The panel addressed the issue of Congressional “vetting.”
Congress passed the “Rules Enabling Act” giving the Federal Courts power to establish their rules of procedure, which lead to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Federal Rules of Evidence. The Judicial Conference of the U.S. is the policymaking body that presides over changes and additions to the Rules. Congress either ratifies the Rules by inaction or writes specific legislation to enact the Rules they want. (That’s overly simplified for the sake of discussion.)
The Rules exist for good reason and provide a “universal standard” for the Courts to apply in handling cases. However, an important aspect of the Rules Enabling Act is that the procedural rules should/must not “abridge, enlarge, or modify the substantive rights of any litigant.” With so many eligibility cases being filed and subsequently dismissed for lack of standing, it is my humble opinion that the Rules have obstructed a basic right of “The People” to have a grievance addressed and resolved in a forum of last resort. When our elected representation fails or refuses to resolve a political question of such a serious and far-reaching nature, there should be a forum of last resort (i.e. the Courts) for “The People” to be heard. Dismissal based upon standing or lack of jurisdiction is not equivalent to having been heard.
The universal answer from the Legislative and Judicial branches on this issue seems to be “next time, enact proper laws to prevent this conundrum” or “vote them out for ignoring you.” While those answers are appropriate and correct, they leave us with no resolution. That, inandofitself, seems contrary to the basic premise of our legal system.
What can be done to change that? We need to petition the Judicial Conference of the United States to examine the events that took place and enact Rules to establish a forum of last resort for such a serious political question.
I know that FR legal scholars will argue that the Courts do not and should not address issues that fall under the political question doctrine because those issues rightly fall under the authority of elected officials. But when elected officials refuse to act and voting them out after the damage has been done is our only recourse, that’s not a proper remedy.
(Flame away!)
Let me very clear. This case was properly dismissed.
Let me be very clear. This case was properly dismissed.
Interested in your thoughts on post #23. Please be gentle ...
:)
The dismissals in these cases are not based on the Federal Rules, so amending those Rules will not help. The standing doctrine is older than the Rules Enabling Act-- it is based on the courts' intepretation of Article III of the Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases and Controversies," which has been interpreted to mean actual, concrete disputes among parties with standing.
And you think it strictly political. Because of people who think like you we will have a remedy that is political.And when that happens you will indeed wish we had accomplished a legal remedy.You won't much like the political one, IMHO. Now the so called president is refusing to secure our borders as required by the constitution. Obviously his attitude is , "in for a penny, in for a pound!"
So we see a clear continuation if the approach taken to get him qualified.Interesting, huh?
Wonder what his next anti-constitution venture wil be, he seems to have several cooking as we post here.
I think its mind boggling that courts refuse these cases, basically a court could say anything is “political” these days.
There are three tiers of elected officials with jurisdiction:
First, the 538 Electors for President of the United States. 364 of them took a favorable view of Obama's eligibility.
Next, the 535 voting Members of Congress and Senators who met on January 6, 2009 to count the electoral votes and to raise and rule on objections. All 535 had the opportunity to offer objections, all acted by accepting the votes.
Third, the President of the Senate. Obama's certificate of election was signed by Richard Cheney of Wyoming, so he also acted.
All the elected officials with jurisdiction acted in a timely fashion. None refused to act.
They just didn't do what you wanted them to do.