state prefers. Note also that by providing no other rationale, the state would seem to suggest that any of its officials trying to defend the law to the public should use the religious reference as their core argument. Certainly seems suspicious, when the state is not supposed to be establishing religion....

2. In all criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be not be found guilty absent a finding by the trier of fact that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Exodus 23:7

3. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be entitled to be present at and receive reasonable notice of any hearing or proceeding in which the prosecutor and the finder of fact is present, pursuant to Exodus 23:1.

For purposes of space, these two clauses can be consolidated. In each, the state follows the same pattern it did in Clause 1. It states some seemingly unobjectionable court function, such as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or reasonable notice, but then asserts that it is doing it because a particular verse of the bible requires it do so. Again, not for any historical reason or other rational basis, but solely because a particular verse of the bible requires it to do so. But in this stage, the state goes a step further. These verses not only provide the state with a reason to impose the restriction, but also provide some guidance on implementation. In the next exhibit, I have provided some verses immediately following the cited verse, as they would undoubtedly be used by the state to provide context and clarity.

You must not pass along false rumors. You must not cooperate with evil people by lying on the witness stand. You must not pass along false rumors. You must not cooperate with evil people by lying on the witness stand.

2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice. 3 And do not slant your testimony in favor of a person just because that person is poor.

As you can see, the verse provides additional guidance on how to conduct the hearings prescribed by Clause 3. It tells us that these hearings cannot tolerate lying on the witness stand. It tells us that these hearings cannot tolerate influence by the audience. And it tells us that people should not be treated differently based on income. These are fundamental principles of the hearings that are not contained within the clause of the bill. The Government Official only learns of them by consulting the religious reference given, with the word "pursuant" in the bill serving the purpose of informing them of the requiring authority and therefore where to go for guidance . By having its officials do this, the state makes its actions very clear. It desires to impose religion upon its officials actions, and therefore the populace, and it does so by forcing them to consult a specific religious reference for guidance, in direct violation of the state's constitutional obligation to not establish a religion upon its citizens. Without consulting such reference, proper implementation of the law becomes impossible.

Moving down to Exodus 23:7 for Clause 2, things do become slightly less explicit, but the intent of the state is there all the same.

7 “Be sure never to charge anyone falsely with evil. Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent.

8 “Take no bribes, for a bribe makes you ignore something that you clearly see. A bribe makes even a righteous person twist the truth.

Again, guidance is provided on how to implement a "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof standard. Specifically, we are told to not take bribes, and to be extraordinarily cautious when considering a harsh sentence. (it uses death here, of course we don't have that in Atlasia, but it works just as well using a long prison sentence as a stand in.) Just as before, the officials of the state, or people on a jury, and by extension the whole populace, only have this guidance by directly consulting the state's preferred religion. It becomes far more than some sort of preamble-esque thing, but instead morphs itself into operative law, without which there would be far less clarity on how to implement the provision at issue, thus establishing a religion in direct violation of the Constitution.

4. In all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, no hearing or proceeding shall take place in Saturday or Sunday pursuant to Exodus 35:3.

I already explained Clause 4 in my response to the motion to dismiss. For the record, here's the verse.

3 You must not even light a fire in any of your homes on the Sabbath.”

While this is more mundane than the previous clauses, the underlying intent is still clear - Court can't be held on the weekend because the state's preferred religion demands recognition of the sabbath. Again, the state continues to use just one set of reasoning, the bible, without ever mentioning secular reasoning or allowing it to become self-evident, or even using reasoning from other faiths. The intent, shown by the repetition and reliance on the references to implement, defend, and understand the legislation, is very clear. The state wants the populace to follow one specific religion, and this bill is merely its first step in that journey. For further details on this specific clause, I refer you to my response to the motion to dismiss.

5. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the trier of fact must allow the admission of relevant testimonial evidence, pursuant to Leviticus 5:1.

6.  Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be not be found guilty absent a finding by the trier of fact that the accused had the requisite mental intent or mens rea for committing the crime or act resulting in the crime pursuant to Deuteronomy 22:26.

5 “If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin.

