Lawsuit: Dismissed Tyyrannical v. The State of DemocracyCraft [2020] FCR 31

QuinCint

Citizen
Tyyrannical
Tyyrannical
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
2
IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


Tyyrannical
Plaintiff

v.

The State of Democracy Craft
Defendant

---

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff is concerned about executive overreach and wanting to ensure the legality and integrity of the executive's actions.

I. PARTIES
1. Tyyrannical
2. The Government of Democracy Craft

II. FACTS
1. On the twentieth of August, two-thousand and twenty, then-President xEndeavor issued the executive order, "Executive Order 8/20," (attached in exhibit A) Establishing a process for the creation of towns.
2. Exhibit B denotes the explicit passages in the Constitution that:
  • 1) "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.
  • 2) "The President may issue non-complex Executive Orders for the good governance of the server. The President must issue Executive Orders if and when requested by the Owner."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff claims that unilateral executive action taken by the President is unconstitutional.
  • a) The creation of towns is a complex change, which is explicitly off-limits when it comes to executive authority.
  • b) The creation of inferior, local governments is also a Change in the System of Government. As the Constitution does not mention or provide for inferior governments, but only that their creation would be a complex change. (One-Tier Consolidated Government -> Unitary Federal Government).
The Executive, having failed to gain the approval of Congress, has overreached in attempting to use their powers enumerated in the Constitution.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff will be satisfied with either of the following:
a) That the Executive Order be transferred to the House of Representatives, be treated a Congressional Bill, needing support from a Representative, then subject to a vote and possible amendments of its members, and proceed through normal legislative procedures for complex changes.
b) That the Executive Order be struck down by the Court as Unconstitutional.

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A

Exhibit B


DATED: This eighth day of December 2020.
 
Last edited:

Verdict



Case No. 9 -12-2020

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. Plaintiff claims that unilateral executive action taken by the President is unconstitutional.
2. Plaintiff claims that the Executive, having failed to gain the approval of Congress, has overreached in attempting to use their powers enumerated in the Constitution.


III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Constitution gives the executive the power to issue executive orders, however, if it were to fall under a complex change, it will require the consent of the Owner(s).
2. The Constitution does not describe a process in which a complex change must be carried out, such as needing the consent and or approval of the legislative.
3. The Executive Order does grant the town the ability of the town to establish councils but has also included a separation between the federal government and the town councils (Local Government). However, it does establish that only a mayor is recognized by the Federal Government. This meaning any other council member is not recognized by the federal government.
4. In the current form of the constitution there is currently no defined process for a "Complex Change" in government. The Consitution simply describes the needed requirements for a complex change to be actioned upon.


IV. DECISION
The Court hereby dismisses the case on the lack of evidence of unconstitutional actions performed by the Executive Branch.

 
Back
Top