Kate Domingo

MEMORANDUM
The STATE, by the undersigned state prosecutor, and in compliance with the Order of
this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its case, and
states:

PREFATORY STATEMENTS
Metahumans and ordinary humans must be treated alike in whatever circumstances,
equal protection of the laws must be strictly applied, and they are the government that
must act and help each other as well as protect each other to attain public peace and
economic development of the country as a whole.
The goal of the government is to provide peaceful life and good environment to all its
citizenry whether metahuman or ordinary human can only become possible by
regulating to protect the public in general.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. The New Warriors, a young group of superhumans were filming a reality show,
and taking down a group of retired villains. Among this group was a mutant who
went by the name Nitro, who was on Mutant Growth Hormones. Nitro used his
powers (generating explosive blasts from his body, his body being ground zero)
and blew up an elementary school in the middle of the day.

2. Since the New Warriors were filming live, millions of viewers saw this catastrophe
unfold on live television.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Superhuman Registration Act (SHRA) which requires the metahumans to
register to have a permit to be a ‘superhero’ and become an employee of the
government constitutional.
Kate Domingo

ARGUMENT/DISCUSSION
In the case at bar, many ordinary human children were put in danger when one of the
metahumans used his powers.

The swift action of the state in regulating the activity of metahumans is called Police
Power. Police Power draws on two principles, “use that which is yours so as to not
injure others”, and “the welfare of the people shall be supreme law”, to justify restriction
of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare. There are certain
constitutional restraints on police power, such as laws must apply equally to all under
like circumstances… government interferences with individual rights must be
‘reasonable’ – they must have a clear relation to some legitimate legislative purpose.
Beyond those outer limits, most courts stayed out of the way of state police power,
another is by limiting the ability of states to infringe upon implied constitutional rights
and by demanding a stricter standard of reasonability, but regulation of the police power
remains fairly minimal. The promulgation of SHRA requiring all metahumans to register
all their personal information with the government affect the rights of an individual when
those rights conflict with the promotion and maintenance of the health, safety, or welfare
of its citizen, such laws “fall within the most traditional concept of the state’s police
power.” Therefore, even in matters where laws takes precedence over those of the
state, the court has decided in favor of the state. The act of the government to require
all metahumans to register their personal information cannot be considered a violation
of privacy, the only purpose of the said law is to regulate all the activities of metahuman.

Although it would seem to be clear impediment to the free exercise of metahumans,

such measure as legitimate police power exercised on behalf of its citizenry. However, if
the statute were intended to discriminate metahuman, rather than to protect, then it is
not a legitimate exercise of police power. Even where the balance of interests may well
lie in favor of the state’s apparent right to enact legislation under its police powers
privilege, the burden on other factors, was found to be too cumbersome a requirement
although it had been enacted on behalf of the safety of its citizens.
Kate Domingo

Periodically, states have had to deal with matters involving private concepts of health in
contention with the public’s health, the private concerns of the parent who may feel that
only he or she has the right to decide what medical treatment the child should have – or
the convictions of a person who feels that medication is an infringement on his or her
religious practice – are matters that do come to state courts from time to time. Again,
the court usually finds that the public’s right to health tends to outweigh private or
individual concerns. In general, the state tends to uphold laws exercising what it
considers bona fide concerns for the public’s well-being which includes metahuman, on
the ground that the legislature has the discretion to discern public need attained by the
imposition in protection of the public interest.

The conservation of private rights is attained by the imposition of a wholesome restraint

upon their exercise, such a restrain as will prevent the infliction of injury upon others in
the enjoyment of them. Although it sounds good to be see some metahuman to
voluntarily assist various law enforcement in the prevention and fighting of crime, still
they are not part of the law enforcement of the state that is ought to maintain public
peace and order as well as to protect life and property, they are not even considered as
an agent of a person of authority. The power of the government to impose this restraint
is called Police Power.