In Clause 5 of the bill, in Exhibit J above, the state is told to allow the admission of "relevant testimonial evidence". What does this mean? Well, by the bill noting the requirement is pursuant to Leviticus 5:1, that becomes the obvious method to consult for implementation of the law. Thus the religious notation becomes operative, and thus establishing a preferred state religion in violation of the Constitution. Indeed, by consulting the reference, clarity is gained - "relevant" is referring to people who have seen or were told about something, and there is also a suggestion that refusal to testify should be punished somehow. This of course, raises further issues. Section 9 of the bill of rights of the Constitution states: "No person accused of crimes under the laws of this Republic, or of the several Regions, shall be compelled to bear witness against themself," . By suggesting punishment for refusal to testify via the religious reference that must be used to enforce the law, the state is not only violating the freedom of religion, but also the right to not have to testify against oneself. Thus there are multiple constitutional rationales for which to strike down this clause, though only one or the other is sufficient to do so.

25 “But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim.

Clause 6 of the bill is less problematic, as the religious reference doesn't really provide much help or restriction. Likely, more secular definitions would be used to help establish "mens rea" as a result. Still, it adds to the pattern, and by even suggesting the state refer to Deuteronomy in enforcing the law and imposing it on the populace, the desire to establish state religion continues to emphasized loud and clear.

7.  Pursuant to law, in all felony criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be entitled to demand an impartial jury serve as trier of fact during such felony criminal proceeding pursuant to Exodus 23:2.

2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice.

Here, the religious citation provides anyone implementing the law with a key point of guidance on how an impartial jury works, namely that it should not be swayed by the audience. Again, by relying on religion to provide implementation guidance, the state makes religion operative law, in violation of the Constitution's promise that the state will not establish religion.

8. In all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, no person shall be permitted to serve as a trier of law or a trier of fact if he or she has solicited or accepted a bribe related to the case or otherwise has a conflict of interest affecting the impartiality if the proceeding, pursuant to Exodus 23:6 and 8 and Leviticus 19:15.

9. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, no sentence of death or corporal punishment shall be given except by the trier of fact pursuant to Exodus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 25:2 and 3.

6 “In a lawsuit, you must not deny justice to the poor.

7 “Be sure never to charge anyone falsely with evil. Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent.

8 “Take no bribes, for a bribe makes you ignore something that you clearly see. A bribe makes even a righteous person twist the truth.

(Lev.) 15 “Do not twist justice in legal matters by favoring the poor or being partial to the rich and powerful. Always judge people fairly.

While I give the state credit in clause 8 for including one conflict of interest, a Bribe, directly in the bill clause itself, the state ultimately can't help itself from returning to its pattern in this bill. Just after the bribe prohibition, it states that one "cannot otherwise has [have] a conflict of interest (...) pursuant to [insert verses]" - i.e. it is stating that other conditions creating a conflict of interest are found, yet again, in the religion the state is imposing upon its courts and officials and therefore the populace. And the verses in question, once consulted, do indeed suggest additional conflicts of interests, namely someone being favorable to the wealthy.

20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.

2 If the person in the wrong is sentenced to be flogged, the judge must command him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of lashes appropriate to the crime. 3 But never give more than forty lashes; more than forty lashes would publicly humiliate your neighbor.

Clause 9 is perhaps the most blatant offense thus far. Here, the religious reference not only backs up the prescription of the clause, it gives specific details as to how one of the sentences offered, corporal punishment, is to be performed. Government officials are directed to use the specific details provided by the clause telling them that the sentence is being regulated via these verses, and are thus quite directly carrying out orders from the christian God. If that's not state religion, I'm not sure what is.

10. Any person incarcerated in the Southern Region, may upon the discovery of new evidence that is credible, material, and presented without substantial delay, of a deprivation if due process resulting from the denial of a right or guarantee found in this title may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus for relief. This provision does not limit the grounds for which a writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted or preclude the use of any other remedies available by law.

While there isn't an explicit religious reference here for once, by referring back to the other rights within the title, the state is indirectly reciting all the references, which only further cements its intentions. There is no secular reasoning for the bill. The state does not care that the principles here may have secular historical basis. The state is implementing the legislation solely and only because its preferred religion requires it to do so, and it consults that religion for guidance and understand on how to impose it on the populace.

(to be continued....)

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

(continued...)

As detailed in my response to the motion to dismiss, Title II of the bill goes even further. While Title I states some of the restrictions directly within the bill text, and I suppose a dedicated secularist could try to make sense of it whilst pretending the religious reference wasn't there, notwithstanding that such method would dramatically alter the scope of certain clauses, Title II is where that stops.

