- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 418
- Thread Author
- #1
Ryan Moose, Plaintiff
v.
Azalea Isles, Defendant
Civil Complaint:
The Constitution states that "Parliament shall be responsible for... approving budgets..." The Legal Fees Clarity Amendment seeks to override this constitutional authority, delegated to Parliament, instead attempting to issue blanket authorization to the Executive branch "to utilize non-allocated funds from the Treasury of the Azalea Isles."
This amendment acts as a violation of the Constitution's establishment of co-equal branches of government due to its attempt to circumvent Parliament’s budgeting authority, and is unconstitutional.
Parties:
Plaintiff - Ryan Moose, MP
Plaintiff’s Counsel - Lysander Lyon
Defendant - Azalea Isles
Factual Allegations:
(1) The constitutional authority for approving budgets is Parliament's, as stated under the Duties of Parliament section in Article 3 of the Constitution.
(2) The Legal Fees Clarity Amendment authorizes two members of the Executive branch to use funds not approved by, nor requiring, any parliamentary budget.
(3) Parliament and the Executive serve as co-equal branches.
Legal Claims:
(1) Parliament is constitutionally responsible for approving budgets. Any law attempting to circumvent the budget process by allowing the Executive branch to spend non-budgeted funds is an attempt to violate Parliament's sovereignty as a co-equal branch, and is unconstitutional. Parliament cannot fulfill its constitutional duty of approving budgets if spending is never brought before the chamber, and never receives a vote to approve or reject the spending. The bill instead assigns oversight and approval authority of several categories of spending (the amended section 6(a)i) to the Prime Minister, a clear intrusion of the Executive on the Legislative branch.
(2) The Plaintiff has standing to sue as a Member of Parliament, the victimized branch.
Prayer for Relief:
(1) A declaration that the Legal Fees Clarity Amendment is unconstitutional and void.
(2) Damages in the amount of $1,000 per week as allocated by the Damages Reform Act.
Verification:
I, Lysander Lyon, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
v.
Azalea Isles, Defendant
Civil Complaint:
The Constitution states that "Parliament shall be responsible for... approving budgets..." The Legal Fees Clarity Amendment seeks to override this constitutional authority, delegated to Parliament, instead attempting to issue blanket authorization to the Executive branch "to utilize non-allocated funds from the Treasury of the Azalea Isles."
This amendment acts as a violation of the Constitution's establishment of co-equal branches of government due to its attempt to circumvent Parliament’s budgeting authority, and is unconstitutional.
Parties:
Plaintiff - Ryan Moose, MP
Plaintiff’s Counsel - Lysander Lyon
Defendant - Azalea Isles
Factual Allegations:
(1) The constitutional authority for approving budgets is Parliament's, as stated under the Duties of Parliament section in Article 3 of the Constitution.
(2) The Legal Fees Clarity Amendment authorizes two members of the Executive branch to use funds not approved by, nor requiring, any parliamentary budget.
(3) Parliament and the Executive serve as co-equal branches.
Legal Claims:
(1) Parliament is constitutionally responsible for approving budgets. Any law attempting to circumvent the budget process by allowing the Executive branch to spend non-budgeted funds is an attempt to violate Parliament's sovereignty as a co-equal branch, and is unconstitutional. Parliament cannot fulfill its constitutional duty of approving budgets if spending is never brought before the chamber, and never receives a vote to approve or reject the spending. The bill instead assigns oversight and approval authority of several categories of spending (the amended section 6(a)i) to the Prime Minister, a clear intrusion of the Executive on the Legislative branch.
(2) The Plaintiff has standing to sue as a Member of Parliament, the victimized branch.
Prayer for Relief:
(1) A declaration that the Legal Fees Clarity Amendment is unconstitutional and void.
(2) Damages in the amount of $1,000 per week as allocated by the Damages Reform Act.
Verification:
I, Lysander Lyon, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.