Lawsuit: Dismissed AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 9

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The Electoral Act contains an unconstitutional clause that harms the fundamental right of free and open electoral processes. I ask the Court to review the following facts and remedy this issue.

I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff and RBA-Certified Attorney)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. The Congress (Wrote and Passed the Law in Question)

II. FACTS
1. On May 1st, 2021, the President signed the Electoral Act, which contains an unconstitutional clause violating the rights of the citizens.
2. This clause is Section 5 Clause 8.
3. The clause reads as follows: "Political parties cannot sponsor a higher number of candidates than seats that are up to vote."

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. While the section in question amended the Constitution via referendum, it conflicts with pre-existing fundamental rights of the citizens and other clauses of the Constitution.
2. Furthermore, the specific clause in question was never published in the official codified Constitution document.
3. The Constitution provides the following rights:

• "The right to participate in, and run for elected office, unless as punishment for a crime."
• "Freedom of Political Communication."
• "Freedom of the Press and Media."
• "Freedom of Association."
• "Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status."

4. These rights are being denied to the party, and thus to the people composing the party in order to come together as one voice. The clause in question is a form of censorship that denies the people making up political parties to associate with more than one candidate, to allow said candidates to freely participate in the political process, to publish endorsements and opinions regarding candidates, and to allow all citizens in the parties equal chances to run in and participate in elections via freedom of association. Political communication of the parties and the people in them are also being denied as the people cannot communicate their political beliefs, such as sponsorship of any, all, or no candidates.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The clause in question to be stricken from the law
2. The missing section to be published into the Constitution once the clause is stricken for consistency, clarity, and transparency

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 15th day of June, 2021

 

[Westray]

Verdict

The Supreme Court would like to thank the Plaintiff for bringing this question of constitutionality to this amendment, however, constitutional amendments define how the constitution is specified. While understanding the confusion that may have ensued as a result of the failure of the Speaker of the House's Office to properly update the constitution, we cannot strike down law simply because the Draftsman and Speaker of the House did not update it properly.

In addition, 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.

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 such amendment goes against a principle of the constitution, they should seek to resolve it via a legislative matter.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled to dismiss this case. With this in mind, we strongly urge Speaker of the House AndreyMia to correct such alleged err to the constitution editing immediately.