Supreme Court Decisions

Court Proposal:

Proposed by VC Owner Collin (D-IN)

On behalf of a student, the ACLU challenged the display of the Ten Commandments in a public high school in Giles County, Virginia. The student says that the posting of the religious text “makes me feel like an outsider because the school is promoting beliefs that I do not share.” The high school principal contends that a private citizen, who wanted the school to “reflect Christian beliefs,” placed the Ten Commandments in the school, and that no public funds were spent. The school initially allowed the Ten Commandments alone, but have since put up other historical documents including the Declaration of Independence, the Star Spangled Banner, and the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. Does the school’s action to display the Ten Commandments violate the Constitution?

Official Court Decision:

Decision announced by Retired Justice Russell

The court has reached its decision

The court unanimously rules in favor of the ACLU. It is the opinion of the court that even though the display of the Ten Commandments was funded privately, its display at a public high school violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. The school had to authorize the display in order for it to be installed, and to any reasonable observer that authorization could be seen as the endorsement of the contents of the Ten Commandments and the Christian religion it represents. However, the court does not wish to implicitly or implicitly suggest that the edification of students be disregarded when it comes to matters of religion. The court establishes the following test for future conduct and legislation: Does the religious material in a public school implicitly or implicitly endorse one religion over another; and is the religious content being used for social studies education or other non-denominational education or simply for the purpose of displaying an article of religion? If the answer is yes to the first question of the test, the law or conduct is unconstitutional. For the second question of the court’s test, if the content is used to educate students of wider world views and is presented alongside other religious and non-religious viewpoints, it is permissible.

Court Proposal:

“At a school-sponsored event during school hours in which students lined the street outside their high school during the Winter Olympics Touch Relay, eighteen-year old senior Joe Fredrick displayed a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Fredrick hoisted the banner across the street from the school, technically off school grounds. The principal confiscated the banner, and suspended Fredrick for violating the school’s policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Where the school’s actions against Morse justified? Did the school’s action violate the student’s freedom of speech?”

Official Court Decision:

Decision announced by Then Chief Justice T. MacDonald

The Supreme Court has reached its unanimous decision on the case. The Court has reached the verdict of the Plaintiff(Student). Considering the Student was completely off of school property and was of the age of 18, he has reached a context of full constitutional rights, including freedom of speech which is significant to his situation. The court will overturn his suspension and issue a apology to the student for lost time. All punishments relating to this incident have been declared null.

Court Proposal:

Proposed by Retired Congressman Horton

I propose that the executive order below gets overturned due to being unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood opted out of federal funding since they did not want to comply with Trump's order. Congress would have to propose new appropriations to refund planned parenthood.

"Executive Order 7 I hereby end the Trump Administration gag rule that forced PLANNED PARENTHOOD out of title x national program for planned parenthood. President CollinMatthew"

Official Court Decision:

Decision announced by Then Chief Justice T. MacDonald

The Supreme Court has reached the verdict that President Collin Mathews Executive order is constitutional with a 2/3rd majority. Planned Parenthood is a federally funded agency that has recently received federal funding and had to opt out after not following the overturned gag law. Now with the new executive order that overturns the old gag law they do not need to comply and are eligible for public, federal funding.

Dissenting opinion- Justice Mac (R-NC)

Under the Constitution, it is recognized that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights that cannot be infringed upon. The 7th executive order of President CollinMatthew funds this infringement upon the unalienable rights that our government values, and it requires the government to go against those values. The infant should be protected in any matter or circumstance that does not harm the mother, and the mother should be able to gain support from the community around her.

Should the baby be product of rape, the rapist should be punished. The child is innocent and will not be subject to harm for something that it had no part in doing. The government, by no means, should support the murder of an innocent child and take away it's unalienable right to life. With this interpretation of the Constitution, and the upholding of it's written values, I dissent from my colleague's decision in upholding the President's executive order.

Court Proposal:

Proposed by Retired Congressman Ronald Reagan OG

Overturn the 1973 court case roe v. wade

Official Court Decision

Decision announced by Then Chief Justice T. MacDonald

The above statement is considered Null, with expressed permission from the admin and president, the verdict has now been reached, it is as follows; The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court. Roe v Wade has been held by a vote of 2-2.

Dissenting opinion- Justice Mac (R - NC)

Under the Constitution, it is recognized that everyone is given an inherent right to life. As said in my last dissenting opinion, abortion takes away that right to life and it murders innocent children that have done nothing to deserve such a sentence. The case of Roe v. Wade is often argued in its favor for many reasons, but I cannot support a law that goes against the Constitution and especially so when the lives of innocent people are on the line. This also goes against the 14th Amendment, which gives everyone the right to due process.

