Joe Republic vs. DownWithTheLeft

[Joe Republic]

I wish to sue Senator DownWithTheLeft for a breach of the Atlasian Constitution.

For a short period of time on June 2nd 2007, the senator used a Tennessee avatar, and had no reference to his residence in New Jersey in his signature at the time.  Although I do not have any proof of this (e.g. a screenshot), I have at least one witness who can verify my claim, and an apparent confession from the senator himself.  If Senator DWTL denies my claim, I will be happy to call said witness and reproduce said confession.

This action is a direct breach of Article V, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a result of his action, as he will not have followed this rule for the entire duration of his term, it is my understanding that he has effectively forfeited his seat in the Senate.

Will the Court hear my case?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I wish to consult legal help before posting on the matter

[DownWithTheLeft]

I ask that the court the law unnecessary and look to the Fritz v. Boss Tweed case as precedence that I should be allowed to stay in the senate

[Joe Republic]

The Court does not have the power to find a clause of the constitution "unnecessary", whatever that means.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Court does not have the power to find a clause of the constitution "unnecessary", whatever that means.

I want them to find the same way the court found in Fritz v. Boss Tweed. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

I ask that the court not hear the case for a few reasons:

1.) The law has gone unenforced for years
2.) The court already decided the issue in Fritz v. Boss Tweed, et al
3.) The violation had no effect on senate proceedings whatsoever
4.) Joe Republic was a registered Atlasian at the time of introducing the case

[Joe Republic]

I ask that the court not hear the case for a few reasons:

1.) The law has gone unenforced for years

And yet it is still a part of the current constitution, and thus is still very much the law of the land.

2.) The court already decided the issue in Fritz v. Boss Tweed, et al

If the Court decides that that ruling - which was based on the First Constitution, not the current Second one - still applies, then I also ask them to review it.  I have read the case in full, and I believe that the ruling was unsound.

I have a link to that case for reference purposes, if the Court wishes to view it.

3.) The violation had no effect on senate proceedings whatsoever

Irrelevant.

4.) Joe Republic was a registered Atlasian at the time of introducing the case

I know.  It's my understanding that only registered Atlasians may present cases before the Court... so your point is...?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Excuse my usual typos, Joe WAS NOT a registered Atlasia at the time of presenting the case.  On that alone the court should not hear this case.

[Joe Republic]

Excuse my usual typos, Joe WAS NOT a registered Atlasia at the time of presenting the case.  On that alone the court should not hear this case.

Incorrect.

At 12.22 pm EST today, I re-registered as an Atlasian citizen:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=34355.msg1205522#msg1205522

That would therefore mean that I was indeed a citizen when I presented this case at 12.33 pm EST.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I would be willing to testify in the matter, as I was the first to spot and point out the Senator's inconsistency.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would also be willing to testify, as I had witnessed the Senator with an I-TN avatar and no reference to being registered in New Jersey for fantasy purposes.

[minionofmidas]

I am willing to testify that I did not notice.

[Sam Spade]

I am willing to testify that I did not notice.

Likewise.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I am willing to testify that I did not notice.

Likewise.

Not exactly living up to your own signature are you?

[Sam Spade]

I am willing to testify that I did not notice.

Likewise.

Not exactly living up to your own signature are you?

Depends on your viewpoint.

Besides, a demonstration can be made if you are interested.

[The Dowager Mod]

As soon as i hear from the other justices i will decide if we will take the case.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I also ask the court to look at the fact this charge was not levyed against myself when I did this before, or Sen. Trondheim in the last senate when he did it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I can attest that I witnessed it.

[SPC]

I see some hypocrisy here. People aren't willing to censure Porce for stalling a vote on a nominee for two weeks, but they're willing the censure DWTL for putting a different avatar up for a few hours. I say that if Joe Republic censures DWTL, he should also censure Porce.

[Keystone Phil]

I see some hypocrisy here. People aren't willing to censure Porce for stalling a vote on a nominee for two weeks, but they're willing the censure DWTL for putting a different avatar up for a few hours. I say that if Joe Republic censures DWTL, he should also censure Porce.

You know, I really think that whether or not Joe has a case here, he's doing this for personal reasons. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to act on Ebowed.

[Gabu]

Well, it's about time Atlasia got a completely and utterly frivolous and ridiculous court case about some arcane regulation that got broken.

[Peter]

I see some hypocrisy here. People aren't willing to censure Porce for stalling a vote on a nominee for two weeks, but they're willing the censure DWTL for putting a different avatar up for a few hours. I say that if Joe Republic censures DWTL, he should also censure Porce.

As far as I know Porce is only accused of breaching a Senate rule, whilst DWTL is accused of breaching a Constitutional requirement. This is an important difference - traditionally only the Senate enforces its own rules (i.e. the Courts do not), whilst it is undoubtedly the job of the Courts to enforce the Constitution.

[Јas]

I see some hypocrisy here. People aren't willing to censure Porce for stalling a vote on a nominee for two weeks, but they're willing the censure DWTL for putting a different avatar up for a few hours. I say that if Joe Republic censures DWTL, he should also censure Porce.

As far as I know Porce is only accused of breaching a Senate rule, whilst DWTL is accused of breaching a Constitutional requirement. This is an important difference - traditionally only the Senate enforces its own rules (i.e. the Courts do not), whilst it is undoubtedly the job of the Courts to enforce the Constitution.

Agreed.

Porce breached a rule of Senate Procedure - not something any penalty is laid down for.

DWTL breached a constitutional requirement - a rule which can be interpreted as implicitly involving forfeiture of office (and which I have stated as being unfair but nevertheless valid). As far as I can see, it is not the place of the Senate to involve itself in this matter.

[Joe Republic]

I see some hypocrisy here. People aren't willing to censure Porce for stalling a vote on a nominee for two weeks, but they're willing the censure DWTL for putting a different avatar up for a few hours. I say that if Joe Republic censures DWTL, he should also censure Porce.

You know, I really think that whether or not Joe has a case here, he's doing this for personal reasons. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to act on Ebowed.

See the above responses of Peter and Jas.

I don't even know what Ebowed has apparently done wrong, because I haven't been following Senate business that closely.  Besides, that matter is already being dealt with separately with a censure resolution, if I'm not mistaken.

I also ask the court to look at the fact this charge was not levyed against myself when I did this before, or Sen. Trondheim in the last senate when he did it.

I never, and presumably nobody else either, witnessed that happening.  So consider yourself and Lewis lucky to have gotten away with it that time.


-----------

For the record, I believe the constitutional clause is "arcane" (as Gabu put it), and I'd support an attempt to amend it out of existence.  Nevertheless, it is still very much an explicit requirement as of now and as of the time when DWTL broke it.

[TomC]

I am happy to hear the case if another Justice agrees. I believe there is a Constitutional issue here, and probably a violation, though remain unconvinced that the plantiff's claim/request is the appropriate response.

Do I understand correctly that we are not being asked to remove DWTL, but that the plantiff believes DWTL is no longer a Senator? Is there any evidence that can be provided, either public record or testimony of government officials that reinforces the belief that DWTL is no longer a Senator? Have any votes taken place and been tallied since the incident?

Not a perfect parallel, but how is this different from someone who has not yet taken the oath  and does not have Constitutional powers? Once the person does, he/she then assumes these powers. In other words, I see the validity of a claim that while the avatar did not meet Constitutional standards, DWTL did not have the powers of a Senator (again, were any votes made with an incorrect avatar?), but what validates the claim that he has permanently lost his Constitutional powers?