RESPONDENT’S SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
• Overview: The Organizational Challenge filed by Joshua Snead presents two
questions for the Constitutional Council to consider: 1) does the Petitioner have
standing and 2) is the Challenge ripe for review?
• Standing: Under the Constitutional Codes (“the Codes”), the first question the
Constitutional Council must address is whether the Petitioner has standing. If the
Council determines that the Petitioner does not have standing, the Challenge will
be dropped. In this case, the Petitioner must prove that his Constitutional rights
may have been violated.
The Petitioner claims that Student Government violated two parts of the
Constitution of Student Government:
1. the Senate shall enact Constitutional Codes, and
2. the Student Body President shall uphold those Constitutional Codes.
The Petitioner failed to prove that Senate did not uphold its duty to enact or pass
Constitutional Codes. In fact, neither party claims that Senate did not pass Section
700.00 of the Codes.
The Petitioner also failed to prove that the President violated his duty to uphold
Section 700.00 of the Codes. The Petitioner did not demonstrate any action made
by the President that contradicted section 700.00 of the Codes, nor did he
demonstrate any action required by the Codes that the President failed to take.
Therefore, because the Petitioner did not prove that the Senate did not pass the
Codes or that any action of the President violated his Constitutional duty to
uphold the Codes, the Petitioner failed to prove standing, and this Challenge
should be dropped.
• Ripeness: Ripeness refers to a case’s readiness to be heard. This Organizational
Challenge is not ready to be heard by the Constitutional Council, because the
Petitioner claims he has suffered a harm that has not occurred yet. Student
Organizations have not been “denied the representation the Codes require.”
In a meeting on Friday, August 30, 2013, the Petitioner asked the Student Body
President to create a House of Delegates in thirty days, and the President agreed
to have a first meeting of the House of Delegates within thirty days. The
Petitioner then emailed the President, again requesting that the first meeting of the
House of Delegates take place within thirty days. However, although the
President set to work, planning a first meeting of House of Delegates over Labor
Day Weekend, the Petitioner filed his Challenge less than one business day later
on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 (See Addenda A-D to the Respondent’s Brief).
In short, the President verbally responded to the Petitioner’s request and agreed to
have a first meeting of the House of Delegates in thirty days. Although the
Petitioner gave Student Government thirty days to carry out his request, he filed a
Challenge less than one business day later, before Student Government could
email the Petitioner back or take any other action to create the House of
Delegates. As such, the harm the Petitioner claims has not occurred yet, and this
Challenge is not ready to be heard by the Constitutional Council.
To view the official Organizational Challenge Respondent Brief click here.