Court Case #7 - OFFICIAL

[GodKing]

COURT CASE #7
Official

Please do not post here unless you are:
- a judge (notyoueither, Sheik, Nimitz, Togas and GodKing)
- a party to this suit (civman2000 or ManicStarSeed)
- a recognized advocate for one of the parties (jdjdjd for civman2000, “still looking” for ManicStarSeed)

As will become evident, this is not a TRIAL. This is a ruling to be made by the Justices. MSS and jdjdjd on behalf of civman2000 have agreed. This is being posted on the forums so that a) people are involved and b) it was cluttering up my inbox as I probably have at least 50 PM’s about just this.

All participants have agreed to let us use their PM’s. The following is based off of them. Several items have been slightly edited (typos). If people feel the need or desire to talk about this, PM me or another justice, and we will respond. If demand is sufficient, a second thread will be opened for public discussion. Any and all attacks of a personal nature will be dealt with most severally, so just don’t do any.

Myself or another justice will do a final write up, summarizing our conclusions. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation

GodKing


ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

civman2000 wrote on 17-12-2002 11:32:
I wish to file a complaint that Sentence 1, Section 1 of this bill is unconstitutional:

We the Senate of the Apolytonian Republic waive rights to bring about any court action against any member of the Term 6 administration for entering into MMPs with Russia, Greece or Japan.

Argument:
1. This is taking away the court's authority. If a majority of the Senate could remove the right to sue on an issue, the Senate could effectively make a judgment before the court has an opportunity to hear a case. For example, the bill in question, if passed would automatically have teh effect of ruling in favor of the administration.
2. The majority may not take away the rights of the minority. Say, for example, the majority of the citizens were members of the DIA. They could then make it illegal for any non-DIA members to sue any DIA members, if the bill in question is allowed. Clearly that would violate the basic principle of judicial review.
3. Article III, Section 3, (a):

The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court. Issues to the Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon. [emphasis added]

This clearly implies that non-judicial citizens have the right to bring an issue before the Court. That right cannot be taken away by the majority of the citizens.
4. Article IV, Section 8:

No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.

Although it is not explicitly stated, a reasonable interpretation of this would imply that all citizens have the inalienable right to due process. This should include the right to bring due process of law against a bill or citizen before the Court. Furthermore, it could be considered a form of punishment to lose the right to sue. Thus this bill would punish every Senator without due process.
5. Article V, Section 1:

Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

The bill in question would remove the right to bring a case of impeachment for the MPPs signed with Russia, Greece, and Japan. This right is protected in the constitution and may not be taken away by a Senate bill.

RESPONSE BY MSS

Honorable Justice(s):

First let me say that I am honored to have piqued the interest of the court.

Second, I take no personal offense whatsoever. I am aware that the bill treads on the edge of the constitutional knife. I welcome an impartial ruling

I, however, am not in a position to defend the bill through a long process. I would appreciate an advocate (or at least some help) to defend the bill.

I guess in defense I put forth the only few points I have to make.

Democracy (by its nature) effectively denies the rights of the minority. Majority dictates to minority. This is unlike consensus where everybody is honored and no one is left wanting on an issue.

The bill states that the senate waives it right to press charges. If it is a right, it can be waived. Simple. Does the minority feel unheard and unsatisfied and powerless? Yes. That is the inherent of democracy.

This bill does not violate the constitution. It neither modifies it nor amends it. It simply states that in this ONE Instance "we the senate waive the right to prosecute in court."

The only 2 clauses in the constitution that relate to this issue are:

Article II. The Senate
...
(2g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders.

3 Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate. These are proposed in the same way as laws and follow the same rules. These carry the same authority as a law.

AND

Article VI. Conflict of Laws
... 2 No law may be created that violates or changes the Constitution....

This law neither changes nor violates (TBD) the constitution.
The constitution simply does not protect the rights of a minority against majority decision.

Lastly, how is this for a twist, only the senate is limited by this bill. The court is limited by the constitution, the executive branch is not.
In short the senate may not bring the case to court, but someone who is not a senator can. The President, FAM, SMC and DM may still bring the matter to court.

Well I hope that is a good start.

Keep me informed.

And thank you for your attention to this matter.

Mss
Note – I edited the typo’s, GK

INITIAL MOTION AND RESPONSE BY JDJDJD

Your Honors and Minister ManicStarSeed:

I am proposing a way to resolve this matter in order to avoid a trial, which I feel is in the best interest of all parties and the Game in general. Basically, I ask for a summary judgment, in that part 1 of the bill violates the Constitution.

First, why would I want to avoid a trial?

1. Many of us and of the Game as a whole, will be enjoying our Holidays including New Years and may not have the time to give a hearing its proper attention. Also, in the spirit of the Holiday Season, it would be best to not "battle" this issue out publicly.

2. ManicStarSeed's intentions were good. He was trying to give the prior administration a vote of confidence and a "don't worry about it boys!" message, which I commend, but unfortunately it interferes with individual senator's rights. Besides I like the guy.

