|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 20:53:58 GMT -5
Defense what is your closing argument.
|
|
|
Post by balloonists on Mar 4, 2016 21:02:43 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. The plaintiff claims that the Congress is attempting to undermine the Constitution, yet he lacks a fundamental understating of that document and the bill in question. CB-2.0026 does not mandate that the election is held 5 days after the term starts - it mandates 5 days after elections. The Constitution does not mandate when the term starts. The plaintiff has argues that the term starts when it starts, which is hardly an argument at all. In addition, the plaintiff has seemingly decided that he can unilaterally add clauses to the Constitution. The Constitution, contrary to the plaintiff's argument, does not prevent the Congress from permitting a non-congressman to vote in Congressional proceedings. The People rest, Your Honors. In addition, we move to expedite these proceedings and move on to the ruling stage, as both sides have presented their arguments and effectively their closing statements. Further argument would be word against word, without any meaningful presentation or rebuttal, and therefore moving on to the ruling stage at this time would be warranted. EDIT: The defense apologizes to the court, because during the time it took to write the above arguments, the esteemed Chief Justice had made a statement, and that did not become noticed until after we submitted this. Please understand that we do not wish to show any disrespect, and this was just a timing error. We now submit our closing statement as per the Justice's statement: The Plaintiff has presented evidence that has been twice refuted. He believes that the Constitution has clauses preventing Congress from legislating it's own proceedings, which is false. The Plaintiff has argued that because something that isn't legally defined is illegal. That premise is also false. The Plaintiff has submitted several false arguments, and we do hope that the esteemed Justices will see the truth - that Congress has every right to legislate its own proceedings and regulate the State Department, and that CB-2.0026 ("Speaker and Special Elections Act") is Constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Mar 4, 2016 21:16:49 GMT -5
Both sides have stated their cases. The defense lacks a fundamental understanding of the constitution, and seems to believe congress can disregard clauses that are quite clear. I have presented the articles of the constitution as clear evidence, with the text plainly visible. The defense still seems to believe they can disregard it. The constitution is clear on the subjects at hand: Congress may not mandate a time for the election of the speaker, other than what was set by the constitution- that the speaker must be elected at the start of the term, not after. In addition, constitution is quite clear that the president may not vote in congressional votes. The defense also seems to advocate Congress's attempts to interject itself into affairs that are purely matters of the executive branch, and any attempt to circumvent that would be a violation of the independence of executive and legislative branches, and a breach of separation of powers. For these reasons, C.B. 2-0026 is unconstitutional, and should be overturned.
The plaintiff rests, your Honors.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 4, 2016 21:24:52 GMT -5
Its alright It happens we all miss things.
You both make compelling arguments, I'm afraid the verdict shall await until at least tomorrow I wish to thoroughly go through the evidence you both have brought to my attention the court is adjourned.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 5, 2016 14:22:41 GMT -5
Verdict: The supreme Court of the Natan Region rules in favor of Natan. C.B. 2-0026 is declared unconstitutional as it is found to break Article III, Section IV of the Constitution.
The Courts opinion. This sentence shall be the basis of my opinion "Upon the start of a congressional term, a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress" I shall define this sentence and explain how the bill is unconstitutional, I shall-break this up into points to make it easier to understand. 1)"Upon the start of a congressional term" I define the start of a Congressional term as when the new Congress is sworn in and meets for the first time in its session to Vote for the Speaker of Congress.
2)"Upon the start of a congressional term, a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress" This is Congresses first Constitutional duty therefore Congress cannot, pass legislation, confirm appointments, ratify treaties, and impeachments. until it meets this Constitutional requirement, Congress just needs a majority vote in a "working Congress" to elect a Speaker so I find that (waiting 5 days until a vacant position is filled then after the position is filled wait another 5 days to elect a speaker), is unnecessarily hindering Congress from performing it duties.
defines a "working Congress" Congress does not have to fill all their seats to do their job just the majority, the vacant seats will act as a NO vote so currently a "working Congress" is three elected members, so if all three vote for a speaker the person is a speaker if two vote for a speaker with one against this will not pass as the vote is 2-3.
3)"a Speaker of Congress shall be elected within Congress" I define as "within Congress" as a person who was elected by the people to represent them in Congress, this person must be able to vote on all legislation presented to Congress and is able to submit bills to Congress to be considered, the President cannot vote on all legislation and is not elected to represent people in Congress, so he is therefore not "within Congress".
What worries me If Congress can strip itself of Constitutional roles and give it to other branches of government it will allow for the concentration of power in a single branch of government. This is a dangerous precedent if it was allowed to continue.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Mar 5, 2016 15:20:19 GMT -5
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. This is what I mean by a dangerous precedent, that Congress can give its authority to other branches of government without a Constitutional amendment, I know you meant well but this sentence is a very dangerous thought for the Natan Region, that an act of Congress has more legitimacy than the Constitution.
|
|