Opening Statement:

The Republic of Krameria is not currently in violation of its current Constitution. Although the authority of Governors does not derive from the President of Krameria, and although the power to appoint Governors is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the President’s ability to appoint the Governor of Fortitude, in this isolated instance, is fully in accordance with the Constitution, when considering the President’s responsibility. As a result, the part of Executive Order 1436 which is still in effect must remain in effect.

Subject of Dispute - Governor of Fortitude:

Firstly, before we discuss the President’s responsibility, let us first discuss Section 3 of Executive Order 1436. This contains a severability clause, stating “Should any part of this order be duly declared unlawful or unconstitutional in the courts, all other parts of the order shall remain in effect.” Therefore, even if part of the Order is unconstitutional, the remainder would still be in effect.

Additionally, upon learning that Arcadia possessed a legitimate Governor, President Hersey repealed Section 2(1) of Executive Order 1436, via Executive Order 1437.

Therefore, the Republic will not address the Constitutionality of the Arcadian appointment. We fully acknowledge that it was unconstitutional, and that Governor Auguste Chineva Phoenix-Hersey is the fully legitimate Governor of Arcadia, as per the Constitution of the Republic. Although Governor Phoenix-Hersey does not derive their authority from Executive Order 1437, such is the document which acknowledges what is already true: That they are the rightful Governor.

Rather, the Republic will solely defend the portion of Executive Order 1436 which appoints the individual known as “AKA” as Governor of Fortitude. Such was not only the President’s prerogative, but his responsibility. This responsibility comes from the fact that the Constitution mandates all states to possess a democratic and participatory government, and that it is the President’s responsibility to enforce what the Constitution mandates.

Constitutional Requirements for States:

In the Republic of Krameria, all states must possess two characteristics: They must possess a democratic form of government and they must possess avenues for political participation.

The mandate for state-level democracy derives from Articles 6 and 10 of the Constitution. Article 6 indicates that “Any existing state [must] demonstrate functional democratic governance”. Meanwhile, Article 10 indicates that “Each and every state of Krameria shall be guaranteed a democratic form of government that allows the people of the state thereof to elect its officers, its laws, or both”. In short, democracy is mandated.

Likewise, the mandate for political participation derives from Article 6, which states that “Any existing state [must] demonstrate…active political participation”. According to Oxford Languages, “active” is defined as “pursuing an occupation or activity at a particular place or in a particular way”. Therefore, “active political participation” means that states must possess systemic particularities which allow their residents to “[pursue] an occupation or activity”. With this in mind, in order for individuals to have the ability of this pursuit, there must be government positions which allow them to do so. After all, the Constitution mandates “active political participation”. Meaning, individuals need positions which allow them to engage in politics. Fortitude could have a lovely public square for people to talk in, and that would qualify as “active participation”. However, because a public square is not political, it does not fulfill the requirements for states.

The respondent may allege that the requirements of Article 6 only apply to entities which have not gained statehood, and that once a political entity is a Kramerian state, it is no longer bound to the article. However, this is not stated by the Constitution, nor is it a principle this Court should adopt. If these are the standards we have for new states (as mandated by the Constitution), are they not also the standards for old states? Of course, a state would not lose its statehood status in Krameria as a result of violating these standards. Which is why instead of expelling them (which Article 8 prohibits), the Republic must take measures to help its states obey the requirements.

In short, states have mandates from the Constitution that they must obey. And because they cannot be expelled, the federal government must enforce the Constitution to have them do this.

Fortitude’s Lack of Adherence:

Now that we’ve established the Constitutional obligations of states, let us now examine how well Fortitude engaged with these obligations. Simply put, they did not.

According to a sworn affidavit from an eye-witness, President James William Lucas Hersey IV, “Fortitude currently has 0 government officials”. Meaning, the Fortitude government was entirely vacant when Executive Order 1436 was issued. And if Executive Order 1436 were to be declared entirely unconstitutional, it would have “0 government officials” in the present.

The condition is a direct violation of Article 6 and Article 10 of the Constitution.

With no government officials (or systemic equivalent in place of government officials, such as something akin to the Latome Peer), Fortitude cannot operate democratically; it cannot operate at all. Thus, the Fortitude people’s will cannot be done. Thus, this is a Constitutional violation which must be rectified.

Alongside this, “0 government officials” means that Fortitude lacks “active political participation”. Thus, as explained earlier, this is an additional Constitutional violation.

In short, Fortitude’s condition violates our current Constitution. It must be rectified by the entity which enforces the Constitution.