Posted on 11/11/2021 3:16:24 PM PST by hsmomx3
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a bid by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich to block President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees and contractors.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, said he was not buying arguments that it’s illegal for the president to impose such a mandate when he is not requiring the same of people entering the country illegally.
Liburdi, a Trump appointee, suggested he was not convinced Biden’s mandate forces anyone to do anything or that anyone’s rights of “bodily integrity” were being violated — something Brnovich argued.
That man doesn’t even know how to spell Liberty.
I make no assertion that this is valid, but merely what the Supreme Court itself holds regarding original jurisdiction:
Original jurisdiction consists of the RIGHT to hear a case first, not the NECESSITY. The necessity is called Exclusive Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court delegates to these lower federal courts the jurisdiction which it originally holds.
As expressed by STATUTE (which of course is invalid if not constitutional, so this is only an expression of how the law is interpreted, not proof of the validity of this interpretation):
(a)The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b)The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1)All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2)All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3)All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
“...it’s illegal for the president to impose such a mandate when he is not requiring the same of people entering the country illegally.”
Apples and bowling balls. When Brandon mandates the experimental shot to all US citizens, THEN he may have a case.
The good news is now that the borders are open to non essentials they can claim they shouldn’t be required since Illegals are not.
I already know all that and that is the problem, the States which CREATED the Federal Government need to buck the system and start Demanding the US Constitution be Followed to the Letter.
If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case in Original Jurisdiction, then the State has every Right to disregard any other inferior court.
I don’t care what a bunch of scumbag lawyers think the definition of is is, and neither should anyone else, especially the States. The only way to make this a success would be for a Governor or group of Governors to start Making it Happen, quote the constitution and encourage the masses to get a copy and READ IT THEMSELVES,.Push the Issue NONSTOP and it will change
We the People decide the what the Constitution says and means, that’s why it is written in PLAIN ENGLISH and not a bunch of lawyereze, and We the People decide what the definition of is is.
I think Trump could do it if he took it up
Excellent point.
He only had bad, badder and baddest choices to make. And, after all, they’re all lawyers.
The thing is that the sheer number of cases the federal court is responsible for is overwhelming, as the U.S. is now 80 times more populous than it once was. But delegating that authority is hardly prohibited:
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.
Keep in mind, “original” means the ORIGIN of something. It suggests the possibility of something going out from that origin. (Hence, using “original” as opposed to “sole,” “exclusive,” etc.)
You could possibly make a case that the 11th amendment logically obligates the Supreme Court to refuse to delegate certain authorities, but that seems a matter of good governance, certainly not something spelled out within the Constitution.
There certainly is a crisis that the federal government has assumed too much power, but the far more obvious issue, to me, is that Congress has successfully used the Commerce clause to nullify the 9th and 10th amendments: the power to regulate interstate commerce does not mean the power to regulate anything which could potentially affect interstate commerce.
More relevant, I’d also entertain the notion that the 11th Amendment’s grant of immunity from liability to “the United States” applies only to actions of Congress and not to regulators; that is, there exists no such immunity wherever a regulator or enforcer takes actions that are not mandated by law. Or, to put it another way, that an agency acts as the United States of America only when their action is compelled by the Representatives of the States United. Otherwise, albeit likely that the actions of a regulator may reasonably reflect the intent of Congress, that reasonableness or that intent can surely be challenged in court, or that any discretion the regulator has creates liability for any harm caused by that discretions.
Certainly, whenever a regular takes an action which is ultra vires (beyond the scope of their legal authority), that action cannot reasonably be considered an action of the United States, and so, in my opinion, should fall outside of the protection of the 11th amendment.
I know zip about this Brnovich. Can anyone tell me if Trump is backing this guy? Thanks.
This is not the USA that most of us who served in Vietnam and other combat areas were willing to die for. The America that we loved more than our own life has been trashed by WOKE and these commies.
What kind of senior govt. trash would let a mental case like Biden hold our nation’s highest office?
I can’t imagine the kiss a— govt types who do zip about this.
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.