Lawsuit: Adjourned Thire_ v. The State [2020] FCR 21

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thire

Thire

Citizen
Legal Eagle
Thire_
Thire_
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
45
IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION


Thire_
Plaintiff

v.

The State
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On the 8th of September Congressmen Krix proposed a bill. This bill is titled "Congressional Jurisdiction act". In the bill, it outlines the need for Congress to have full authority of what is done to the interior and exterior of the Capitol Building. It is however not their legal right to write this into law. In the constitution it states that "Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them.". Within this bill it states that the Department of Construction and transport cannot alter the Capitol without congress approval. The Capitol building is classified as a government building. The DCT have full authority over government buildings as outlined in the constitution "The department is charged with the creation of Government infrastructure and maintenance of build quality throughout the server's urban environments.". Although DCT has full authority over the Capitol Building, congress has decided that they want to limit what the department has jurisdiction over through this bill.


I. PARTIES
1. Thire_ (Plaintiff)
2. The State (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Congress created a bill to have complete control over the Capitol Building
2. The Capitol Building is a Government Building
3. the DCT have full authority over Government Buildings
4. Congress has now limited a Department's power, violating the constitution

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The congress has violated the constitution

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Complete strike of the bill

The Plaintiff also requests a Writ of Mandamus from the Courts to suspend the "Congressional Jursdiction Act" until a verdict is made.


Evidence:
1600691767717.png

Krix (Speaker) agrees Capitol building is a government building


Rescinded - Congressional Jurisdiction Act

A BILL To Give Capitol Jurisdiction and Oversight to Congress The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 -...
forums.democracycraft.net forums.democracycraft.net
(Bill related to the case)

1600691829348.png

Congress's jurisdiction
1600692097475.png

DCT's Jurisdiction

DATED: This 21st day of September 2020
 
Courts emblem.png


IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO​
No. 09-2020-16
The court hereby orders The State of DemocracyCraft to appear before the court to settle the matter of Thire_ VS State, and the right of the state as granted by the constitution to pass the Congressional Jurisdiction Act. If the the defendant does not respond within twenty-four hours, at the time of 10:50 PM MDT, a judgement will be passed in accordance to the evidence that has been given.
 
Your honour,

the State does not wish to object to this case as it is clear to the State that this legislation is in-fact unconstitutional.
 
The court recognizes your statement. A supeona will be issued to the speaker of the House in order to inform us of the reason of the bill.
 
Your Honor, may I submit a brief of Amicus Curae to this case as a sitting Representative?
 
Your honour,
I object to this case Implementing laws is what Congress does it is the responsibility of the Executive to execute these laws, the DCT is tasked with the construction of government buildings this does not mean there should be no check on what they can and cannot do. The Capitol building is where congress sits and it is vital that Congress be in control of this building not the President, to ensure that congress can go about its business without fear of the DCT changing the building. I move for dismissal this case is clearly another example of the Cabinet’s unwillingness to have checks placed upon itself.
 
The court grants _dark_helmet_’s requests to offer a statement to the court. The court will allow a cross examination of this statement.
 
Krix said:
Your honour,
I object to this case Implementing laws is what Congress does it is the responsibility of the Executive to execute these laws, the DCT is tasked with the construction of government buildings this does not mean there should be no check on what they can and cannot do. The Capitol building is where congress sits and it is vital that Congress be in control of this building not the President, to ensure that congress can go about its business without fear of the DCT changing the building. I move for dismissal this case is clearly another example of the Cabinet’s unwillingness to have checks placed upon itself.
Click to expand...
Movement for dismissal is denied. Due to a preponderance of statements that have not yet been given to the court.
 
In the Court of DemocracyCraft
AMICUS CURIAE​

If it pleases the Court,

Your Honor, Mr. Thire_ alleges in this case that the Congress of DemocracyCraft has acted unilaterally and usurped the power of the Executive. However, he fails to take into account the fact that the statute in question received Presidential assent. Had the statute in question been vetoed, or if a veto had been overturned by Congress, the Plaintiff would be correct in his assertion that Congress had usurped the Executive. However, upon granting assent, the President freely and willingly agreed to cede a small amount of executive power to the Congress.

If the President truly believed this statute to be unconstitutional, he could have, and in fact should have, vetoed the act as soon as it appeared on his desk. He did not, instead granting it assent and consenting to the cession of power to Congress in this instance. Therefore, Congress has not, in fact, usurped the Executive branch and given itself power over another branch of government, but rather has implemented a change that both branches saw as appropriate. If the Plaintiff wishes to make the claim that Congress has removed power from the Executive, he must now reconcile his argument with this fact.

If the President now wishes to argue that the granting of assent was a mistake, he is therefore implicitly admitting a dereliction of duty, as it is the President’s job to pay attention to the acts they sign and consider the constitutionality of any legislation that appears on their desk.

