|
Post by Provence on Mar 2, 2016 16:42:33 GMT -5
Name of trial: Civil Case 1-United States of Natan vs. Natan Region Description of case: Natan is claiming C.B. 2-0026 is unconstitutional in Article III, Section IV of the Constitution.
Date of trial: Friday March 4, 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 2, 2016 17:50:51 GMT -5
FYI, you need to assign a case number, like how Congressional bills have bill numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 2, 2016 18:15:17 GMT -5
What do you mean can you give the necessary numbers I thought Civil Case-1 then 2,3,4,etc is acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 2, 2016 18:25:08 GMT -5
What do you mean can you give the necessary numbers I thought Civil Case-1 then 2,3,4,etc is acceptable. I'll show you.
|
|
|
Post by empressofireland on Mar 3, 2016 18:18:00 GMT -5
Provence I suggest a preliminary hearing to determine whether a trial is even warranted. At the current moment, anyone can call a trial for anything, and Natan has invoked a trial without giving any reason. It sets a dangerous precedent where anyone could sue or lay criminal charges against anyone over anything. Preliminary hearings are a normal part of real-life justice systems, and I suggest they be included in ours. That way, you can hear the plaintiff's case beforehand, determine if there is a need for a trial, and deny the trial if it is for a frivolous reason.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 16:38:12 GMT -5
The trial of United States of Natan vs. Natan Region shall commence. Natan begin your opening statement.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 4, 2016 17:35:49 GMT -5
United States of Natan, appearing pro se. Today, ladies and gentlemen of the court, I will show you why the law, C.B. 2-0026, clearly violates articles of the constitution. My opponent will try to prove otherwise. They will try to prove that this bill is constitutional. I am here today to show the defense that they are wrong. So please, consider the facts I present to you in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 17:47:17 GMT -5
The defense present your opening statements to the court.
|
|
|
Post by balloonists on Mar 4, 2016 18:36:40 GMT -5
Ladies and Gentlemen, today the plaintiff will attempt to convince you that the Speaker and Special Elections Act violates our Constitution. They will contort the facts, and present unreasonable analysis to deceive you. The bill does not violate the Constitution, even in the strictest interpretations. This bill was written and passed by the elected representatives to strengthen the Constitution, not undermine it, as the Founder, an unelected official, will claim. In the spirit of upholding the very principles that govern our government, please weigh the facts carefully, and see how the plaintiff's case is unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 18:47:50 GMT -5
Natan present your evidence showing how this act passed by Congress breaks the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 4, 2016 19:35:30 GMT -5
First, I'd like to motion that the defense stop referring to me as the founder during this trial; I'm acting as a private citizen by bringing this suit. I'd like to enter the law in question into evidence: natanregion.freeforums.net/thread/115/0026-speaker-special-elections-actIn section 3 of the Speaker and Special elections Act, it states: "In the event of a tie in the speaker election the President shall break the tie within 5 days." I'd now like to enter Article III, Section IV of the Natan Region Constitution into evidence: "Congress shall be the legislative body of the Natan Region. It shall be made up of 3 members to start with, and shall increase by 2 members at the next election for every 20 nations that join the Natan Region, but each State must have at least 1 Representative. It shall be responsible for passing legislation, confirming appointments, ratifying treaties, and impeachments. All legislation, resolutions, and appointment confirmations require a majority vote, all the rest require a 2/3 super majority to be passed. If an nation proposes a bill to a congressman's office, the congressman is required to present it to congress, and shall credit the original author. Any proposed bill shall have 3 days debate time. After that, congress shall vote on the bill. The President can veto a bill from becoming law, unless it was passed unanimously in congress. Should a bill be vetoed, congress can override the President's veto with a 3/4 super majority. Upon the start of a congressional term, a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress. The President and Founder may author, submit, and propose legislation to the floor of Congress. All Federal appointments must be confirmed by Congress." I'd like the court to focus on the following line of the constitution: "Upon the start of a congressional term, a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress" A Speaker of congress shall be elected within congress. The President clearly is not a member of congress, so to require him to vote for a speaker would be a violation of the constitution. I'd also like to direct the court's attention to Section 1 of C.B. 2-0026: "An election for Speaker of Congress shall take place exactly 5 days after the new congress is elected. The speaker shall be elected by Congress, for Congress. If a special election is needed the Speaker will instead be elected, by congress, 5 days after said special election." Now, the line of the constitution again: Upon the start of a congressional term, a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress. It clearly says upon the start of a congressional term, the speaker will be elected. Not 5 days after, not 10. At the start of the term. To make a mandate that congress must wait 5 days, rather than the start of the term, is unconstitutional, as is to require congress to wait 5 days after a special election as well. Finally, I'd like to refer the court to section 2 of the bill: "If a special election is needed it shall take place 5 days after the regular election." Now I'd like to enter into evidence, Article VI, Section II of the constitution: "Special elections are held whenever an elected office has a vacancy. The Founder must declare a vacancy in an elected office, and then shall organize a special election to replace them. Should the position of President be vacant, with no other cabinet posts to succeed to the Presidency, the founder may serve as Interim President until after the election, or appoint someone to serve in said position until after the election. A special election must take place within 2 weeks of the vacancy, unless a general election is at least 1 month away." To require that a special election be a certain number of days after infringes on the rights of the executive branch, specifically the Founder and the state department, which are responsible for declaring vacancies and organizing elections, which includes setting the date. This is an overreach of the legislature's authority, and encroaches on that of the executive branch. The Plaintiff rests, your honors.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 19:54:07 GMT -5
Defense what have you say in light of this information?
