Lawsuit: Adjourned Superpacman04 v. the Government of Democracy Craft [2020] FCR 1

[Pacman]

Your Honor, attached is my case against the Government of Democracy Craft.

 

[Element]

The court hereby summons 2 representatives of the Government to testify. President xEndeavour and Secretary of Justice SacredSpice. If neither of them testify by replying to this thread within 24 hours, the case will be adjourned in favor of the plaintiff.

 

[End]

Your Honour,

I'd be more than happy to testify on this very important issue. The Secretary of the Department of Justice has noted that due to the nature of this challenge, I would be best suited to explain why this very important change is constitutional.

The aim of Executive Order 02/20 - Congressional Process Amendments set out to achieve two things; one being to clarify who was required to post Bill: Drafts to Congress on forums, which is covered under part II of the Congressional Process; and the second being to ensure the security of bills and their archiving into the future.

As I outlined in the order, in regard to the second change, there were limitations placed on bills in order for them to meet a set security criteria.
I) Limitations of up to 4000 characters were put on bills in order to allow them to be posted to Discord in a maximum of two discord-sized messages.
II) Bills must be posted in text form to Discord in order to allow for; easier reading, increased scrutiny on bills, the inability to covertly edit bills, and to ensure the longevity of their presence into the future. (e.g. not becoming wiped, deleted, or going missing due to storage on external platforms).

In effect, this increases the transparency of the Congress. I had highlighted these issues previously, however failure to act on these concerns required immediate executive intervention.

The order does however, make exceptions to large, significant bills which require more than 4000 characters, to be approved for external attachment by the Speaker. There is no provision which limits supporting documentation being linked to bills.

The Honourable Speaker of the Congress makes note of Section 2 of the Constitution where it states “The
Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending all server laws.” It is my understanding that the Congress has interpreted the 'all' in this statement as an exclusivity to themselves. However, the true intent is that it provides a blanket provision for Congress to perform those mentioned functions on all laws, not to limit lawmaking to the one arm of government. Therefore, the Speaker's claim that 'Congress is vested with the sole power to amend rules, especially those regarding the proceedings of the Congress.' is nullified as it has no constitutional backing.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that the Constitution vests in the Office of the President of DemocracyCraft the power to issue Executive Orders under Section I. An Executive Order is a directive that carries the force of law. Thereby, in the course of my duties I did not overstep the powers clearly vested in the office I hold by the Constitution.

I'm interested to hear more on the ongoing harm that this will cause to the honourable speaker, as this has only clarified who makes a forums post and how a bill is posted to discord.

This Executive Order was very necessary to ensure that Bills will be available on discord to future congresses, as well as to ensure that Bills are not discreetly edited while out of public eye.

For your consideration,

 

[Pacman]

OPENING STATEMENT​

Your Honor,

May it please the Court, in this case the evidence will show that the Congress of Democracy Craft is vested with the sole powers of legislating. The evidence will show that the Constitution vests no legislative authority in the Executive Branch. The evidence will show that Executive Orders are not defined in the Constitution and therefore do not carry the force of law. The evidence will show that ruling in favor of the Defendant will set a bad precedent for the future of Democracy Craft.

Your Honor, on 5/20/2020 the President of Democracy Craft issued Executive Order 02/2020. This EO seeks to amend the Legislative Process of the Congress of Democracy Craft. In the Constitution of Democracy Craft it is set out that, "The Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending all server laws." The Constitution also states that, "[T]he president may issue Executive Orders." The Constitution offers no evidence that these "Executive Orders" carry the force of law, and therefore can not be considered to carry the force of law.

The Executive Order issued by the President overstepped the bounds of the Constitution by legislating by Executive fiat which the Constitution does not allow. A strict view of the Constitution must be taken in this case and the Court must not seek to legislate from the bench. The Constitution clearly vests the powers of amendment and legislation in the Congress of Democracy Craft, and makes no provision for legislation in the executive branch of the government. In fact, the only power vested in the President is the power to veto legislation passed by the Congress and Chair the Cabinet of Democracy Craft.