1. In any State or locality in the Southern Region, such polity shall have available for the residents thereof courts of civil law that are capable of providing civil remedies for the following types of cases:

A. Negligence and other torts pursuant to Exodus 21:18, 28, 33, and 37 and Exodus 22:4-5;

B. Enforcement of wage and debt contracts pursuant to Exodus 22:6, 9, and 13; and

C. Determination of lineal descent and inheritance pursuant to Numbers 27:8

Here, the state throws any semblance of guidance in the bill text, and instead relies exclusively on the religious reference provided. I don't even feel a need to quote the verses here, in part because I already covered the Numbers reference in the response to the motion to dismiss, and in part because the pattern I've established above manifests itself very well here almost without me saying anything. The state asserts various civil remedies courts must be capable of resolving, and then proceeds to assert it must resolve them according to how the bible demands them to, in complete exclusion of any other method. This is textbook establishment of religion.

Finally, the bill concludes with an effective date, which is fine on its own, but a bill with an effective date and nothing else is meaningless, so no sense in leaving it intact. So, every clause of this bill, from start to finish, violates the populace's right to not have religion established upon them by the state, with one clause also having additional issues. Thus, the bill must be struck down entirely.

IV. History and Severability

The state, in response, is likely to reiterate that many of the proposals in the bill are unobjectionable or have already been with society for a long time. Be that as it may, the issue is not the guidelines themselves, but their sourcing and the reason for implementing them. The state is clear throughout the bill, in each clause thereof - it is only doing this because, 'pursuant' to its desired religion, it is required to do so. The state emphatically rejects any secular reasoning or even that from other faiths, as it provides none anywhere in the bill. Further, the Constitution does not prohibit establishment of unpopular religions or doctrines, it prohibits the establishment of religion altogether. Even though the state is not implementing major christian doctrines like salvation, baptism, or creationism at this time, allowing this legislation puts us down a dangerous path. Who decides which doctrines are unobjectionable and okay for the state to impose, and which are not? Could the state require mandatory church services, as long as such services only preached popular doctrines? Could the state impose a religion in its entirety if a supermajority supported it? Rather than engaging in this scary territory that would threaten the very essence of the Freedom of Worship, let's go back to what the Constitution says - any clear attempt to establish religion is prohibited - and the state's intentions couldn't be clearer.

The state is also likely to argue that the religious language is non-binding and that it would have implemented the restrictions anyways. Both of these are non-sensical. The language is not contained in a preamble. The language is not phrased in a way that makes clear it is not be relied on for implementation. The language does not simply reiterate the bill text, but time and time again, adds new conditions found nowhere else in the bill. By the time we reach the second title of the bill, the state has divorced 100% of the specifics on how to interpret the law to its preferred religion. Make no mistake - the religious content is operative law. Further, the state does not provide a severability clause in the legislation, or any reasoning not related to Christianity. Sure, certain legislators may have stated other reasoning in debate, and certainly the state is trying to create some in its motion to dismiss and will again in its brief, but none of that is actually in law or officially endorsed by the Southern Chamber of Delegates or the Governor. The only reasoning provided is "because Christianity requires it", thus showing this bill would not exist if Christianity did not require its existence.

Finally, the state will point to historical sites and buildings like the Supreme Court where religious inspiration is noted. However, as I noted previously, in each of these situations noted by the state, either multiple religious faiths are provided, noting no particular establishment, or the inspiration is clearly not binding in any way. Neither is true with the legislation.

V. Conclusion

So, in conclusion, the bill at issue, in essentially every clause thereof, establishes religion upon the populace via binding religious language designed to help the state and by extension the people in enforcing, interpreting, implementing, or understanding the law. Some parts of the bill cannot even begin to be enacted before the religious reference is consulted and used. The lack of any secular reasoning or even reasoning from other faiths, and the placement of the religious references in operative clauses of the bill, makes the intent very clear - the state wishes to impose christianity upon the populace, and this bill is the start of that mission. This is not about the merits of Christianity, indeed I follow the religion myself. It's simply about the fact that the state cannot constitutionally do what is trying to do. The court should thwart this unconstitutional mission by striking down the bill entirely.

I thank the court for their time and indulgence.

