|
Post by Natan on Feb 28, 2016 1:21:35 GMT -5
Founder Introduces Lawsuit Against Congress by United States of Natan
Earlier today, the Founder of the Natan Region introduced a lawsuit, United States of Natan v. Natan Region, in the supreme court, seemingly over a recent bill, C.B. 2-0026, better known as the "Speaker and Special Election Act". The Founder claims that the law violates the constitution. "The bill has serious violations of the constitution, and it cannot be allowed to continue it's existence." The founder said, when reached for comment. "I'll defend the constitution however I can, especially with blatant violations like this".
The "Speaker and Special Elections Act" is a law recently passed by Congress, despite the founder's constitutional amendment, pending ratification, having many similar functions. The bill requires speaker elections to take place 5 days after the general election, or 5 days after a special election if there is a vacancy, and allows the president to vote in the event of a tie. It is currently unknown how the Founder intends to challenge the bill's constitutionality.
|
|
|
Post by empressofireland on Feb 28, 2016 1:32:03 GMT -5
You know, instead of being all secretive-like and building suspense for a big and ultimately useless trial, you could just say how the bill's unconstitutional. That way, we can address it if it needs addressing and there's no need to go through with a big trial. It makes things simpler, no?
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Feb 28, 2016 1:42:14 GMT -5
You know, instead of being all secretive-like and building suspense for a big and ultimately useless trial, you could just say how the bill's unconstitutional. That way, we can address it if it needs addressing and there's no need to go through with a big trial. It makes things simpler, no? Can't answer that, I'm acting as a reporter right now, on this thread. And it would be easier to go with a trial, because inevitably a repeal or amendment of the bill would cause bickering in congress. besides, there are some parts I'm not entirely sure are unconstitutional, but certainly may be, so I think it would be best to let the court decide.
|
|
|
Post by Natan on Feb 28, 2016 1:44:49 GMT -5
besides, it would be a good way to test out our new legal system. That way, if there are any kinks, we can work them out.
|
|
|
Post by empressofireland on Feb 28, 2016 1:50:06 GMT -5
Alright, fair enough.
Actually, when you put it that way, it seems like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Provence on Feb 28, 2016 19:13:42 GMT -5
I hope the "kinks" get worked out in this trial, this is rather more difficult to do because 1/3 of the court cannot attend the trial making the possibility of "Kinks" happening more likely...perhaps that is best cause we can find more "Kinks" and having less judges makes the trial easier and faster....I hope.
Natan I too believe that this is a good first trial to work out how the courts will operate in the future...At least we have big region names appearing in the trial.
|
|