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)