Posted on 02/19/2019 7:47:17 PM PST by veracious
Why do We-The-People and DC, not obey USA law regarding SCOTUS original jurisdiction in current crucial Federal court proceedings? SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, when a State is a party in a court proceeding against DC law.
Original jurisdiction means _only_ jurisdiction. No other court has authority to hear, much less decide the case.
Article 3, 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.”
Further, it appears obvious at law and by reason that the only element of US Judiciary which is an equal governmental branch to POTUS and Congress, is SCOTUS. This because SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress are created by USConstitution. Lower Judicial (Federal) courts are created by Congress. Congress cannot create something which is higher than itself or POTUS.
Additionally, SCOTUS is not above POTUS or Congress. SCOTUS is allowed to adjudicate law, created by Congress; it is equal to Congress. Pure disagreements between equal branches of US government have limited remedies. Congress may defund operation or impeach either POTUS, or Judiciary officers. Why We-The-People, Congress and POTUS have allowed Judicial supremacy is a matter which must be reconsidered. Or USA will _never_ recover it's representative Republic again. Never.
The courts have no say in emergency declarations. Think about how you run an emergency by judicial fiat instead of by one person the commander-in-chief. The US codes says the recourse to check and balance the presidential power for Emer Dec is by joint resolution of congress. Not law suit.
More soon
Familiar with USSC decisions on emergence. However the NEA was passed in 1976 and proscribes a joint resolution of congress to overturn the president’s declaration. Not a law suit.
This is why Trump should declare that the judiciary has no say in the response to national emergency. The code below gives congress the responsibility for checks and balances on emergency declarations. They can overrule with joint resolution.
You can’t ensure national security when your response is subject to judicial fiat of 1 or 3 judges.
Cal announced they will file a suit against the declaration. The governor says it interferes with their drug interdiction program (LOL),
no standing for a court or state to over turn an emergency decree. Only congress. But Trump’s stamens this morning indicates he will go through the court process possibly delaying construction till he loses the election.
The court should spank Pelosi and send her back to the house without supper. Below is her recourse.
If he cannot build more than 55 miles, he will not be re-elected.
The president should put the court on notice that they have no standing in national emergencies. The check and balance on the president’s emergency powers is the congress. You can’t respond to emergencies when any judge can overrule your actions.
The congress can terminate a president’s emergency declaration. THAT is the check and balance on presidential power. Trump should tell the court, you have no jurisdictions for emergencies. The country cannot respond to emergencies on the basis of judicial fiat.
HERE IS SOME INFO.
What the Law Does
The NEA authorizes the president to declare a national emergency, which declaration activates emergency powers contained in other federal statutes.3 During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, the president’s declaration of a national emergency under the NEA, coupled with the HHS secretary’s prior determination of a public health emergency under Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), permitted the activation of Social Security Act (SSA) Section 1135 waiver authorities. (See Figure A for the text of the 2009 H1N1 NEA declaration.)
How the Law Works
The NEA does not provide any specific emergency authority on its own, but relies on emergency authorities provided in other statutes. A national emergency declaration allows for the activation of these other statutory authorities. Emergency statutory provisions are not activated automatically, however; they must be specifically identified in the president’s declaration before these authorities may be given effect.
Declaration
NEA Section 201 authorizes the president to declare a national emergency. The proclamation of a national emergency must be immediately transmitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register.1,2 Under NEA Section 301, statutory emergency authorities enabled by the national emergency declaration cannot be exercised until the president specifies the provisions of law under which the president or other officials will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration or in subsequent Executive Orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to Congress.
Termination
A national emergency can be terminated if the president issues a proclamation or if Congress enacts a joint resolution terminating the emergency. A national emergency will terminate automatically upon the anniversary of the proclamation unless the president renews the proclamation by transmitting notice to Congress within a 90-day period prior to the anniversary date and publishing it in the Federal Register.
Immunity and Liability Issues
The national emergency provisions of the NEA do not address liability issues or provide any immunity. The act could be used to activate emergency authorities in other federal statutes that provide immunity during emergency events.
How the Law Affects States
National emergency declarations under the NEA can impact states through the federal statutory emergency authorities activated once the NEA declaration is made. The most recent example of this effect was the activation of SSA Section 1135 waiver authority during the H1N1 influenza pandemic.
