Supreme Court of the Atlantic Commonwealth

/u/goldencapitalist v. the Atlantic Commonwealth

Case № 17–02, 101 A.C. 2

I. Overview

This case comes from the Legislator /u/goldencapitalist, a member of the Commonwealth’s General Assembly, in a challenge against the addition of AB 135 and AB 136 to the Assembly’s docket. The two bills were authored and sponsored by the Governor and citizen of the Atlantic Commonwealth, /u/realnyebevan. Petitioner argues that the branches must be separated and the Governor has no right to sponsor legislation to be placed on the docket. Petitioner also lacks basic reading comprehension and ability to understand the Constitution they have sworn to defend. The Court rules in favor of the State on the basis of the Commonwealth’s Constitution.

II. Ruling

According to the Electoral Roll, Governor /u/realnyebevan resides in the Atlantic Commonwealth. Article V, § F (a) of the Commonwealth’s Constitution reads as follows:

a. The Lieutenant Governor, any legislator and any citizen of the state is permitted to submit legislation for debate and vote to the Assembly by submitting the legislation according to the Clerk’s instructions.

Any citizen of the Commonwealth, independent of any and all alternate factors, may submit legislation for the Assembly to deliberate, amend, cast votes on, and other legislative duties designated by the Commonwealth’s Constitution. The Governor is a citizen of the Commonwealth and thus he meets the necessary requirements which are a prerequisite to the proposal of legislation.

Elected officials do not lose the rights automatically conferred upon the unelected citizen. The rights enumerated by the Federal Constitution and the Commonwealth Constitution are not immediately lost upon the election of an official, including the Governor. If the citizenry is given the right to due process under Article 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Governor, as a citizen of the Commonwealth, is given the right to due process. If the citizenry is given the right to submit legislation, the Governor, as a citizen of the Commonwealth, is given the right to submit legislation. The rights of the citizen are written with the intent to be inalienable (see Atl. Const. Art I) and thus they are not removed, regardless of the role the citizen may play in the government of the Commonwealth.

The Petitioner further argues that relief must be granted in this matter because:

This case could set a precedent which would destroy everything the United States stands for and effectively create a State Dictatorship.

The Court finds this argument preposterous, considering that the Commonwealth of the Chesapeake confers the rights of the citizenry upon its Governor (see Chesa. Const. art. VII, § 1 and art. III, § 8) and the United States has not had its standings destroyed nor has a “state dictatorship” been formed. In sum, the Court finds this claim to be born of pure idiocy.

III. Conclusion

The Court rules in favor of the Commonwealth, finding that Governor /u/realnyebevan is, in fact, a citizen of the Commonwealth and thus may propose legislation, as designated by Art. V, § F (a) of the Commonwealth’s Constitution.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.