Arthur Blanc vs the people of Charlemont

Appellant

National Front

Filed

Sept. 25, 2023

Decided

Dec. 14, 2023

The case

The appellant's argument, then every party's submission, oldest first. Submissions are advisory: the justices read them, they do not count as votes.

1. Blue Labour Oppose · 18 Sep 2026, 5:43 a.m.

   This is a witch hunt, GLM hae never acted unconstitutionally. This is a disgraceful sham and undemocratic.

2. Charlemont Rise Up ! Support · 18 Sep 2026, 5:55 a.m.

   The presidential veto is being used without limit and without any checks and balances! Abuse of power!!!!

3. Progressive Front Oppose · 18 Sep 2026, 9:16 a.m.

   This is another example of NF acting undemocratically. They should be the ones on trial here.

4. Green-left Movement Oppose · 18 Sep 2026, 9:26 a.m.

   This case is a political witch hunt dressed up as a constitutional challenge. Article XV guarantees equality regardless of religion or belief, but it also explicitly declares: “Charlemont shall be a secular state. No religion shall be established as a state religion.” Supporting religious neutrality in public institutions did not strip anyone of equality, freedom of belief, or the right to practise their religion.
   
   Nor is opposing expanded fossil-fuel extraction or unregulated AI development unconstitutional. GLM voted to protect the environment, workers threatened by displacement, and the public interest—legitimate policy choices, not impeachable offences. Allegations of ties to foreign extremists are unsupported by any evidence presented here.
   
   President Arthur Blanc was elected through a democratic election. Political disagreement with his programme—and the National Front’s repeated electoral defeats—cannot be transformed into grounds for impeachment or a ban from public office.

5. ALAYON Support · 20 Sep 2026, 3:12 a.m.

   ALAYON hereby files this Manifestation of Support for the appeal submitted by the National Front, respectfully stating that:
   
   1. Constitutional Alignment: The Green-Left Movement’s (GLM) support for banning religious symbols in public institutions infringes upon Article XV’s guarantee that all citizens shall be equal before the law regardless of religion or belief. Permitting citizens to wear religious expression promotes equal treatment rather than state establishment of religion. 
   
   2. National Security & Integrity: The serious allegations regarding foreign interference and alignment with hostile external entities warrant immediate judicial scrutiny and investigation to protect institutional integrity. 
   
   WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court take note of this support for the Appellant’s prayer to uphold equal constitutional protection, investigate foreign ties, and hold accountable parties acting against the constitution.

The bench

Each justice's vote and reasoning, published under their seat number. The court never reveals who sits on it.

• Justice #2 Did not vote
• Justice #3 Recused
• Justice #4 Did not vote
• Justice #5 Deny

  This appeal fails for two independent reasons, either of which is sufficient to deny it.
  
  First, it targets the wrong office. This is filed as a case against the Presidency, whose current holder is Rémi Garnier of Charlemont Rise Up!, and the remedy available on such an appeal — removal from office, a permanent bar, and a fresh election — runs against that office holder. Yet not one factual allegation in the case text concerns President Garnier or any act of the Presidency under Article III (Head of the Police, Martial Law, Appointment of Judges). Every allegation concerns Arthur Blanc and the Green-Left Movement's conduct as a party in the National Assembly. A court cannot remove a President for the acts of a rival party's leader in a different branch of government. On the pleadings as filed, the appeal simply does not make out a case against its own target.
  
  Second, even read charitably as a challenge to GLM's conduct, it states no constitutional violation. Article XV provides both that citizens are equal before the law regardless of religion and that Charlemont "shall be a secular state" in which "no religion shall be established." A vote for religious neutrality in public institutions enforces the latter clause; it does not offend the former, since neutral treatment of all citizens by public officials is the essence of equality before the law, not a departure from it. GLM's own submission — that neutrality "doesn't discriminate" — sits comfortably within Article XV as written. Opposition to fossil-fuel expansion and to unregulated AI development are ordinary legislative choices entrusted to the National Assembly under Article VII; disagreeing with them is politics, not illegality. The suggestion of foreign interference rests on speculation about a foreign regime's past statements, with no evidentiary link to GLM offered in any pleading; unsupported suspicion cannot ground removal from office, let alone a permanent bar.
  
  As several parties note, this appeal reads as a challenge to an electoral rival's legislative program rather than a genuine constitutional claim. The presumption of constitutionality and legality stands unrebutted. The appeal is DENIED.

• Justice #6 Did not vote