[Mr. Reactionary]

INTRODUCTION

To respect the Court's time and avoid repetitive arguments, we refer back to our motion to deny certiorari on the general nature, purpose, and effect of the contested clauses under the Establishment clause, in which we demonstrated that the contested clauses in the PHCA were mere inoperative references to an inspirational external source for the operative text actually adopted as law by the legislature. We contend that there is a valid secular purpose in paying homage to historical legal inspiration, and that the contested references are inoperative as a matter of law and do not create any positive law, much the same as the preambles and purpose statements previously allowed by this Court in TMTH v. Fremont. We feel that my friend, the Petitioner, is incorrect in his claim that the PHCA establishes a religion in violation of the Constitution by including the contested clauses.

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS UNSUPPORTED BY LAW

My friend is making a fundamentally flawed interpretation of how laws work. It is clear from basic canons of legal interpretation that the contested clauses are functionally inoperative despite my friend's claims to the contrary. Neither the text of the inspirational Bible verses, nor the entirety of the Bible itself has ever been affirmatively adopted as positive law in the South. Under the Southern Constitution, laws must be passed by the legislature; absent such adoption the text of a separate document cannot be the law of the land. While we concede that it is possible for the legislature to adopt the text of a separate document as positive law without including the entire text in a bill, such adoption MUST be clear and unambiguous.

For example, the South has expressly adopted the entirety of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC), separate and independent documents, without including the full text in the adopted law. Such adoptions however were very clear as to the intent of the legislature to adopt the text thereof as law.

Uniform Commercial Code Adoption Act

1.) The 2012 Edition of the Uniform Commercial Code is hereby adopted by reference ...

Uniform Statewide Building Code Adoption Act

Be it enacted:

1. The 2012 Edition of the Uniform Statewide Building Code is hereby adopted by reference ...

At no time has the South ever adopted the text of the Bible as positive law. In the PHCA, there is no clear and unambiguous statement from the legislature that it is adopting the text of the external, inspirational source. Without such clear and unambiguous statement, or an earlier adoption of the Bible as positive law, the actual text of the Bible verse is external to and not at all usable as law in the South, any more than if the contested clause was instead a reference to the UN Declaration of Rights or Hammurabi's Code. At no time would a Bible ever be needed to interpret the PHCA as the Bible is not Southern law, as my friend claims.

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT VIOLATES SEPARATION OF POWERS

Additionally, my friend's argument that a judge would need to consult a Bible to interpret this law is incorrect, as such would violate the sepatation of powers under the Southern Constitution. The provisions of the PHCA are established by law, by the legislative branch in whom all legislative powers are vested by the Southern Constitution. The judicial branch is not permitted to exercise legislative powers. The extent of any law is the plain text of such law, as adopted by the legislature. And under the plain text of the PHCA, the due process guarantees established by law are clear on their face.

The PHCA requires, "in all felony criminal proceedings ... the accused shall be entitled to demand an impartial jury serve as trier of fact during such felony criminal proceeding". The PHCA requires "In all criminal proceedings ... the accused shall be presumed to be innocent". The PHCA requires "In all criminal proceedings ... the accused shall be not be found guilty absent a finding by the trier of fact that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". These are clear, mandatory provisions of law that are not to be deviated from. A judge is not permitted to exercise discretion in interpretation on these provisions. To do so would be an exercise of legislative power in violation of the separation of powers, and any such action would be void ab initio.

Thus, my friend is incorrect in his claim that judges would be consulting the Bible at their discretion to interpret the clear, mandatory provisions of the PHCA, as the judges have no such power.

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT LEADS TO CONTRADICTORY OUTCOMES

Finally, my friend's arguments that the inspirational verses are necessary to interpret the provisions of the PHCA would result in some cases contradictory applications of the law. For example, section 4 prohibts court on Saturday and Sunday. The inspirational source reads: "You must not even light a fire in any of your homes on the Sabbath." If the Bible verse was required to interpret the positive law, the law no longer makes sense as two (2) days rather than one (1) are prohibited from holding court in the PHCA, yet the inspirational source only prohibits one (1), and only indirectly. It is clear that such verse does not and cannot modify the plain text of the law.

Similarly, as my friend has himself documented, other operative clauses in the PHCA while related to the cited inspirational source, nonetheless deviate subatantially from such source. This clearly indicates that the inclusion of the inspirational source was not intended to modify the operative text of the law, as adopted by the legislature.

For example, the operative section 2 requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The inspirational source reads, "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous". While similar principles from section 2 are found in the inspirational source, such source does not, in itself establish a reasonable doubt standard. Thus, the inspirational source would not modify or be necessary to the interpretation of section 2.

