Document: ChilliFarmer101 v. Parliament of the Democracy of Reddit

Background:

The Parliament of the Democracy of Reddit has enacted the “New Economic Plan” or NEP, a comprehensive economic and administrative framework for the Democracy of Reddit. 

The Act creates an unelected institution known as the ‘Politburo,’ and grants it substantial authority over monetary policy, treasury administration, military organization, internal affairs oversight and other governmental functions. The NEP further contains provisions claiming superiority over future legislation, automatic renewal, special repeal requirements and continued validity following constitutional amendment or replacement. 

The Plaintiff further alleges that the cumulative concentration of monetary, fiscal, military, administrative and regulatory powers within the Politburo exceeds the scope of a permissible administrative agency and conflicts with the constitutional allocation of powers. 

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the Democracy of Reddit and is subject to the operation of the challenged legislation. 

The Plaintiff has standing as a citizen directly subject to the operation of the challenged provisions, including the taxation, monetary, administrative, and regulatory systems established by the NEP. The relief sought would remedy this injury by removing unconstitutional exercises of governmental power. 

The Plaintiff does not challenge the welfare, healthcare, disability, housing, orphan-care or social-support provisions of the NEP except where specifically identified herein. 

Claim:

The Plaintiff alleges that multiple provisions of the New Economic Plan conflict directly with the Constitution and are therefore void.

Specifically, the NEP transfers legislative, executive, fiscal, monetary, and military powers from constitutionally established institutions to an unelected body known as the Politburo. These powers are constitutionally vested in Parliament, the President and the Prime Minister. 

Article II, Section I, Clause I of the Constitution provides that legislative authority resides solely with Parliament. Article II, Section III, Clause 3 further vests authority over monetary policy and fiscal policy in Parliament. Article III, Section I, Clause 2 vests military leadership in the President during times of war or emergency, while Article III, Section II, Clause 6 assigns responsibility for coordinating the creation and payment of the National Budget to the Prime Minister. The Plaintiff submits that these constitutional allocations of authority are binding and may not be altered through ordinary legislation.

The challenged provisions of the NEP grant the Politburo authority over currency issuance, currency adjustment, exchange-rate determination, treasury administration, sovereign debt negotiations, investment negotiations, internal affairs oversight, military appointments and foreign exchange regulation. The Plaintiff submits that these are not merely administrative functions, but rather constitute substantive governmental powers which the Constitution assigns elsewhere. The Plaintiff submits that while Parliament may create administrative bodies to assist in the execution of policy, it may not transfer constitutionally assigned powers to an institution of its own creation.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the Politburo exercises powers inconsistent with the constitutional separation and allocation of authority established by the Constitution.

In determining whether the challenged provisions are constitutional, the Court should consider the cumulative effect of each challenged power. Taken together, the challenged provisions place monetary, fiscal, administrative, regulatory and military authority within a single unelected institution. The Plaintiff submits that this concentration of authority exceeds the scope of a permissible administrative agency and conflicts with the constitutional structure established by the Constitution of the Democracy of Reddit.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the NEP unlawfully attempts to establish itself as superior to future legislation, impose repeal requirements not found within the Constitution, remain in force following constitutional amendment or replacement and automatically renew itself without legislative approval. 

The Constitution already provides a mechanism through which legal provisions may obtain protection from ordinary legislative amendment, which is constitutional amendment under Article VI. The Plaintiff submits that the Supremacy of Doctrine clause, Automatic Reinforcement clause, Repeal Requirement clause and Constitutional Survival clause each attempt to confer constitutional status upon ordinary legislation without complying with the amendment procedures established by the Constitution. The Plaintiff submits that ordinary legislation cannot place itself above future legislation, bind future Parliaments, survive constitutional replacement by declaration or create special repeal requirements without constitutional authority.

The Plaintiff further submits that the Supremacy of Doctrine clause is incompatible with the constitutional hierarchy established by the Constitution of the Democracy of Reddit. The Constitution creates no category of legislation superior to other legislation. Likewise, the Repeal Requirement clause attempts to impose a special repeal procedure not found anywhere within the Constitution. The Constitutional Survival Clause purports to preserve ordinary legislation even against future constitutional change. The Automatic Reinforcement clause purports to allow legislation to perpetuate itself without further legislative approval. The Plaintiff submits that each of these provisions is inconsistent with constitutional government and is therefore void.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the mandatory retirement provisions of the NEP constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of age in violation of Article V of the Constitution. 

Article V provides that all persons shall be free from discrimination on the basis of age. The challenged retirement provision imposes a compulsory retirement age of sixty-five and therefore distinguishes between citizens solely on the basis of age. No distinction is made based on competence, willingness to work, health or any other criterion. The Plaintiff submits that the provision therefore constitutes direct discrimination on the basis of age within the meaning of Article V.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests judicial review of the challenged provisions and asks that all unconstitutional provisions be declared null and void. 

