Tweet
Answer to the rest of the plaintiff's arguments on the post dated 23 12 2002.
1st argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 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 refers to the President faulty action and nothing else. We have already examined why no impeachment call could be made. This argument says that other type of claim could be made if the bill had not passed. We will be pleased to answer specifically when the plaintiff will provide us with a list of the other type of claim he is referring to, claim aiming the President behaviour.
2nd argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 5 Freedom of speech shall not be denied to any citizen unless it violates Apolyton rules.
---------------
In our understanding, the right of free speech is precisely the right for an individual to express himself, his thoughts, his beliefs, his political ideas, his loves and hates, freely, that is without risking any harm; it has nothing to do with the capacity to accomplish administrative formalities such as filing a claim, capacity which guaranteed by the freedom and security granted to all citizens by the Constitution. This argument misinterpreting the freedom of speech must be rejected.
3rd argument :
----------------
Additionally, part 8 of Article IV allows due process of law. It states:
quote: 8 No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.
----------------
This argument was included in the original complaint. We see no need to repeat it, since it was wrongly evocated.
4th argument :
----------------
Part of part 1 of the bill includes thefollowing language:
quote: 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.
----------------
In case 5, Orange versus Reddawg, The Court stated :
* Censure is not punishment. Censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.*
We therefore ask for this argument to be rejected.
5th argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 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.
--------------
It has not yet been demonstrated that The Court would not have the power to decide on issues regarding violations of the Constitution, since it is exactly what The Court is currently doing.
We therefore ask for the argument to be rejected.
6th argument :
--------------
Along the same lines, the bill would violate Article VI part 4, which states:
quote: 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.
--------------
Same answer as for 5th argument.
7th argument :
---------------
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.
--------------------
We are here discussing only of one democracy, the Apolytonian democracy; we do not pretend to rule yet the entire solar system. Apolytonia is still a quite young democracy, and it is well possible that the future will make possible more sophistication in developing the fundamental principles of the democracy. But for the time being, all that we know about democracy is incorporated in our Constitution. For decision making, the authors of the Constitution have not found a better system that the majority, and it was approved massively by the citizens. The bill questioned passed with a majority of 54.2 %; the 19 Senators approving the poll are the legal majority of the Senate. There is not a single word in the Constitution regarding the so-called rights of the minority. There is not a word in the preamble referring to texts or principles dealing with the minority. It is quite surprising that a complaint aiming to defend the Constitution, attacks so violently its fundamental process.
We therefore ask The Court to simply disregard this argument.
Finally, this volley of seven arguments results in six totally new arguments :
- one cannot be answered without further details
- five should be rejected as not appropriate or irrelevant or against The Court jurisprudence.
ManicStarSeed is a fiery defender of our democratic Constitution and contends that the Constitution would not be harmed if the complaint was invalidated.
May I just personally add that a minimal organization of the Senate could have avoided all this trouble.
DAVOUT on behalf of ManicStarSeed
1st argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 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 refers to the President faulty action and nothing else. We have already examined why no impeachment call could be made. This argument says that other type of claim could be made if the bill had not passed. We will be pleased to answer specifically when the plaintiff will provide us with a list of the other type of claim he is referring to, claim aiming the President behaviour.
2nd argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 5 Freedom of speech shall not be denied to any citizen unless it violates Apolyton rules.
---------------
In our understanding, the right of free speech is precisely the right for an individual to express himself, his thoughts, his beliefs, his political ideas, his loves and hates, freely, that is without risking any harm; it has nothing to do with the capacity to accomplish administrative formalities such as filing a claim, capacity which guaranteed by the freedom and security granted to all citizens by the Constitution. This argument misinterpreting the freedom of speech must be rejected.
3rd argument :
----------------
Additionally, part 8 of Article IV allows due process of law. It states:
quote: 8 No citizen may be punished in any way without due process of law.
----------------
This argument was included in the original complaint. We see no need to repeat it, since it was wrongly evocated.
4th argument :
----------------
Part of part 1 of the bill includes thefollowing language:
quote: 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.
----------------
In case 5, Orange versus Reddawg, The Court stated :
* Censure is not punishment. Censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.*
We therefore ask for this argument to be rejected.
5th argument :
----------------
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:
quote: 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.
--------------
It has not yet been demonstrated that The Court would not have the power to decide on issues regarding violations of the Constitution, since it is exactly what The Court is currently doing.
We therefore ask for the argument to be rejected.
6th argument :
--------------
Along the same lines, the bill would violate Article VI part 4, which states:
quote: 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.
--------------
Same answer as for 5th argument.
7th argument :
---------------
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.
--------------------
We are here discussing only of one democracy, the Apolytonian democracy; we do not pretend to rule yet the entire solar system. Apolytonia is still a quite young democracy, and it is well possible that the future will make possible more sophistication in developing the fundamental principles of the democracy. But for the time being, all that we know about democracy is incorporated in our Constitution. For decision making, the authors of the Constitution have not found a better system that the majority, and it was approved massively by the citizens. The bill questioned passed with a majority of 54.2 %; the 19 Senators approving the poll are the legal majority of the Senate. There is not a single word in the Constitution regarding the so-called rights of the minority. There is not a word in the preamble referring to texts or principles dealing with the minority. It is quite surprising that a complaint aiming to defend the Constitution, attacks so violently its fundamental process.
We therefore ask The Court to simply disregard this argument.
Finally, this volley of seven arguments results in six totally new arguments :
- one cannot be answered without further details
- five should be rejected as not appropriate or irrelevant or against The Court jurisprudence.
ManicStarSeed is a fiery defender of our democratic Constitution and contends that the Constitution would not be harmed if the complaint was invalidated.
May I just personally add that a minimal organization of the Senate could have avoided all this trouble.
DAVOUT on behalf of ManicStarSeed
"
Comment