Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 2

End

Owner
Owner
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Education Department
Interior Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
constructor
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
2,087
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Commonwealth of Redmont Constitution establishes a Representative Democracy through a robust proportional representation electoral system - a system whereby citizens delegate their sovereignty to representatives through a defined electoral process. Our electoral system is designed to emphasise and empower diverse representation in Congress.

Herein these questions are raised with the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth; questions of ethics and law, where laws in the Constitution are contrary to one another through interpretation:
- Does the democratic will of the people, through the prescribed electoral process in the Constitution, prevail over the right to recall?​
Furthermore, is the following law against the notion of proportional representation, as mandated by the constitution:
- Is the power vested in Representatives and Senators to remove one another from office unconstitutional?​

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. The Commonwealth

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff claims there is a Constitutional question as to whether the Right to Recall is consistent with the electoral system of proportional representation.
2. Plaintiff claims there is a Constitutional question as to whether the Motion of Removal is legal - with exception to issues of server nature.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The ability for Representatives and Senators to remove their fellow colleagues from Congress, as well as the right to recall, is fundamentally undemocratic in relation to the electoral process we have established and defined in our constitution. The democratic values of this nation - with exception to unavoidable issues of server nature such as inactivity - are undermined by a process whereby the majority is able to coerce Representatives and Senators from office. Proportional representation is at the mercy of the majority. The representation of the minority is at the whim of the majority of the day.
2. The motion of removal, contained within the electoral process, enables the majority's ability to coerce the proportionally elected from office. The interpretation of the Constitution that "The right to vote a Government official out of his or her office" establishes a justification for the right to recall is improper. The right to recall is a dangerous mechanism that is an enabler to majority dominance in the institution that is designed to represent many opinions and perspectives. The ability to vote a Government official out of his or her office is contained within the electoral process.

e.g. A Representative is elected with 5 votes. Perhaps they aren't the most popular representative, but they were still elected to represent the views and perspectives of 5 constituents. Provided the votes of one of those constituents can be influenced, the Representative can be recalled and removed from office, therefore providing no representation to the remaining 4 constituents who elected them through proportional representation during the election. This then becomes an issue of majority dominance, whereby the Speaker and or majority party in power may influence their replacement.​

3. The constitution is clear in it's intent to ensure proportional voting - a system that prioritises diversity over popularity. The amendment that was made to the Constitution that allows for the Right of Recall is based on popularity. Ultimately, the Right of Recall is fundamentally against the principles of the electoral system.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Supreme Court:
(1) The Recall Constitutional Amendment Act is deemed to be in contravention of the democratic nature of the electoral process within the Constitution.
(2) The ability for Representatives and Senators to remove each other is struck - with exception to issues of server nature.
(3) A landmark precedent is made that overturns Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16].

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED:
This 17th day of March 2021
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court Seal.png


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of xEndeavour vs The Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.​
 
Last edited:
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

Case no: 03-2021-17

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The plaintiff brings up an interesting argument of a political nature, however it holds no legal basis.
2. The plaintiff argues the right to recall is contradictory to the method of proportional representation. While this could be argued in the case that a mere simple majority were necessary to recall representatives, the Recall Constitutional Amendment (https://democracycraft.net/threads/recall-constitutional-amendment-act.3042/) clearly states that a Representative can only be recalled in the event that they no longer have support that is proportional to one seat in Congress, at the current size of the House of Representatives it takes 92% in favor of removal for recall to pass. Even if this were not the case, this is purely a political question with no legal basis as both proportional representation and the right to recall are codified within the constitution and therefore cannot be unconstitutional. They literally define constitutionality.
3. The plaintiff argues the right to remove fellow Representatives and Senators internally in unconstitutional as it is contradictory to the proportional representative system of elections. However, removal from a chamber requires the unanimous consent of all members of the chamber excluding the member being removed. While you can in theory argue that all other members could corruptly remove lonely political opponents such as independents, this in practice has never occured as there is always at least one fellow Representative to refuse such a blatant assault on democracy. Furthermore, the argument holds no legal basis as the process is codified within the constitution and therefore literally defines constitutionality.
4. The majority of the plaintiff's arguments are that other parts of the constitution conflict with the idea of a proportionally representative democracy, however the plaintiff wishes that other parts of the constitution be removed to make room for proportional representation despite the fact that these other clauses have existed for much longer and only one chamber of Congress uses the proportional representation system. It is unclear why the plaintiff believes they can pick and choose which parts of the constitution supersede others.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This sixteenth day of April 2021
 

Verdict


The Supreme Court would like to thank the Plaintiff for bringing this question of constitutionality to these amendments, however, constitutional amendments define how the constitution is specified. Whereas it is reasonable to strike down amendments that have not fulfilled the proper requirements, as established in previous cases; it is not within the scope of judicial power to strike down constitutional amendments that have been properly ratified. Properly ratified constitutional amendments precisely define constitutionality.

It is not the role of the court to strike down amendments that have been passed in both the legislature and in public referendum, or otherwise ratified through the proper means. As stated in the case of Prodigium & Partners at Law vs the Commonwealth of Redmont [Case No. 01-2021-16], the court did not indicate whether the existence of a recall was needed, but instead, ruled that the legislature should be encouraged to resolve the gray area of the right to vote out officials. The resolution to the gray area was and is up to the legislature to determine.

The constitution is a complex document filled with all sorts of principles and provisions, that establish the foundations of our law. If the Plaintiff believes that recall and removal go against democratic nature, it is a legislative matter, that they should seek to resolve via an amendment.

Therefore, this motion to dismiss is granted, and the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled to dismiss this matter.


supreme-court-seal-png.8642

 
Back
Top