|
|
|
Post by balloonists on Mar 4, 2016 20:00:53 GMT -5
The Plaintiff here claims that 5 days after election does not count as the start of the term. The Constitution does not define when a term starts; only its duration. In addition, the 5 days mandated by CB-2.0026 allows for the election process to begin as soon as election ends, allowing the Congressmen to decide who will be running for the position.
Furthermore, Section 2 of the aforementioned bill does not infringe upon the state department's or the Founder's Constitutional rights. The Constitution in no way prevents the Legislature from mandating that the Founder declare a vacancy and hold special elections within a certain period of time. Should the Founder wish to argue about periods of time, he should be consistent.
Finally, even if the President submits a tiebreaker vote, it is still the Congress voting. It was the Congress that, through passing CB-2.0026, that gave the President a vote. No clause in the Constitution prohibits the Congress from allowing a non-Congressman to vote in Congressional decisions.
The plaintiff has argued that if the Constitution does not define something, it cannot be defined by Congress. This is false, as the Constitution expressly tasks the Congress with said task within the very clauses he has cited. This case is a clear attempt to undermine the Congress's right to legislate its own procedure.
The Defense rests, Your Honors.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 20:12:01 GMT -5
Natan what is your argument to the defense they make a rather compelling point.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 4, 2016 20:21:19 GMT -5
The Plaintiff here claims that 5 days after election does not count as the start of the term. The Constitution does not define when a term starts; only its duration. In addition, the 5 days mandated by CB-2.0026 allows for the election process to begin as soon as election ends, allowing the Congressmen to decide who will be running for the position. Furthermore, Section 2 of the aforementioned bill does not infringe upon the state department's or the Founder's Constitutional rights. The Constitution in no way prevents the Legislature from mandating that the Founder declare a vacancy and hold special elections within a certain period of time. Should the Founder wish to argue about periods of time, he should be consistent. Finally, even if the President submits a tiebreaker vote, it is still the Congress voting. It was the Congress that, through passing CB-2.0026, that gave the President a vote. No clause in the Constitution prohibits the Congress from allowing a non-Congressman to vote in Congressional decisions. The plaintiff has argued that if the Constitution does not define something, it cannot be defined by Congress. This is false, as the Constitution expressly tasks the Congress with said task within the very clauses he has cited. This case is a clear attempt to undermine the Congress's right to legislate its own procedure. The Defense rests, Your Honors. The start of a term would be the day that the term starts, not 5 days after. 5 days isn't starting. When it says start, it refers to the first day congress meets. The constitution is clear, only congress members shall vote for a speaker. Unless the President was recently made an ex officio member of Congress in the last few days, he has no vote in the speaker elections. Congress cannot simply let someone vote in the election, or on bills. The constitution is clear on the separation of powers, and the fact that Congress shall be made up only of the members elected to it. The defense is arguing that Congress can undermine the constitution, and disregard what it clearly says. They are wrong. Congress must abide by the constitution, like everyone else, and like every other branch of government. The clauses I have cited are in no way manipulable by Congress, and to undermine the constitution, and the authority granted by it to the executive branch is a blatant violation of the constitution. The Plaintiff rests, your Honors.
|
|