| Von Klue V. House | Case No. SC/CV-09 | | --- | --- |

Majority Opinion delivered by Sempronius Hersey;

1. On the matter of whether the Speaker is within their power to accept the disparately named votes of one candidate, but not of another candidate

To first determine what the Speaker’s blanket power to conduct the Speaker elections, let us first find the relevant provision within the standing rules of procedure of Congress:

“Elections for the Speaker of Congress will be administered by the incumbent Speaker or Deputy Speaker, in channels of congress by written voting”

The term administer is defined as “To manage or supervise the conduct, performance or execution of; to govern or regulate the parameters for the conduct, performance or execution of; to work in an administrative capacity.”. The term manage is defined as “To direct or be in charge of.”. The term lead is defined as “To conduct or direct with authority; to have direction or charge of; to command, especially a military or business unit.”. The term command is defined as “An order to do something.”.

It seems that the standing rules, based on the definitions, grants the Speaker vast powers over the elections of the Speaker, by the virtue of the breadth of the grant. However, the Constitution is above statute, as defined in the Constitution:

“These articles shall hold supremacy over all other laws of the Republic of Krameria, as well as the laws of the several states.”

As such, any grants of powers by laws other than the Constitution, are limited by the Constitution itself, in that they can never contradict the Constitution, as the Constitution’s articles stand supreme over all other laws.

Let us examine a crucial right in this case:

“No law shall provide certain rights, privileges, immunities, or protections to any particular person or persons; provided, that those same rights, privileges, immunities, or protections are not provided to all persons.”

Let us define terms first, as they are crucial to this interpretation. The term provide is defined as “To give what is needed or desired, especially basic needs.”. The term certain is defined as “Particular and definite, but unspecified or unnamed;”. The term privilege is defined as “A particular benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity enjoyed by some but not others; a prerogative, preferential treatment.”.

First, both the terms provide and certain, due to the first defining as need, and the second defining as unspecified, grant this Court the power to establish balancing tests, as the language of the right makes it so that only certain rights, privileges, immunities, and protections, fall under equal protection, and without specifying them, it is the duty of this Court to interpret which are protected under equal protection.

In a strong democracy, it is necessary for elections to be fair and managed equally, without bias or prejudice towards candidates. Therefore, it is necessary for candidates to be granted equal privilege or detriment in equal circumstances, without fear or favor. In a healthy democracy, how is granting one candidate the privilege of having names with disparate spellings of theirs counted as valid, but another candidate’s as invalid, in the spirit of it? How does such an action fall in line with the balancing test established in this opinion? This Court, in its duty, could not possibly find such inequality equal.

1. Judgment

For the foregoing reasons, it is concluded that the Speaker acted unconstitutionally in their act of unequal qualification/disqualification of votes, and the election results are hereby overturned.

If the term has not expired yet, the election results are to be counted again, this time with either equal disqualification, or equal qualification, for the constitutional Speaker to be instated.

It is so ordered