"3. The bill did not pass by a supermajority in public Referendum as required by virtue of it being a Complex Change due to the fact that it infringes on citizens' rights and freedoms, further corroborated by the former Speaker's claim that the Amendment would have been a Complex Change by posting it for Referendum when there is no such requirement for non-Complex Changes."
First of all, under no circumstance, have I ever thought the amendment was a complex change. I'm willing to attest to this under oath. If that is not enough I would have to subpoena multiple discord channels to prove it.
Secondly, the change is not a complex change. The constitution defines a complex change as follows:
I would also like to subpoena the president to ask if they discussed it with the owner beforehand.
The contents of the Best Ballot Act are basically adding the following clause to the senate election requirements:
"Has previously been elected or appointed to the role of Representative, Senator, President, Vice President, Secretary, Deputy-Secretary, Chief of Staff, Mayor, Attorney General, Ambassador, Solicitor General, Town-Council, Judge, Justice, Chief-Justice or any other role that requires senate approval."
It's not a change to the system of government.
It isn't a plugin-related change.
It doesn't require significant staff involvement
It doesn't establish new towns/cities or urban
It isn't a Rights & Freedoms change.
The Defence has tried to argue it's a Rights & Freedoms Change, however, the charter of rights and freedoms says the following:
The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.
It's the Supreme Court's opinion this is such a reasonable limit prescribed by law. The Allegiance Act adds the following clause to all elected offices.
(1) In order to serve as a Senior Government Official, the office holder must not hold an office as a Senior Government Official in a foreign state concurrently.
This is legally speaking identical to what my bill does.
Source:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION hugebob23456 Plaintiff v. The Commonwealth Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: What is election fraud? Would a state sponsored televised debate open to all candidates which...
www.democracycraft.net
I would like to specifically quote the following parts of the verdict:
Chief-Justice End:
Was the Allegiance Act lawful?
The Allegiance Act was signed into law on 21 JUN 2021, passing the House with 9 votes and the Senate with 4 votes. The bill was a constitutional amendment, although, this does not mean it requires a referendum.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives must pose a referendum on the forums where citizens, over the course of 3 days, will vote on the proposed amendment, only if the proposed amendment is a Complex Change
A complex change includes the following and needs to be discussed with the Owner before being signed by the President: - Changes to the System of Government. - Plugin-related changes. - Changes involving significant staff involvement. - Creation of new towns/cities/urban establishments. - A Rights & Freedoms change.
The only applicable reason above is a change to Rights and Freedoms. The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society. I am of the opinion that this was not a complex change as it did not change the nature of the status quo. There bill did not make a change to rights and freedoms, it made a reasonable limitation that is justified in a free and democratic society.
Speaker of the House Mhadsher (Acting Justice)
I support the legality of the Allegiance Act along the rest of the Court; a referendum was not needed because it was not a Rights and Freedoms change.
Either hugebob23456 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 2 needs to be overturned or the court has to agree it isn't a complex change.