When it comes to the power of the states over their people, the issue has always been
shrouded in doubt. For, though the Constitution provides a list of specific limitations on
state powers along with an enumeration of certain rights, it does not provide any written
list of state powers or even genera; statement as to their scope. In short, the
Constitution is, or at least to some appears to be, all but silent on the question of the
proper scope of what is called the police power of the state. It is good to know that
metahuman also do volunteer as first responders in events of catastrophe or calamity,
but the government must regulate as such, there is a proper government agency that
are mandated by law to attend matters involving public calamities, if the state will allow
metahuman to intervene as a first responder, chaos and conflict is inevitable, therefore
regulation is a must to maintain order.
Kate Domingo

Some have contended tended that the state, being a government of “general powers”,
may do all that is not expressly prohibited by the express provisions of the Constitution.
Others contended that, because governments with unlimited power are a form of
tyranny, some limits to the powers of states must be identified. One response to this is
that state governments are limited, but only by their own state constitutions. Of course,
these are not the only limits on state powers.

Some metahuman prefer to keep their real identities secret and to remain anonymous,
but the state cannot allow this kind of practice, it is the right of the state to know the
identity of all its citizenry, that’s why gathering of personal information is important, the
worst is when a crime committed by a metahuman the identity of such cannot be
determined, justice cannot meet because of the failure of the state to gather information
of these metahumans.

Because this is the law governing lawmaking, those who make the laws that are to
govern the people should not be able to change the laws that govern them. Putting
these laws over the lawmakers in writing serves to lock them in and this “lock in”
function would be defeated if those who make or enforce laws or who interpret the
writing, are free on their own to change it to something different that they prefer. In
short, for a written constitution to perform the principal function for which it is put in form
of writing, its meaning must remain the same until it is properly changed.

And it is improper for it to be changed by the very people it is supposed to bind. Even
though these superhuman perform heroic deeds that benefit the public, still the state
must regulate them, they are not empowered or authorized by the law to protect and
secured the public, there are proper government law enforcement agency that are ought
to do the said task. If the government will not regulate the activities of metahuman, they
will put in their own hands the enforcement of the law in terms of apprehending the
criminals, they will use their extra ordinary powers that an ordinary human do not have,
as what happened in the facts stated that death toll reached to twenty three and
majority of which is children due to violence caused by metahumans.

Police power was sufficient, in a sense, because it sought only to place some sort of
label on the powers that remained with the state. The police power was what the states
Kate Domingo

had left when such determinations had been made. It did not make even the most basic
conceptual distinctions among the fundamental types of governmental power; and so
defining the police power as coextensive with sovereignty meant that police subsumed
the powers of taxation and eminent domain. Regulation is the sources of state authority
in its exercise of sovereign power, government must take care of people which includes
the general welfare, safety, and health of its citizenry, regulating superhuman is one of
these, by maintaining a database of records of all these metahumans and limiting the
performance of their activities according to their special skills that directly affects third
person only upon approval by the governing board is a great measure to regulate them.

The state must weigh the legitimacy of a regulatory law even if clearly not beyond the
bounds set by the rules against state constitutional limitations such as those prohibiting
taking without just compensation. The police power challenged head-on any efforts to
tame it and bring it within bounds. Yet, while it was “not easy to mark boundaries, or
prescribe limits to its exercise,” the police power must be acknowledged as superior in
some reasoned way to private rights and claims.

As “a settled principle, growing out of the nature of well-ordered civil society.” The police
power belonging to the states, in virtue of their general sovereignty. The concept of
“rights of the public,” “the expediency and necessity of defining and securing the rights
of the public,” and elsewhere on “the acknowledged public right.” The police power
doctrine was the specification of positive purposes, more detailed than the public good
or “rights of the public” broadly stated, for which the power would justify regulatory
legislation.

Early efforts at specification along these lines, before reformulated the whole issue, had
tended simply to codify the common law. Here again, the arsenal of the common law
held an instrument potentially powerful – the principle salus populi suprema lex (the
welfare of the people is supreme to law), which in the 17 th and 18th centuries in England
had often been invoked to assert the plenary powers of the Parliament restricted only by
the accumulated constitutional liberties. Declared that “the general comfort, health, and
prosperity of the State” warranted state regulatory powers on the same basis of power.