3. I think many citizens outside this group are tired of the "legal stuff". And a speedy resolution may be appreciated by the general populace.

So given that, and also given the fact that clearly part 1 of the bill is unconstitutional, I think we can agree that part 1 of the bill should be voided and the trial skipped.

The bill is
here .

It prevents any citizen from moving for impeachment or making any claim against that prior administration. Please see civman2000's original complaint for greater break down.

There are many reasons that I could argue, but the simplest argument is that the bill violates Article V, i.e. it takes away a citizen's (any Senator in this case) right to ask for impeachment. Taking away this right would also violate Article II part 2g dealing with Senate laws. The decision of 19 Senators can not prevent the entire Senate from carrying out a right the constitution gives them.

The Constitution is here.

So if all agree that the bill's part 1 needs to be voided, then we simply ask the Court to confirm this and write their decision to set the precedent, i.e., no Senate bill can amend the Constitution nor take away a citizen's rights. Only an amendment to the Constitution can.

Please respond whether this is agreeable.

Happy Holidays

Thank you,

jdjdjd on behalf of civman2000

MSS RESPONSE TO JDJDJD MOTION

ManicStarSeed wrote on 21-12-2002 10:47:

Honorable justices and jdjdjd:

In other words, Part two still stands and we do retroactively grant the permission to enter the MMPs?

If this is the case, I support this. I would like to here the court rulings on the entire bill however as I do not see the clear unconstitutionality of it. The justices have my "argument", But I concur, there is no need for a trial. I would like to here their judgment and am willing to live with it without fighting it out whatsoever.

Regards
Mss

[Togas]

Summary Judgement?

It seems that both parties have agreed to submit this matter to The Court to rule upon. The Court would rule upon this matter solely on the briefs and arguments presented by each party.

That is my understanding. Both parties wish to waive formal hearing (i.e. Trial). If this is not the case, please let us know immediately.

The Court will begin debating this case amongst ourselves today. We will present our decision as soon as one is reached.

--Togas

p.s. Please excuse my posting a bit early. The confirmation will not be official for a few hours, but I am getting involved in this case early to help expedite the process.

[jdjdjd]

As some PM boxes were full, I attach the pertinent part of it, i.e. my understanding of a summary judgement motion.
From the PM

"I do not waive our right to a trial. We ask for summary judgement to avoid a trial. If you agree part 1 is unconstitutional, then we waive the trial and all agree part 1 is void. If you were to decide against us, or were not convinved, then I believe we would be entitled to a trial, where I could further argue the case. That is how I understand a summary judgement motion."

Basically, if everyone agrees it is to void part 1 of the bill, then lets short circuit the process and post the decision. If MSS and at least three court members do not agree, then I think we would be entitled to the trial so I could make civman2000's case in full.

Thank you

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
Basically, if everyone agrees it is to void part 1 of the bill, then lets short circuit the process and post the decision. If MSS and at least three court members do not agree, then I think we would be entitled to the trial so I could make civman2000's case in full.

Just a point, but quorum is three. That means three members of the court must be involved in any decision. That does not mean that those three need be unanimous. Two may agree and their opinions would hold over those of the other one.

In practice, we have often had more than three involved in many decisions. That would not be required though, as I understand 'quorum'.

This may be an important point in the future given that we have recently had a problem in finding even three to make a ruling.

[Togas]

If the parties can work out a resolution or narrow the issues, please let us know. That might help speed things up.

In my opinion, a motion for summary judgement filed by the petitioner is improper as it would deny the respondant a full and fair hearing. However, as there is no Constitutional Right to a "full and fair hearing", the Court may decide to rule on this matter with stated argument only and possibly over parties' objections.

As jdjdjd or MSS have not waived trial, if we decide to create a procedural right to a "full and fair hearing," we will create the appropriate thread and go from there.

--Justice Togas

[jdjdjd]

I would point out the case of Togas v. MWIA, where the parties to the case agreed on a decision. The court reviewed it and also agreed. The hearing was skipped and a decision posted. We were only looking for that same consideration here. I did not argue the case in full because there only needs to be one violation to the Constitution to make it unconstitutional.

MSS may not have seen my point, so I will clarify for his benefit:

The constitution states:

Article V. Impeachment
1 Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.

The bill states:

1. We the Senate of the Apolytonian Republic waive rights to bring about any court action against any member of the Term 6 administration for entering into MMPs with Russia, Greece or Japan.

The bill would take away the right to ask for impeachment, which is right granted in the Constitution. The Senate as a body can not waive, restrict, amend, etc. the rights of all its members, unless all members agreed they would give up that right. 16 said they would not, 6 abstained, and over 75 others did not vote. Only 19 agreed.

The con also says:

(g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders.

The bill would seek to change the Con for this case, and waive all Senators right to seek impeachment.