Or take section 5, which requires "in all criminal proceedings ... the trier of fact must allow the admission of relevant testimonial evidence". The inspirational source reads "If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin." Nothing in the inspirational source modifies the operative text, and it is tortured logic to suggest that a jury would need to consult the Bible to determine what "relevant testimonial evidence" is, as that is already defined by other positive law enacted by the leguslature:

Rules of Evidence Adoption Act

1.) The 2015 Federal Rules of Evidence is hereby adopted by reference ...

My friend has desperately tried to assert the necessity of consulting with external, inspirational sources, but to do so would have no practical effect, let alone establish a religion. Thus, it is clear that the referenced inspirational sources do not modify the actual, operative text of the PHCA as interpreting the law in such way would contradict or have no meaningful application to the actual, operative text of the PHCA, which is the only legal text unambiguously adopted as law by the legislature.

CONCLUSIONS

For the reasons so stated above, we ask that the Court dismiss this challenge to the PHCA, as the PHCA does not violate the Constitution, and in fact, carries out the requirements of the bill of rights of the Constitution.

If the Court believes the text of the law may be unclear and that both our interpretation and my friend's interpretation could be correct, we believe the United States common law case of Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1935) would apply. In Ashwander, the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a statute could be interpreted in two (2) ways, one (1) way that is constitutional and one (1) way that is unconstitutional, the Court should adopt the constitutional interpretation to avoid inserting itself into political, legislative decisions.

If the Court believes the PHCA is unconstitutional, we contend that the contested inspirational sources are clearly and easily severable from the remaining law, and that the remedy sought by my friend, the striking down of the whole law, is improper, unwarranted, and unnecessary. Further, it would do great harm by striking down statutory protections for constitutionally required due process, endangering the rights of the people of the South. It is painfully obvious that the operative text exists and can exist without the contested clauses as the contested clauses create no law, have no legal effect, provide no useful modifications to the operative text if they were to have legal effect, and are not required for the interpretation of the operative text. Thus, finding the provisions not severable would be a radical departure from past Court precedent, such as PoliticsFan v. South where this court chose to sever a section from a larger bill that was not dependent upon such section.

Thank you for your time.

- R, Esq.
Southern Attorney General

[windjammer]

Thank you both for your briefs.

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

Bump?

[windjammer]

Still ongoing and not forgotten!

[Sestak]

To both counsels: In general, let us say a judge is interpreting a clause of statute of the form "{A}, purusant to {B}" where {A} is a clause that is operative when it stands on its own, and {B} is a citation (let's say, in this case, it's a citation of another statute).'

Then, if the judge is unsure as to whether or not clause {A} applies to a specific case - perhaps because they are unsure of the scope of the clause as a whole or whether or not some term or phrase within the clause applies to the facts of the case - would it be appropriate for the judge to look at the citation {B} for textual or contextual clues in order to inform their interpretation?

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

Yes, it would be appropriate. The usual definition for pursuant is "in accordance with (the provisions of)". So if the law says "a pursuant to B", and a is left unclear as to scope or meaning, the natural place to look is indeed to the sourcing provided in B, as the law tells us it is doing x action to adhere to the provisions of B.

My Opponent might assert the state is trying to use the word pursuant as "in accordance with the inspiration of", but there is nothing in the law itself that clearly states this. Arguments of attorneys before the Court are not binding. My opponent might also assert there would be nothing meaningful to be gained by consulting B, but in several sections of the law, this would be patently untrue. For instance, Section 3 states:

3. Pursuant to law, in all criminal proceedings or legal proceedings in which the right to engage in a specific occupation, trade, or skill is at stake in any court, panel, commission, board, or other public body created by the Southern Region, or any State or locality therein, the accused shall be entitled to be present at and receive reasonable notice of any hearing or proceeding in which the prosecutor and the finder of fact is present, pursuant to Exodus 23:1.

And when we consult the verse and its context, we get:

You must not pass along false rumors. You must not cooperate with evil people by lying on the witness stand. You must not pass along false rumors. You must not cooperate with evil people by lying on the witness stand.

2 “You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice. 3 And do not slant your testimony in favor of a person just because that person is poor.

As I previously argued, the verses add several provisions to the hearings which are simply not covered in the base bill, such as not allowing the audience to sway the outcome in any form.

For another example, in Section 9, consulting the cited verse gives specific instructions on how to carry out the corporal punishment section 9 prescribes.

