In the
Supreme Court of the
Undergraduate Student
Government
THE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT GOVERNMENT AT
STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY,
Petitioners,
v.
DANIEL A. GRABER
Respondent.
BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT
Daniel A. Graber, Alexander E. Dimitriyadi, Moiz Khan Malik
Advocates
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1) Whether the Executive Council has the power to establish alternate disciplinary
actions against a Senator in lieu of impeachment.
2) Whether the Executive Council has the constitutional and statutory authority to
establish policy on the Legislative Branch.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Following the Senate Meeting on the fifth of November two thousand and nine,
Senator Graber posted a pornographic image on the background of a computer located in
the Senate Office. The following day, the image was discovered and removed by
Mashouf Khorramabadi, the Special Services Council Chair. This incident was reported
to Community Standards of the Student Affairs Department. On the twentieth of
November two thousand and nine, the Executive Council drafted a contract that was
signed by the entire Executive Council as well as Senator Graber that outlined alternative
requirements that must be fulfilled in lieu of impeachment. On the fifth of march two
thousand and ten, the Executive Council voted to impeach Senator Graber.
ARGUMENT
I.
In considering whether the Executive Council has the power to establish alternate
disciplinary actions against a Senator in lieu of impeachment, the Court must consider the
constitutional and statutory methods of disciplinary action against elected Officials.
Given that the USG Constitution only lists one method of disciplinary action,
impeachment, we see that the intent of the framers was to prevent elected Officials from
being punished on the basis of political motivation and only when warranted. As we see
in Kendall v. United States, Justice Thompson stated, “The executive power is vested in a
President, and, as far as his powers are derived from the Constitution, he is beyond the
reach of any other department except in the mode prescribed by the Constitution through
the impeaching power.” As Senators of the USG derive their power from the USG
Constitution likewise to the President in the aforementioned ruling, Senators would be
subject only to disciplinary action through impeachment as detailed in Article VIII,
Section 2 of the USG Constitution.
The contract that was created by the petitioner established several requirements
for the respondent, which upon his completion would guarantee immunity in that the
Executive Council would not move for an impeachment against him. If the Executive
Council felt that the respondent violated the Constitution at the time of the incident and
was eligible for impeachment, then they should have impeached him at that time. By
establishing a contract with lesser requirements, the Executive Council has demonstrated
that they did not feel impeachment was necessary. If the Court were to decide in favor of
allowing such contracts, it would set a precedence that would increase the frequency of
unjustified disciplinary actions against elected Officials because of the ability to issue
sanctions that were less severe than impeachment. This ability would go against the
intent of the framers, which explicitly stated in Article VIII, Section 2.C. “Senate
members may be impeached and removed for material violations of this constitution,
legislation, or policies or procedures of the Undergraduate Student Government, or a
wrongful act of substance.” The circumstances for which Senators may be impeached in
the mentioned sub-section encompass all situations in which actions would require a
Senator to face disciplinary action, and the establishment of additional measures of action
is unwarranted.
II.
In considering whether the Executive Council has the power to establish policy on
the Legislative Branch, the Court must consider the constitutional separation of powers
between the branches of government. This Separation of power is outlined in Article II,
Section 2.A. of the USG Constitution, which states, “The Undergraduate Student
Government shall be comprised of the Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch, and a
Judicial Branch.” The intent of the framers was to establish three branches of
government that would maintain a system of checks and balances. Additionally the Court
must consider Section 4.1 of the Checks and Balances Act, which was in effect at the
time when this contract was created, stated, “The branches of government shall be
separate.” Lastly, the Court must also consider a ruling that was issued in the matters of
this trial, which was rejection for the motion for continuance made by the respondent.
The Court ruled that the Senate was violating the separations of powers by establishing
the Bylaws of the USG Judiciary, which would inherently combine the branches of
government.
With the Separation of Powers in the USG, the Court must consider the role of the
Executive Council as outlined by the USG Constitution. Article IV, Section C.1 of the
USG Constitution states “The primary role of the Senate is promulgate legislation
beneficial to and in the best interest of the University’s Student population, and to work
closely with the Executive Council to ensure that legislation is properly implemented.”
The intent of the framers was that the role of the Executive Council was to implement
and follow the laws enacted by the Legislative Branch of the USG. In the contract
between the petitioner and the respondent, we must consider that the intent of the
Executive Council was to establish policy on the Legislative Branch. One of the terms in
the agreement was for the respondent to plan a sexual harassment seminar, which would
be mandatory for all members of the USG. However, no legislation that the USG Senate
has passed requires any training for these purposes. If the court were to rule in favor of
the impeachment of Senator Graber, they would be setting the precedent that the
Executive Council can create policy over the Legislative Branch of government thereby
removing the separation of powers.
CONCLUSION
The actions of the Executive Council have been illegal and broken the provisions
provided in the USG Constitution for disciplinary action against a member of another
branch of government. If the Executive Council felt that a “wrongful act of substance”
was committed, then the Constitution provides them one method of disciplinary action,
impeachment. The fact that the Executive Council had chosen at the time to instead
establish alternative requirements instead of impeachment shows that they not feel
impeachment was truly necessary. If the Supreme Court is to rule in favor of this
impeachment, they will have set two precedents that will lead to an unstable government
in the future. This Contract gave the ability for one branch of government to grant
immunity to a member in another branch thereby resolving them of the actions that they
had committed. One could foresee that this ability may cause agreements between
members of our government that will absolve them of any illegal actions that may have
committed. Additionally, this document also infringes on the Separation of powers
established in our Constitution by granting the Executive Council the ability to enforce
policy on another branch of government. Lastly, the Senate of the USG passed a force
resolution by a vote of 12-1-4 against the Executive Branch at the Senate meeting on the
twenty third of March, stating that the aforementioned actions violated the Constitution.
For the above reasons, the Court must protect the stability of our government vote and
against the removal from office of Senator Graber.