Lawsuit: Adjourned Budgetmich v. Nacho and Department of Public Affairs (Case No. 08-2020-21)

Status
Not open for further replies.

budgetmich

Citizen
This case boils down to a simple question. How should "elections" be defined? Is it to be defined, as the government claims, as the beginning of the election period? Or is it to be defined in the simplest, and commonly (as well as Congressionally) understood way, as referring to an actual choice. Congress should clarify this section of the Constitution. Of that there is no doubt. However, they haven't done so yet. So, this court must decide. Justice demands that this court read the statute in the most simple (and, here, least restrictive) way. The alternative is for this court to legislate, to create a rule. I don't disagree that a possible reading of the Constitution is that proffered by DPA, but that reading goes beyond the interpretation of Congress, which sets a dangerous precedent for future cases. I therefore urge this court to rule in favor of the Plaintiff.

Thank you, your honor
 

Westray

President
Senior Administrator
Administrator
Donator
President
Health Department
Environment & Recreation Department
Westray
Westray
The Defendant may now present their closing statement.
 

Thire

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Thire_
Thire_
Your honour, my final statement,

The question is whether budgetmich is meant to be legally barred from running in elections. The Plaintiff asks that the judge provide the definition from the ruling, however, the constitution had provided a definition. The title of the whole campaign information in the constitution is "elections". Therefore, despite claims by the Plaintiff, the constitution does outline a definition. Whether the definition "makes sense" or not, it is still in the constitution, and therefore should not be changed in court. It comes down to the fact that the only way to provide a definition, that the Plaintiff agrees with, is through amending the constitution. DPA's decision to remove budgetmich is entirely executed from the words of the constitution, therefore their decision is legally and constitutionally correct. I advise the court rule in favour of the defendant to avoid an unconstitutional decision (Quote from budgetmich: "Finally, this court should not attempt to rectify what it believes is a Congressional error. If Congress erred, it is Congress, not the courts, that must rectify that error.").

Summary of questions, evidence and facts


QuestionsEvidence/facts
How is Elections defined in the constitution?Defined as: 1st day of Election Period to the 15th and final day. Includes polling and campaigning. See below evidence
elections.png
Is it against plaintiffs rights to be barred?It is not against his rights to be barred because of this:
1598300672995.png
Were the requirements met?Budgetmich did not meet the set requirements of 2 weeks join date before the beginning of elections.
1598300737011.png

The above is clear.

Thank you
 

Westray

President
Senior Administrator
Administrator
Donator
President
Health Department
Environment & Recreation Department
Westray
Westray
This case is hereby under review and a verdict will be issued within the next 24 hours.
 

Westray

President
Senior Administrator
Administrator
Donator
President
Health Department
Environment & Recreation Department
Westray
Westray

Verdict


IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACY CRAFT
VERDICT

Case No. 08-2020-21

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Budgetmich alleges that Nacholeebra, acting on behalf of the DPA, has violated the right of a citizen to run for elected office.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that by the date of the voting, they will have met the join date requirements.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, Department of Public Affairs, represented by the Attorney General, claims that the Department of Public Affairs was well within their rights to prevent Budgetmich from running for office under the pretense that he does not meet the requirements listed in the constitution.
2. The Defendant alleges that the requirements to run should be met prior to the electoral process, not prior to the voting.

III. CONSIDERATION OF OUTSIDE OPINIONS
1. ElementPenguin introduced an amicus brief, claiming that the right to run in elections could favour either party; however, since the law states that they are the requirements to run and not the requirements to be included in the polls, the DPA's argument may have stronger ground.
2. Hugebob introduced an amicus brief, claiming the term "election" in the clause in question, was intended to mean the first day of polls. He also makes the claim of precedent, as he failed to attain the 24 hour playtime requirement before the beginning of the previous election cycle.
3. xEndeavour was called to the court as a witness. He claims that when he signed the bill, the interpretation was that elections began with the electoral process, and therefore the two week prerequisite applied prior to that.

IV. THE COURT OPINION
1. In the amicus brief submitted respectfully by Hugebob, he claimed that there may be precedent as he failed to attain the 24 hour playtime requirement before the beginning of the cycle, this is not the case. The requirement in question is the 2 week join date, not the 24 hour playtime requirement; and such precedent was established under the pretense of the previous constitution.
2. Whereas the Plaintiff claims that in common parlance, "election" refers to the actual polls, rather than the entire process leading up to those polls, the clause in question is rather ambiguous and does not specify polls nor process.
3. The Plaintiff claims that they would fulfill such requirements prior to the polls (Aug. 26) - yet the Plaintiff would not even meet the requirements by the time of the debate (Aug. 25). Based on the process of the electoral cycle, it is clear that the intention was for the requirement to be met prior to the cycle.
4. It is best that the court exercises the mischief rule of the statute in question, as the best approach to ensure the electoral prerequisites are fulfilled within reasonability, is to consider them required prior to the electoral cycle.

V. DECISION
The Court hereby adjourns this case in favour of the Defendant.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top