Anti-Tyrant League v. Wulfric

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anti-Tyrant League v. Wulfric

I hereby ask the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari for this case, based on the following:

On October 11, 2023 at 12:25:01 AM, the Senate passed the End of Medical Termination Act. This bill was presented to the President, and exactly seven (7) days later, at 12:25:01 AM on October 18, 2023, the President had failed to act upon the bill. Thus the bill became a law due to Presidential inaction.

Despite this, the President issued a late veto, well beyond the time allowed by the Constitution therefor. Now the PPT of the Senate is claiming the extraconstitutional power to waive mandatory deadlines found within the constitution, and has declared the veto as valid, even though it was made too late.

We thus ask this Court to issue a ruling declaring that the veto was too late and the law is in effect, notwithstanding the legally dubious claims of the PPT.

Art. III, Sec. 1, Par. 8 of the Atlasian constitution states:

"All legislation passed by the Senate, save constitutional amendments and resolutions, shall, before it becomes law, be submitted to the judgement of the President. A passed bill shall become law upon the signature of the President or seven days of Presidential inaction.

In this case, the legislation of the Senate was passed at 12:25:01 AM on October 11, 2023. It was presented to the President, and exactly seven (7) days later, at 12:25:01 AM on October 18, 2023, the President had failed to act upon the bill. For seven (7) uninterrupted twenty-four (24) hour days, the passed bill was eligible to be signed by the President. The President, in fact, signed two (2) other pending bills during this seven (7) day period, so its not as though he was under a disability that would have prevented him from signing.

Thus, at exactly 12:25:01 AM on October 18, 2023 the bill had become law, automatically, without any need for some other officer to declare it so. There is no debate here. The PPT of the Senate however claims some sort of discretionary power to waive the seven (7) day rule when it suits him, despite there being no such power in the constitution. The rules of the Constitution on this matter are clear, mandatory, and self-executing.

A passed bill shall become law upon the signature of the President or seven days of Presidential inaction. The use of the word "shall" is mandatory not discretionary. After seven (7) days of Presidential inaction, a passed bill shall become law. Period. There is no "close enough" provision in the Constitution. Seven (7) days is a mandatory deadline and must be strictly construed.

This court has already made this determination in TimTurner v. Peebs (2018). In that case the Court strictly construed a 72 hour voting deadline, even where a voter submitted his ballot prior to the conclusion of the 72 hour deadline, because website lag delayed the display of the ballot until 33 seconds after the deadline.

"The Supreme Court sides with RG Peebs. Citizen Timturner had seventy-two hours to vote in the last Southern election and voted 1 minute after the deadline. RG Peebs made the rightful decision to invalidate Timturner’s vote, as it was cast after the end of the election. There is no valid reason for counting a vote made after the deadline in any election."

Given that this Court has already determined that in the case of a mandatory deadline, a 33 second delay was not close enough to dispense with said deadline, this same reasoning applies to President Spiral's failed attempt to veto, which was late by even more time than at issue in TimTurner v. Peebs. Thus, the PPT's claimed power to be able to waive the veto deadline that is found in the Constitution, is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, we ask this court to issue an order:

- Recognizing that the End of Medical Termination Act was validly passed due to Presidential inaction, as exactly seven (7) days after passage the law had been neither signed nor vetoed.

- Prohibiting the PPT from future unconstitutional attempts to circumvent mandatory deadlines found in the constitution.

Thank you.

- OSR, chief counsel, Anti-Tyrant League

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This has been seen

[Sestak]

Certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice Sestak respecting the denial of certiorari.

In the case we are presented with, the President has marked a “veto” of a bill which, plaintiff alleges, had already passed the deadline for enaction by inaction. The Senate, in turn, then continued legislative proceedings on the bill as if it had been vetoed.

The time limit for automatic enaction is absolute; if the President failed to act in that time, the bill in question is now statute. The President may write the word “Veto” and the Senate may take as many votes as it likes on the subject - the Court has no jurisdiction to rule against this -  but the bill is statute regardless and will remain so until such time as it may be repealed or amended.

The only case that may be brought is if - as set out by the statute - the government or other defendant bound by it is violating or ignoring it. There is no such allegation made in the case here.