Bureaucrats v. Logan
| Bureaucrats v. Logan | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Presented and Argued: December 18th-December 23rd, 1846 | |||
| Decided: February 19th, 1847 | |||
| Full Name: House of Bureaucrats v. President Samuel Logan | |||
| Case History | |||
| Local Courts | N/A | ||
| State Courts | N/A | ||
| Issue | Creation of Executive Departments | ||
| Council Decision | |||
| Supreme Decider | Sophie Verrecchia | ||
| Associate Supreme Deciders | Justin Verlander, Gus Knickerbocker, Christina Faites, Devin Bryxe, Adam Cook, Franklin Sade | ||
| Opinions | Majority Opinion: Verrecchia, Knickerbocker, Faites, Sade, Cook Minority Opinion: Verlander, Bryxe | ||
| Final Holding | President has the power to establish new executive departments, the House must repeal the decree, and cannot make any more decrees against the President on that topic | ||
| Associated Laws | |||
| Article IV, Bureaucratic Decree of Executive Departments | |||
House of Bureaucrats v. President Samuel Logan (USQSC FF2, 1847), more commonly known as Bureaucrats v. Logan was a case argued by the Supreme Council of the United States of Quentin, eventually concluding that since Article Four of the Quentinian Constitution specifies executive departments are part of the executive branch, and the President of the USQ is the chief executive, that the President should be able to control appointments and the creation of new departments within his Cupboard.
The case was originally brought up in 1846, after President Samuel Logan attempted to add three executive departments and their respective secretaries to his Cupboard. Before this attempted addition, the House of Bureaucrats had added the original three departments to the Cupboard, and disliked the fact that the President was using this power. So, the House passed a resolution to bring a lawsuit against Logan, igniting the case.
Contents
Background
The issue ruled on in the case originally began with the Constitution of the United States of Quentin, which specified in Article IV there would be numerous executive departments, that would assist the President of the USQ in enforcing the law, as well as advising him on their certain topics. The Constitution did specify that the departments would be a part of the executive branch, however did not specify who would have the power to create the departments, or how many there would be. After the Constitution was ratified in 1834, the issue was not dealt with until a year later, when the House of Bureaucrats decided to take matters into their own hands. They established the first three executive departments, the Department of State, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of Professions and Labor. The House allowed the President, who was at the time George Firedawn, to appoint the secretaries to these departments, and President Firedawn seemed to agree with the House's use of power.
However, in 1842 Samuel Logan was elected President, and after evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the executive branch, decided in 1846 to establish three more executive departments, the Department of Nature, the Department of Monuments, and the Department of Infrastructure. This did not go over well with the House of Bureaucrats, as they had established the precedent for that power, and later that year brought up the Act of Executive Department Retention Lawsuit in the House, which passed by a 15-11 margin.
Case Proceedings
The Council first began hearing Bureaucrats v. Logan on December 18th, 1846, and President Logan, along with his team of attorneys and lawyers, argued that since the Constitution specified the departments are under the executive branch, and the President is the chief executive by definition of the Constitution, the President should have control over all executive department creations. They also presented another viewpoint, saying that the House was correct to allow the President to appoint the secretaries to the departments, and that they were actually establishing a precedent by doing so that gave the President control over executive departments.
The argument from the Bureaucratic side was first of all that the precedent matters most in this case, because the Constitution doesn't specify anything on the matter. They also argued that although Logan was correct in saying a precedent was set, it was not the one he was referring to. The legal team for the Bureaucrats gave a scenario, saying that if a precedent was set for the President to make a law on taxes, and later he argued that since that precedent was set, he should have control over all legislation, everyone would say that that power cannot be used. They then compared it to the current scenario, saying that just because a precedent was set for the President to appoint secretaries, it did not mean he could create departments.
Council Decision
Majority Opinion
The majority opinion on the Supreme Council in Logan v. Bureaucrats was led by the Supreme Decider, Sophie Verrecchia, along with most of the Council including Associate Deciders Adam Cook, Christina Faites, Gus Knickerbocker and Franklin Sade. This opinion was that President Logan was correct to challenge the Bureaucratic decree, and in fact the President should have unlimited control over both the number and topic of departments, as long as they stayed within executive power as established by the Constitution, and that the Bureaucratic decree should be repealed immediately. Further, the majority of the majority believed that no decree from Congress should ever be approved that violated these given powers. The citations for this decision was that the Constitution stated the Cupboard and the executive departments are under the executive branch, and since the President is the chief executive, he should have control of all operations and creations of departments. This opinion also stated that since the Constitution is the highest law of the nation, it should be followed more than "mere" legal precedence.
Minority Opinion
The minority opinion was led by Associate Decider Justin Verlander, and Decider Devin Bryxe joined him, although did not agree with some parts of Verlander's opinion. This opinion did agree with the majority opinion that the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, and should be followed more than legal precedence, however did not agree that the Constitution explicitly stated the President should have complete control over department creation. Instead, they cited other sections of the Constitution where certain checks and balances are made, including Supreme Deciders. They said that since Supreme Decider appointments by the President must be approved by the House, it would also be the intent of the Constitution to have in this scenario a check from the House. Verlander and Bryxe disagreed on how to do this, however, with Verlander believing the House should create the departments, and Bryxe believing that the House should only approve department creations, similar to what is actually in place today.
Aftermath and Effects
Public reaction to Bureaucrats v. Logan was mostly positive. The National Political Observer observed that Verrecchia and her Council showed good strength, and that the decisiveness of the ruling was positive. The Mechanicsburg Gazette recognized the division between some members of the Council, however said it was positive to know all opinions could be expressed, and a no-hard-feelings decision could be reached at the end of it all. Some negative opinion came from members of the Fundamentalist Party, and the Butterfield Times dissented to the decision, headlining the article with the title, "Dangerous Precedent Set at Legal Case; President to Become Dictator?" This is generally viewed by historians to be skewed, however, as the Times is known as one of the more biased and Fundamentalist newspapers in the nation.
Today, Logan v. Bureaucrats affects numerous legal decisions and federal powers, including of course the President's ability to create new departments. The precedent Logan v. Bureaucrats set has been changed, however, as now the House of Bureaucrats must approve both a new department creation and secretary appointment, because of Bureaucrats v. Chikes and Executive Branch v. Ravenclaw. Bureaucrats v. Logan is also sometimes cited by law when talking about the importance of legal precedence, because the case's final holding cites that the Constitution and any federal law trumps legal precedence on the federal level.