The Plaintiff does not seek the invalidation of the New Economic Plan in its entirety. Rather, the Plaintiff seeks only the removal of those provisions which conflict with the Constitution. The welfare, healthcare, housing, disability-support, orphan-care and other social-support provisions of the NEP may remain in force to the extent that they are otherwise constitutional.

Remedy:

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Supreme Court:

1. Declare unconstitutional all provisions of the NEP granting the Politburo independent authority over monetary policy, currency issuance, exchange rate determination, treasury administration, sovereign borrowing, debt negotiations, investment negotiations, executive oversight, internal affairs oversight and military command or appointment functions.
2. Declare unconstitutional all provisions creating or exercising governmental powers through the Politburo that conflict with powers constitutionally vested in Parliament, the President or the Prime Minister.
3. Strike the NEP’s Legal Notes and Subsystems - Supremacy of Doctrine clause.
4. Strike the NEP’s Legal Notes and Subsystems - Automatic Reinforcement clause.
5. Strike the provision requiring a 75% national referendum for repeal of the NEP (Legal Notes and Subsystems - Repeal Requirement).
6. Strike the provision declaring that the NEP shall remain in force following constitutional amendment or constitutional replacement (Legal Notes and Subsystems - Constitutional Survival).
7. Strike the mandatory retirement provisions of the NEP as unconstitutional age discrimination.
8. Strike the provision granting the Politburo exclusive authority over foreign exchange transactions.
9. Declare that the creation of the Politburo is constitutional only insofar as it exercises powers consistent with the Constitution.
10. Grant any further relief the Court deems just and proper.

The plaintiff approaches the court most humbly with these remedies, and asks it to act with the powers vested in it by the Constitution of the Democracy of Reddit.

Statement Regarding ChilliFarmer101 v. Parliament of the Democracy of Reddit

Today, within my capacity as a registered lawyer and as a citizen of the Democracy of Reddit affected by the provisions of the NEP, I have filed a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court regarding several provisions of the recently enacted law.

Before public discussion, I wish to be absolutely clear about what this case is and what this case is not.

This is not a challenge to healthcare, welfare, public housing, disability support, orphan care, pensions, nationalisation or the broader economic goals of the NEP. Citizens may hold differing views on those questions, but they are fundamentally questions for the electorate and for Parliament and should not be within the remit of the courts to decide.

Instead, this case concerns a number of provisions which I believe conflict with our Constitution.

The primary issue concerns the creation and powers that the legislation has delegated to the Politburo. The Constitution allocates legislative, executive, fiscal and military responsibilities to specific constitutional institutions, including Parliament, the President and the Prime Minister. The NEP creates an unelected institution and grants it authority over matters such as currency issuance, exchange rates, treasury administration, debt negotiations, military appointments and internal affairs oversight. The lawsuit asks the Court to determine whether those transfers of authority are consistent with the constitutional structure established by HARPY-CONDOR.

The case also challenges several provisions which attempt to grant the NEP a special status within the legal order. These include the so-called Supremacy of Doctrine clause, provisions relating to automatic renewal, special repeal requirements, and the provision stating that the NEP shall remain in force even in the event of constitutional change. In my view, these provisions attempt to grant ordinary legislation protections that may only be obtained through constitutional amendment. The Court is therefore asked to determine whether they are compatible with the Constitution.

Finally, the lawsuit challenges the mandatory retirement provision of the NEP on the grounds that Article V of the Constitution guarantees that all persons shall be free from discrimination on the basis of age. The Court is therefore asked to determine whether compulsory retirement solely on the basis of age is compatible with that constitutional guarantee.

Importantly, this filing does not seek to invalidate the NEP in its entirety. The remedies requested are narrowly tailored to the provisions identified in the complaint. Should the Court agree that certain provisions are unconstitutional, the overwhelming majority of the NEP would remain unaffected.

This case is not ultimately about whether the NEP is good policy or bad policy. It is about whether ordinary legislation may transfer powers assigned by the Constitution to other institutions, and whether ordinary legislation may grant itself protections ordinarily associated with constitutional law. Those are questions which affect every citizen of the Republic regardless of their views on the NEP itself.

Reasonable people may disagree on the merits of these arguments. That is entirely normal. The purpose of a constitutional court is not to eliminate disagreement, and the goal is to resolve it through legal and constitutional processes.

Whatever one's views on the NEP, I believe constitutional questions should be decided by constitutional institutions. This means we must resist the temptation to succumb to partisan loyalty or political pressure. The Supreme Court exists precisely for circumstances such as these.

I therefore respectfully submit the matter and my filing to the Court and look forward to its judgment.

- ChilliFarmer101
Counsel for the Plaintiff, ChilliFarmer101 v. Parliament of the Democracy of Reddit