Atlasia v. Southeast
[Attorney General Marokai Blue, Senator SPC; Arguing]
Statement of Facts
The initiative passed at the center of this case, the "Freedom of Currency Amendment," states:
April 4th {2:53 PM Eastern Time}: Governor Duke opens the voting booth for three different Southeast voter initiatives. One of these is the "Freedom of Currency Amendment"
April 9th {1:06 AM Eastern Time}: The "Freedom of Currency Amendment" passes 4-1, and is certified by Governor Duke.
April 9th {1:34 PM Eastern Time}: Senators Bacon King, Lief, and HappyWarrior requested my office take a look at the possibility of suing the region of the Southeast over the alleged unconstitutionality of the aforementioned "Freedom of Currency Amendment."
April 9th {7:26 PM Eastern Time}: As I had been considering for some time, I directed the Justice Department to press charges against the government of the Southeast for violating the Constitution of Atlasia, and brought the case to the attention of the court.
Question(s) Presented:
The question at the center of the case is the constitutionality of the Freedom of Currency Amendment passed by the voters of the Southeast, and if it subsequently is to be overturned by the court, as well as the power of all regions to issue or recognize currency outside that which is established by the Senate of Atlasia.
Argument:
The Constitution of Atlasia quite clearly references the federally recognized currency, the Dollar, established by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia, as the sole currency of the country, and explicitly forbids any regional government from instituting currencies of their own.
Article 1, Section 5, Clause 8, of the Constitution of Atlasia states:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_5:_Powers_of_the_SenateArticle 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution of Atlasia states:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Article_I_of_the_Second_Constitution#Section_7:_Powers_denied_to_the_RegionsSPC supposedly has "other interpretations" of what is referenced above, though I don't see how one could possibly try to weasel their way out of such clear clauses. Presumably the defense will argue that the Freedom of Currency Amendment is "voluntary" and as such no legal tender is officially recognized.
This is shaky legal reasoning, as having the policy that "voluntary" initiatives skirting legal limits would put other limits on regional power in doubt, such as not entering in formal agreements or pacts with foreign powers. [Which is forbidden in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 8] What if there was no official recognition? What if "observing the agreement" was done voluntarily and off the record? Would that allow regional governments to enter into pacts with foreign powers without the consent of the federal government? Surely not. The same could be said for titles of nobility, or a number of other things, explicitly denied to the regions.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to entertain this notion that "voluntary recognition" is not formal recognition of legal tender, the "Freedom of Currency Amendment" still violates the Constitution by taking the Dollar out of circulation and issuing "Dixies" in it's stead, and Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the Constitution forbids any region from "issuing" (the Freedom of Currency Amendment refers to this process as "circulating" currency, which has a virtually identical definition to "issue" in verb form) any currency outside of the currency(ies) recognized by the Senate.
Conclusion:
There is no legal rationale for the constitutionality of the "Freedom of Currency Amendment" and as such it should be overturned by the Supreme Court. No region has the power to issue or recognize as legal tender, any other currency but that which is established by the Senate.
I would also request that, should the Court rule against the Southeast on the matter of constitutionality of the "Freedom of Currency Amendment", the power of the regions to issue or recognize any currency other than that which is established by the Senate be clarified as, without a doubt, non-existent.