The value of the life of a child does not vary regardless of sex, circumstance, or because of the mistakes of the parents. The Constitution protects everyone, including unborn babies. With this, I vote in favor of turning over Roe v. Wade.

Court Proposal:

Proposed by Secretary of States A.J. Cross (R-NY)

I believe that the "American Samoan Citizenship Act" should not be considered law, as it has never been signed into law by the President. It was declared as law under a "10-day automatic law rule", however as there is no Constitutional basis for this rule I believe it has no standing. As such, I believe that this Act would best be considered "in limbo", able to be either signed into law or vetoed by the sitting President.

This is -- for obvious reasons -- a significant issue for the people of American Samoa, who are now in legal grey territory as to whether they are U.S. nationals or U.S. citizens. However, it also speaks to a broader issue where this bill is one of 13 to have defaulted into being considered law in this way, as the legal status of each of these bills is now in question. However, to be clear, the scope of my case is aimed at the American Samoa Citizenship Act whilst acknowledging it would set a precedent for the other bills.

Pursuant to my proposal of the case on the "American Samoan Citizenship Act", I request a preliminary injunction to prevent the President from signing any bills into law that passed in Congress prior to his inauguration to ensure that this issue is fairly deliberated in court.

Official Court Decision:

Decision Announced by Justice Richard

Majority Opinion Myself and Justices S4L, Justin Lew, and c.t.skapski have sided with the briefing from Congressman Soro based on the insufficient connections between the application of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Virtual Congress.

The legislation in question, and therefore any unsigned legislation, would be considered in limbo, neither passed nor vetoed, due to the lack of a signature by any president, as the uncodified “10 day rule” did not have explicit or implicit application based upon this. This means that these bills are still available to be acted upon by the sitting president.

In accordance with the above findings, the practice of presidential veto is also undefined at this time due to the lack of support for its application in Virtual Congress.

As a result, the court recommends the that the process of both receiving and either signing or returning legislation as well as what occurs when neither happens be better defined through an amendment to the constitution. The role of the executive must be further defined to clarify his relationship with congress. Additionally, the injunction issued by Hull is lifted so that the president may begin to rectify this.

Court Proposal:

Proposed by Congressman James (D-GA)

Good Evening Supreme Court Justice I have come before you today to bring before this court a suit against the administrators of Virtual Congress. Members of the server administration have acted unconstitutionally in the forced removal of several members of the President’s cabinet. The President of the United States is granted full powers to appoint cabinet members. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution reads:

They shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Congress, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Congress present concur; and they shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Congress, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers or Secretaries of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Virtual Congress administrator Don announced on March 18th, 2020, that a number of cabinet positions would be abolished. He sent the following message at 4:15 PM EDT:

In an effort to go back to our roots we'll be phasing out some roles and positions for simplicity purposes and to get focus back on Congress.

We'll announce the new changes shortly

Then at 11:55 PM EDT:

Positions on the chopping block: HUD Energy Secretary Commerce Secretary Education Secretary Department of Labor Transportation

I am here today to argue that these actions should be blocked by the court and prevented from going into place, as these actions would be highly unconstitutional and a gross overstep of administrator authority.

Case reached an out of court settlement that required Justice Hull to resign to allow the formation of an 'Admin Magna Carta'

Greetings to my fellow congresspersons, justices, members of the Cabinet, the Vice President and Mr. President, Article 4, Section 3 and Clause 1 of The United States Constitution gives the U.S Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union of the United States of America.

This clause has seen the number of states grow from the original 13 up to 50 (52 in the Virtual Congress of the United States — Puerto Rico and Guam) "𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧; 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞; 𝐧𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬."

However — we have been following an entirely different Constitution — the Constitution of the Virtual Congress of the United States. Looking at this Constitution, there is nothing that grants Congress the authority to admit a new State into the union. A refute to this would be that said states were admitted prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the Virtual Congress of the United States. (product of the Constitutional Convention). However, even prior to this, ever since the inception of the Virtual Congress, another constitution had been followed. This Constitution as well, did not have any clause for the admission of a state into the Union. It is my belief that Congress never had the authority to admit Guam and PR as states, and their subsequent statehoods are null. Thank you.

DECISION:

The Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision that the statehood of Guam and PR per precedent set in the Cross v U.S. are not states.

*This decision remained until Congress drafted a new constitution.

The jury has reached a verdict

In the case of The People v United States, Maximus Emperio has been found not guilty.