Your Honor, this Executive Order threatens the sovereignty of the Congress as the sole legislator of Democracy Craft. It is causing continual harm to the Congress Democracy Craft and I, as Speaker of that Congress, am representing the Congress to preserve its sovereignty from executive overreach.

While the President may have found that this Executive Order was necessitated for the sake of "transparency" and so that "bills are not discreetly edited while out of the public eye", the truth is that our current system allows citizens to see bills at all times regardless of what step in the congressional process they may be in. The President would like you to believe that you must rule on the doctrine of intent of the document, but in all reality ruling based on intent will set a bad precedent for the foreseeable future. A precedent that will allow the Judicial branch to legislate from the bench when the Judiciary should be seeking to remain neutral and interpret the Constitution as it was written.

 

[SacredSpice]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this matter your honour, The President has covered most of what the Government wishes to communicate. I will add though that all branches of government can create law in one way or another. The Judiciary does this through the creation of Common Law, the Executive through Executive Orders, and the Legislature through Legislation. Although the Legislature may
assume a large part within the creation, removal, and amending of laws, the constitution does not give it exclusivity as the President mentioned.

Just because the term executive order isn't defined, doesn't mean that it carries no legal weight. The power to issue an executive order still stands in the constitution. The same definition argument could be made for all other powers given by the constitution. Applying the commonly accepted definition of an executive order falls well within the aims of this order. This order did not create a law, it amended an existing law which was vague and clarified how bills should be posted to discord to make sure that they are available for future congresses. There is no definition of veto, yet you accept that as a lawful action taken by the president.

I think the president raises a good point: "I'm interested to hear more on the ongoing harm that this will cause to the honourable speaker, as this has only clarified who makes a forums post and how a bill is posted to discord." Thank you.

 

[Pacman]

Your Honor,

May I ask whether it is the intention of the Respondent to waive their opening statement?

 

[Element]

Both parties are hereby summoned to the court to provide their closing statement. If either party does not provide their closing statement within 24 hours, the case will be adjourned in favor of the party that provided the statement,

 

[End]

Your Honour,

The Government has nothing more to present on this issue.

The Executive Order was issued in the interests of this Congress and future Congresses, as well as the people of DC.

If the case is not closed in the Government's favour it will invoke a Constitutional crisis whereby Executive Orders will be nullified and not recognised by law based on the Speaker's argument. As such, the Congress will be without one of the accountability measures available to the Executive.

For your consideration,

End

 

[Element]

The plaintiff has 12 hours to give their closing statement, or the case will be adjourned in favor of the defendant.

 

[Pacman]

CLOSING STATEMENT​

Your Honor,

I think that over the course of this case it has been made clear that ruling in favor of the defendant is a move, only someone who wishes to make law via Executive Fiat, would make. In this case the question is whether or not the President's Executive Order violates the Constitution and because Executive Orders are given no true, defined power under the constitution, the only conclusion is that it does. Now the defendant has argued that every branch of the government legislates, but I think that that is simply untrue. In order to legislate under a constitution, one has to be given that express power, and that is a very common theme in Constitutions around the world.

Your Honor, all of the defendants arguments have been disproven by the clear evidence that can be found in our very simple and flawed constitution, and those flaws prove that the President has no power to legislate. It is not his job, and in our constitution it is never once said that the president has any powers to legislate. If the President believes that somehow the words "Executive Order" somehow mean that he has the power to legislate then he does not have a solid comprehension of how English common law works. Yes, justices often deal with cases with no precedent, but in countries with constitutions they are still bound by that constitution to rule only in a way that complies with the constitution.

The President would have you believe that this Executive Order is lawful by his own interpretation of the Constitution. This is not how constitutions are meant to be used, constitutions are meant to be interpreted as they were written. We are not meant to write our own constitutions because the constitution is written to be the highest law in a country.

So to wrap this up, it is very clear that this Executive Order is a violation of the Constitution and should be stricken by this court.

 

[Element]

The judge presiding (ElementPenguin) will now review all evidence and testimony to provide a verdict. I will reach a verdict within 24 hours of this message.

 

[Element]

The Court has reached a verdict after much reviewing of testimony and evidence.
This case is hereby adjourned in favor of the Government of DemocracyCraft.​