While it is true that I personally voted against the legislative enactment as I am sure will be pointed out by the Plaintiff, I did so because I believed that enactment would be unnecessary, not because it is unconstitutional. Having been put through the legislative process as prescribed by law and having received presidential assent, it is now a simple fact that this law is on the books and must be interpreted through that lens. I will not hesitate to make my opinion that it is constitutional known, regardless of my past opposition to the statute.

Finally, I caution the Court against a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff in this case. A ruling against the State in this matter would set a precedent that any act as it relates to executive power is unconstitutional regardless of whether or not it received presidential assent. This would, in one fell swoop, strike out no less than seventeen statutes, possibly more.

I thank the court for it’s time
Respectfully,
M_Lasai, Representative, Deputy Speaker of the House
 
_Dark_Helmet_ said:
In the Court of DemocracyCraft
AMICUS CURIAE​

If it pleases the Court,

Your Honor, Mr. Thire_ alleges in this case that the Congress of DemocracyCraft has acted unilaterally and usurped the power of the Executive. However, he fails to take into account the fact that the statute in question received Presidential assent. Had the statute in question been vetoed, or if a veto had been overturned by Congress, the Plaintiff would be correct in his assertion that Congress had usurped the Executive. However, upon granting assent, the President freely and willingly agreed to cede a small amount of executive power to the Congress.

If the President truly believed this statute to be unconstitutional, he could have, and in fact should have, vetoed the act as soon as it appeared on his desk. He did not, instead granting it assent and consenting to the cession of power to Congress in this instance. Therefore, Congress has not, in fact, usurped the Executive branch and given itself power over another branch of government, but rather has implemented a change that both branches saw as appropriate. If the Plaintiff wishes to make the claim that Congress has removed power from the Executive, he must now reconcile his argument with this fact.

If the President now wishes to argue that the granting of assent was a mistake, he is therefore implicitly admitting a dereliction of duty, as it is the President’s job to pay attention to the acts they sign and consider the constitutionality of any legislation that appears on their desk.

While it is true that I personally voted against the legislative enactment as I am sure will be pointed out by the Plaintiff, I did so because I believed that enactment would be unnecessary, not because it is unconstitutional. Having been put through the legislative process as prescribed by law and having received presidential assent, it is now a simple fact that this law is on the books and must be interpreted through that lens. I will not hesitate to make my opinion that it is constitutional known, regardless of my past opposition to the statute.

Finally, I caution the Court against a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff in this case. A ruling against the State in this matter would set a precedent that any act as it relates to executive power is unconstitutional regardless of whether or not it received presidential assent. This would, in one fell swoop, strike out no less than seventeen statutes, possibly more.

I thank the court for it’s time
Respectfully,
M_Lasai, Representative, Deputy Speaker of the House
Click to expand...
Your statement has been noted by the court.
 
Would President xEndeavore like to make a counter statement, or do you yield the floor?
 
Your honour,

In whatever context the Deputy Speaker wishes to put this transfer of power, it has still usurped executive power according to the constitution. The constitution clearly states that:
  • Congress cannot give themselves power over other branches of Government nor can they take power away from them.
In the Congressional Jurisdiction Act, the Complainant has made the argument that the Congress has violated constitutional law. Upon re-reviewing the bill, I can also see that the following grants Congress the power to dictate to the Department of Construction and Transport what to build on the capitol plot.
​
(3)Congress May vote to change (building structure/layout) the Capitol building; this will be executed by the DCT if so.​
​
The Speaker has made the argument that there are no checks and balances in changing the building, however several checks and balances exist between the Executive and Legislative. The question is not over the changing of the capitol, but the lawfully binding statement that the work must be completed by the DCT if voted on by the Congress. If this bill is upheld, it will pave the way for Congress to coerce the DCT and executive into fulfilling demands made by mere motions.

for your consideration,
 
Thank you, mr President. I now open the floor for counter argument.
 
Your Honour,

congress did not give themselves power over other branches, the President did by giving the Bill assent if he wishes to argue that is the case.

Lets be realistic about this laws should be in place to protect congress and its building as it is the main check on the executive, I see no issue with Congress running the Capitol building it is our place of work and should be ran by the elected representatives of the Congress of Democracy Craft not the President or his cabinet, I recognise the need for cooperation between the DCT and Congress that is why I State the DCT shall execute decisions made by congress, It is nothing new that if the DCT wishes to change the Building it must be voted on This is not my opinion but is law.

The DCT executes and Congress legislates and regulates this much has always been clear it is Stated in the branch names.

Thank you,
 
Thank you Mr Speaker.
At this time I will perform a Judicial Review of the Law and the current constitution. I will reconvene with my verdict.
 

Verdict

Results of the Judicial Review is as follows: In accordance to the current constitution, It is stated that congress cannot assume power that is held by other branches. It is also clearly stated in the constitution that the DCT is solely responsible for the management of government buildings. This is a constitution given right, given to the executive branch. This cannot be changed under the current constitution. The Congressional Jurisdiction Act is unconstitutional. It is the order of the Court of DemocracyCraft that the Congressional Jurisdiction Act is overturned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top