Rick V. The Republic - Constitutional Defense

The Republic’s argument is quite simple: Nothing in the Constitution explicitly prohibits a state judge from serving in a federal office. The petitioner has not referenced a single Constitutional Article which explicitly prohibits this; he has simply referenced Articles regarding impartiality. Subsequently, he has interpreted these Articles not through dictionary definitions, but through his own personal philosophy.

The petitioner believes that possessing a federal office whilst simultaneously a state judge is partial in nature. However, this is not stated by the Constitution. Furthermore, it is not even indisputably true. After all, a state judge can take cases which have nothing to do with their given federal position, or even federal politics as a whole. States often have their own servers, with their own affairs that never reach the federal level. As a result, it is not an indisputable fact that state judges lack impartiality when they simultaneously possess a position within a completely different government. In short, should this Court side with the petitioner, they would be inscribing one philosophy as Constitutional law.

Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that because Judge Insaf lacks Bar Certification, he cannot exercise judicial power. While Bar Certification should absolutely be considered when nominating a judge, rendering it as a binding requirement simply gives too much power to the Department of Justice; power not provided by the Constitution. If exercising judicial power was dependent on Bar Certification, the Department of Justice could simply stop candidates they dislike from being nominated, by revoking their Bar Certification. However, the Department of Justice does not have power over judicial candidates. Thus, because they are not delegated that power, judicial candidates cannot require the Department of Justice’s certification. As a result, although Judge Insaf’s Bar Certification is indeed suspended, his judicial power is not. Article 12 of the Constitution indicates “The powers not delegated to Krameria by these articles, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”. Because certification powers are “not delegated” to the executive Department of Justice, they are reserved to the states. Judge Insaf’s state reserves the right to certify him, through a process of their choosing.

Likewise, Article 12 provides the right of Judge Insaf’s state to assess for themselves whether Judge Insaf can impartially uphold the duties of a judicial officer, whilst simultaneously serving in the federal government. Should an explicit conflict of interest arise, in which Judge Insaf’s court receives a case pertaining to Judge Insaf’s federal position, Judge Insaf would obviously have to recuse himself. However, such is not applicable for every case.

Lastly, when the Constitution finds two positions incompatible, it explicitly says so. Article 28 indicates that: “No member of Congress may concurrently serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court”. Such is not applicable with a state judicial office and a federal Cabinet position.

Simply put, the petitioner’s stance relies on his own personal beliefs on what impartiality means, rather than its definitions. The Constitution provides no explicit prohibition on state judges possessing Cabinet positions, thus meaning it is up to Arcadia. In crafting their verdict, the Republic urges this Supreme Court to recognize that all philosophies regarding impartiality carry weight, and not the petitioner’s alone.

With this, may the Court exert their own impartiality by refusing to treat the petitioner’s philosophy as Constitutional text.