And of course, in Section 2 of the bill:

1. In any State or locality in the Southern Region, such polity shall have available for the residents thereof courts of civil law that are capable of providing civil remedies for the following types of cases:

A. Negligence and other torts pursuant to Exodus 21:18, 28, 33, and 37 and Exodus 22:4-5;

B. Enforcement of wage and debt contracts pursuant to Exodus 22:6, 9, and 13; and

C. Determination of lineal descent and inheritance pursuant to Numbers 27:8

Even knowing what "lineal descent" or "negligence" is supposed to mean in this legislation requires consulting the cited verse, in direct violation of the Constitution's prohibition of establishment of religion by the state.


I'll also say something briefly about my opponent's assertion that striking down this law would repeal commonsense legal protections. I can hardly believe my opponent is seriously trying to assert to the court that all due process for defendants has only existed for a matter of a month or so in the South. Numerous due process protections are included in the Federal Constitution and I believe the Southern Constitution as well. Further, US Law prior to 2004 is generally considered to be Canon within the game, and there are likely provisions in every state's laws, plus provisions in federal law for district courts and such, establishing things such as fair juries, hearing procedures, and rigorous proof standards. Thus, my opponent's assertion that the striking down of this law causes the repeal of the notion of having fair trials is simply nonsensical. Also, the alternate remedy suggested of striking down only the religious references is inadequate. Particularly in section 2, the bill becomes confusing and even nonsensical at times when stripped to that form. Further, the legislature did not provide any evidence that it would support the bill in that form, such as via a severability clause or providing of alternative reasoning. Rather, the bill seems to simply be the first step at establishing state religion in the South. The court certainly should reaffirm the right to have religious references in preambles and other clearly non binding locations. But it should also recognize that this bill has clearly crossed the line and must be struck down.

[windjammer]

Blackraisin?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Blackraisin?

Its my first day back. Ill review and respond soon.

[windjammer]

Blackraisin?

Its my first day back. Ill review and respond soon.

Oooooh
No worries,
Take your Time and welcome back!

[windjammer]

Blackraisin?

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

Would recommend the Court hold blackraisin in contempt for his lack of attention to the case.

[Mr. Reactionary]

To both counsels: In general, let us say a judge is interpreting a clause of statute of the form "{A}, purusant to {B}" where {A} is a clause that is operative when it stands on its own, and {B} is a citation (let's say, in this case, it's a citation of another statute).'

Then, if the judge is unsure as to whether or not clause {A} applies to a specific case - perhaps because they are unsure of the scope of the clause as a whole or whether or not some term or phrase within the clause applies to the facts of the case - would it be appropriate for the judge to look at the citation {B} for textual or contextual clues in order to inform their interpretation?

It could be useful in a situation where there is no other positive law otherwise modifying or providing context for clause A. Im sure you are aware that very often a law can be modified by other laws without the need to reference such other laws. A law requiring certain recordkeeping by the government need not reference FOIA for those records to be subject to FOIA for example. Similarly a law authorizing the hiring of new workers for an agency need not expressly state that such workers are subject to public merit systems protections or salary schedules or labor rules.

In this case, the Southern law perplexingly at issue sets bare minimums for due process ... bare minimums that are modified by lots of preexisting positive laws. My friend on the other side keeps claiming some silliness about looking to the Bible to determine matters of tort or lineal descent when there are already positive southern laws that define such matters with more clarity. It would not be useful for a judge to look to the inspirational source words of the Bible to determine a question of say medical malpractice in a negligence suit when the Southern tort reform act sets the parameters of this type of case.

I still fail to see any potential avenue for my friend's imagine controversey. The South has a very robust and detailed law code that fleshes out perceived vagaries in the positive law of the law at issue.

[windjammer]

Supreme Court of Atlasia

Nyman, DC

Dwarven Dragon vs the South

Opinion of the Court.

(Chief Justice Windjammer delivered the opinion of the Court)
After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous decision.
It’s the opinion of the Supreme Court "Promoting Holy Courts Act" relies explicitly on religious references (for example, « pursuant to leviticus ») and can not be implemented without it. Thus, it is a clear violation of the following clause of the Atlasian Constitution :

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

By passing legislations relying on the Bible’s scriptures, « Promoting the Holy Courts Act » de facto establishes Christianity as the religion of the South. For that reason, « Promoting the Holy Courts Act » shall be struck down in its entirety.
The Supreme Court would like to thank Wulfric and Blackraisin for their full cooperation.