So, the bill seeks to change the Con for this case and not allow all Senators from seeking impeachment against the prior administration. The Senate can't do that as it would change the Con for this case. Each Senator must decide on his own. Therefore it is unconstitutional as it goes against the Con.

I hope that helps and we can all agree that no hearing is necessary.

[civman2000]

I think if any of the justices or MSS want to hear full arguments, for the purpose of fairness we should give them.

More details are in the PM i just sent.

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
I would point out the case of Togas v. MWIA, where the parties to the case agreed on a decision. The court reviewed it and also agreed. The hearing was skipped and a decision posted. We were only looking for that same consideration here.

That case sets a precident for allowing parties to settle a dispute on their own without the necessity for a full and fair hearing. That case has no bearing here where the plaintiff is asking for us to rule in his favor without a hearing, but if we decide not to rule in his favor, the plaintiff wants a hearing.

The defense is willing to waive a trial IF the plaintiff will waive a trial. Defense has agreed to, in his words, submit to "binding arbitration" of this issue. Perhaps the plaintiff, if he is so interested in speeding this issue up and saving everyone the trouble during the holidays, will agree to waive a trial.

--Justice Togas

[civman2000]

I agree to waive a trial.

[GodKing]

DAVOUT is helping out MSS.

He sent me an email - I was able to forward to jdjdjd, Togas & Nimitz as I have their email addresses. If anybody has the other justices addresses, please forward. I may be a little late to tonights session, but will stay at work late to be able to connect and chat.

GK

[Sheik]

you can reach me at:

Sheik040 -
@hotmail.com

[notyoueither]

Clean out your PM box, Sheik.

[Sheik]

Sorry my PM box was full. It is now cleared. Nimitz and NYE please re-send the message.

[jdjdjd]

Sorry for my confusion or any I caused. The following are the rest of the plaintiff's arguments for the Court to consider in this matter:

We have already shown how the bill would have changed the effect of the Con by preventing all Senators from excercising their right to move for impeachment, which itself is unconstitutional but also violates part 2g of Article II, which states:

(g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws or Executive orders.

and it violates Article VI part 2 which states:

2 No law may be created that violates or changes the Constitution.

Similarly, the bill would prevent all Senators from presenting any other type of claim to the Court. This would violate part 3a of Article III, which says:

3 The Court shall come together to rule on any issue that is lawfully before it.
(a) The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen brings forth an Issue to the Court. Issues to the Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that the Court is empowered to rule upon.

The bill would change this part of the Con in this case, by preventing Senators, who are non-judicial citizens, from presenting Issues to the Court. Again, it is in effect a violation of Article II, part 2g, and Article VI, part 2 both quoted above.

The bill also restricts the right to free speech of any Senator who wished to speak to the Court and make a claim for impeachment or any other type of Court action. So it is unconstitutional and again violates part 2g of Article II and part 2 of Article VI. The right to free speech is in part 5 of Article IV, and states:

5 Freedom of speech shall not be denied to any citizen unless it violates Apolyton rules.

Additionally, part 8 of Article IV allows due process of law. It states:

8 No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.

Part of part 1 of the bill includes thefollowing language:

The senate may still pass bills officially censuring any or all members of the term 6 administration.

Censuring is a form of punishment and the Senate in effect is granting itself the power to punish members of the Executive, without allowing for due process of law. This is unconstitutional.

That part of the bill not only has the effect of punishing without due process, but it also takes away the power of the Court to decide such issues. Article III states:

1 The Court has the power to rule upon contested disputes involving legal interpretations; validity of polls and elections; violations of the Constitution, law, or Executive orders; and any other dispute of national importance.

The bill would take away that right, and therefore is unconstitutional.

Along the same lines, the bill would violate Article VI part 4, which states:

4 The Court shall resolve all conflicts of law. The Court’s ruling on an interpretation of law is of the same power and authority as that law.

The Senate can not resolve the conflict of law with this bill, only the Court has that power.

One last point, while there was a majority of votes by Senators, and a democracy is basically rule by the majority, all democracies seek to protect the rights, granted in their Constitutions, of the minority. The Senate as a body controlled by a vote of only 19 of its members, turn around and void the rights on the remaining members, no matter how small the remainder is. Even if it was one man, the rest could not waive his rights granted in the Constitution.

Thank you for hearing us and please feel free to let us know if you have any questions.

[Edited to fix my quotes]

[GodKing]

As both sides agreed to let the court handle this outside the course of a Hearing Thread - we did so tonight. I will do a write up tomarow (tue the 24th - if able) and will PM it to the other judges for their review and comments. Depending on how this works out, we will post it soon thereafter. If I hear nothign back by thursday the 26th, I will post.

The Court thanks all parties for their cooperation, and wishes all a happy holiday season. There is no need to add any more comments or arguements regarding this unless you so desire to do so. They will of course be looked at. The Official Statement will be placed into the topped court thread.

Again, thank you.

GK