Posted on 12/21/2010 2:49:59 PM PST by JOHN W K
The facts are as follows.
Our Constitution reads:
ARTICLE 3
SECTION 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
SECTION 2
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
In fact, a State is Party in the case in question, and as such, the Constitution commands that the “supreme Court shallhave original Jurisdiction”, which means “shall“, not should, or maybe, but "shall" have original jurisdiction and not an inferior Court created by Congress. District courts are inferior courts created by Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartypatriots.ning.com ...
Our Constitution reads:
ARTICLE 3
SECTION 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
SECTION 2
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
In fact, a State is Party in the case in question, and as such, the Constitution commands that the “supreme Court shallhave original Jurisdiction”, which means “shall“, not should, or maybe, but "shall" have original jurisdiction and not an inferior Court created by Congress. District courts are inferior courts created by Congress.
The meaning of "original jurisdiction" is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance, and “shall“, as used in “the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” preempts another tribunal, such as the inferior district courts created by Congress, from assuming the case in the first instance.
In addition, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:
Hamilton says:
“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”
And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: Supreme court, original jurisdiction (scroll to bottom of page) we find:
"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."
In fact, by the wording of our Constitution, the Supreme Court and not the inferior courts created by Congress such as federal district courts, has original jurisdiction over the Obamacare case and the Obama Administration is obstructing justice!
SEE: Justice Dept. says it won't fast-track health-care appeal
“WASHINGTON - The Justice Department said Tuesday that it would appeal a federal judge's ruling declaring part of President Obama's health-care overhaul unconstitutional, but it rejected suggestions to take the appeal straight to the Supreme Court.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the suit decided Monday by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond, urged the administration to ask the high court to directly accept an appeal, as did Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell….”
Bottom line is, Obama is delaying the case to insure enough people become dependent upon those provisions of Obamacare which have already taken effect so the Court will then have the excuse that overturning Obamacare would cause undue hardships among the people and disrupt the economy.
Justice delayed is justice denied and Obama is interfering with the case being decided in a timely manner in the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction over cases in which a State is party!
JWK
Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE majority vote in Congress!
The precedent for getting standing and bringing a case directly to the United States Supreme Court upon Original Jurisdiction is the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. (1 Crunch) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, “If a persons duty is backed by law and not by political in nature, then he becomes subject of the law and is examinable by the court.”
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
Marbury was a case involving a minor public minister. The case against Barrack Hussein Obama involves all “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” of the United States and of all foreign nations with diplomatic status with the United States. Furthermore, the case against Barrack Hussein Obama involves all States of the United States as parties.
As in Marbury, We the People shall prosecute our cases against Barrack Hussein Obama petitioning the United States Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus compelling Barrack Hussein Obama to abide by the Constitutional Contract that he entered into with We the People on January 20, 2009 and uphold his Oath to abide by the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States of America.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/07/taking-aka-obama-directly-before-scotus.html
ping
I appreciate your response. In answer, I would like to pass along one of the most important things I was taught when studying constitutional law. Our Constitution is the “precedent”, and thus, when questions arise concerning what our Constitution means, they are best settled by a careful research of the debates during which time our Constitution was being framed and ratified in order to document the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
Indeed, this happens to be the most fundamental rule of constitutional law and was summarized by Jefferson in the following words:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
It should also be noted that this very rule is contemporarily summarized in the following words:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”--- numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Aside from confronting the Washington Establishment and compelling it to abide by our written Constitution, I believe a primary goal of ours ought to educating the people to the fundamental rules of constitutional law, which are no longer taught in our government schools or universities. Rather, our younger generation is taught to study case law and then apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, we have an awful lot of work to do!
Regards,
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
We have an Executive and a Legislative branch run amuck. When coupled with a preponderance of Supremes who similarly exchew original intent can there be any hope of maintaining Constitutional government?
Yes, if the people insist upon it and hold their representatives and appointed Supremes in contempt of the Constitution. Representative government can not stand if it is in conflict with the will of the people.
How, then, shall the people require their representatives to follow the mandates of the law? If a spirit of rebellion against tyrannical officialdom gains sufficient ground among citizens for their representatives to be held in contempt and their mandates be ignored or openly rejected those representatives will have no legitimate recourse but to resign from their elected or appointed positions. To do otherwise such as by enforcing hateful mandates makes of them enemies of the people. We are perilously close to this impasse.
Both the Executive and the Legislative bodies are held in absolute contempt by a substantial segment of citizens. Their response to date is to insist upon their absolute authority. Such a position cannot prevail.
Elections are not the only recourse of citizens. They may, if they so choose, demand that their representatives demure or step aside.
Acts of civil disobedience in which citizens in vast numbers refuse to respect odious laws creates an environment inimical to normal government. Antagonistic officials may, if they choose, establish martial law. Such actions amount to a declaration of war against the citizens. This must lead to bloodshed.
We are not yet at that point. That a civil war is brewing is not in question. What remains is for officialdom to acknowledge their obedience to the demands of the citizens. their failure to do so will not end well.
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”-— numerous citations omitted, Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
Aside from confronting the Washington Establishment and compelling it to abide by our written Constitution, I believe a primary goal of ours ought to educating the people to the fundamental rules of constitutional law, which are no longer taught in our government schools or universities. Rather, our younger generation is taught to study case law and then apply “precedent” as set by our Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, we have an awful lot of work to do!
Regards,
JWK
“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.” ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
4 posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:57:27 PM by JOHN W K
Shucks you don't expect the nine Black Robed tyrants to have actually read the constitution do you? If they had why would they not demand their case?
Unless of course they actually approve of this power grab by the President.
Shucks you don't expect the nine Black Robed tyrants to have actually read the constitution do you? If they had why would they not demand their case?
Unless of course they actually approve of this power grab by the President.
Since our federal Constitution grants jurisdiction to “one supreme Court” in cases in which a “State shall be Party“, and since Congress is not clothed with authority to arbitrarily amend our Constitution and vest a power granted by our Constitution to “one supreme Court” in an inferior court which Congress may create and ordain, why are the State AG’s who are challenging Obamacare arguing in an inferior federal district court created by Congress which is incompetent to hear the case as the supreme Court, and only the supreme Court has original jurisdiction in the case? SEE: SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U. S. 393 (1856)
“The Circuit Court can give no judgment for plaintiff or defendant in a case where it has not jurisdiction, no matter whether there be a plea in abatement or not. And unless it appears upon the face of the record, when brought here by writ of error, that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, the judgment must be reversed.”
JWK
America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the circumvention of the protections of our judicial system; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives
Original jurisdiction does not equate to exclusive jurisdiction.
In addition, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:
Hamilton says:
“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”
And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: Supreme court, original jurisdiction (scroll to bottom of page) we find:
"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."
JWK
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.