FIGURE A
DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2009 H1N1 INFLUENZA PANDEMIC
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
October 24, 2009
“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and consistent with section 1135 of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5), do hereby find and proclaim that, given that the rapid increase in illness across the Nation may overburden health care resources and that the temporary waiver of certain standard Federal requirements may be warranted in order to enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States constitutes a national emergency. Accordingly, I hereby declare that the Secretary may exercise the authority under section 1135 of the SSA to temporarily waive or modify certain requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance programs and of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule throughout the duration of the public health emergency declared in response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. In exercising this authority, the Secretary shall provide certification and advance written notice to the Congress as required by section 1135(d) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320b-5(d)).”4
from lexisnexis
A joint resolution, H.J. Res. or S.J. Res., is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both Chambers and the signature of the President, just as a bill does, in order to have the force of law.
Joint resolutions from each House are assigned a number in the order in which they are introduced. Joint resolutions may be introduced in either Chamber and generally are used for limited matters such as continuing or emergency appropriations or the designation of a commemorative holiday.
There is little practical difference between bills and joint resolutions, although only a joint resolution may be used to propose amendments to the Constitution. In the case of a Constitutional amendment, the signature of the President is not required, but three-quarters of the states must ratify the proposed amendment before it can become part of the Constitution.
Prior to the 77th Congress (1941), laws enacted by joint resolutions were numbered separately from bills in the Statutes at Large, but since that time there has been no distinction made between laws that were introduced as bills and laws that were introduced as joint resolutions.
veracious, your question is delicious.
Yes. It is called a write of mandamus.
the tasty stuff just keeps coming. Thanks.
Isn’t this why stuff decided at the state level is still subject to the scotus?
Sure would be great if our Constitution was followed as written.
Ping.
I agree, except there is nothing equal about the branches. The judiciary, the unelected branch, should be the weakest. Instead, they’re the final arbiter on every matter under the sun.
They can vacate it. It hasn’t been done for any of the unconstitutional injunctions affecting Trump because John Roberts is a compromised ball gargler. A step and fetch it boy for the radical left.
Does SCOTUS have the right (or gave themselves the right) to delegate cases to the Circuit Courts? Ultimately they still have the right to judicial review...
Are you certain that Joint Resolution by Congress can undo an Emergency Declaration? You may be right I don’t know the code and IANAL, but it was my impression that Congress passed the law enabling POTUS to declare emergency, and that they cannot go and ‘claw back’ these powers at their whim. They would need to amend the law entirely, which would require POTUS’ signature or a veto-proof majority in Congress.
They should certainly not have any say in a dispute between the Executive and Congress. Though that is not what is going on here exactly, and I am sure the ED will be challenged on the basis of various actions violating other laws (such destroying the habitat of a protected and endangered species etc)... but insofar as the powers Congress gave to POTUS, imo SCOTUS really has little to say on the matter. Either he has the power or not as per the statute. Any limitation tht SCOTUS tried to imposed on POTUS now would of course apply to any and all future POTUS and that would more or less violate the intent if not the text of the Emergency Powers Act itself and lead to litigation of every future ED.
Congress can abolish the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can not abolish Congress, but they apparently can thwart them easily enough.
Why he needed a law from Congress(declaring a national emergency) is anyone’s guess. The POTUS has the plenary power under the Constitution to secure our borders. And none of the other idiot enviro laws, etc supersede the POTUS’ authority over national security.
This nonsense is a recent aberration, I don't know exactly when but I remember when District Judges decisions only applied to their district.
They have whatever say they can get away with. I said from the very beginning with the Hawaii or Oregon judge first tied up the President, he should inform them they have no authority in the matter. Bath House lawyers here were offended that The President might actually recover his rightful powers under the Constitution.
I would guess POTUS needed a law from Congress in order to reallocate funds to an Emergency. He has the obligation to defend the country but that could be limited to temporary actions like troop deployments. To move the funds as he intends from the DEA, DoD etc to private contractors for a special (and related) purpose, I presume the office of the POTUS needed the National Emergencies Act.
If America had a congress as institutionally proud as our Framers intended, federal district courts wouldn’t stop President Trump at nearly every turn. Our system wasn’t designed for a complacent and neutered legislature that stands by and watches judicial usurpations and tyranny. On the contrary, the legislative power is the very essence of representative government and is in fact, superior in this sense to the other branches. When diminished, the executive (rule of one) or the judiciary (rule of the few) are sure to step in and fill the vacuum.
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.