Posted on 02/22/2023 3:13:38 PM PST by foundedonpurpose
Freepers, this is a big deal. Those of you with a legal background. Appreciate your thoughts. Foundedonpurpose
Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected Blog/Rule of Law Posted Feb 22, 2023 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Marty, you understand markets and the legal system. You were right again. The Supreme Court rejected the Brunson case.
KQ
REPLY: As I wrote before, this was an interesting argument, but it will be even more
“earth-shattering if the Supreme Court actually takes the case and rules on the validity of taking an oath of office.”
How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic if you refuse to even investigate the claim?
US Supreme Court
Here is the real monumental problem. Does the Supreme Court act constitutionally or has it denied citizens the right to be heard as declared by the Constitution itself? This is why they fight to stack the Supreme Court because the law is just not the law. The real issue is the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the court itself.
I specialized, not just in history, but also in the rise and fall of nations. Historically, a collapse in the rule of law is a key element in the fall of nations. I studied law intensely and some lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very few cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statute. Instead, they merely challenge the unconstitutional acts of government agents such as police and politicians.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means citizens cannot demand that government create any social program for there is no such Marxist component to the Constitution that people assume exists. There is no government obligation to pay for an abortion or a heart transplant.
I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional lawyers that make their eyes pop out. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice. No statute or rule can negate the constitution as defined by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases per year in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches) with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.
Marshall John Chief Justice - 1
Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I, of the Constitution expressly states:
“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.”
The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:
“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”
Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)
Your constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child could not speak to his or her father and would only communicate with them through some nanny? Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not.
Inferior courts are under no obligation to apply even a uniform legal code. Each has its own rules and precedents that are unique to each circuit. The law as practiced in New York is different than as practiced in California, Texas, or Florida. It is not all the same! There is no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States. You have to get to the Supreme Court and they are supposed to take such cases to establish the law nationally when it differs among the circuits.
Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:
“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…”
Cohen v Virginia, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324
Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!
The Constitution ONLY created the Supreme Court. Congress created the statutory inferior court which can be closed at any time because they were NOT created by the Constitution. Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion. That is a constructive amendment to the constitution which in itself is an act of outright rebellion.
Categories: Rule of Law
Overall the USSC is just another enemy of this country. Most of their decisions are to our doom. Just because they get one right here and there is not going to save us. And they have made it clear for along time that they could care less about the sanctity of our elections.
This “case” (which is actually not one) is Constitutional science fiction.
The “election” alleged to be fraudulent has no Constitutional existence. The 50 State Legislatures which appoint 535 Electors (and Congress, which appoints 3) have all adopted the custom of having people voting as the means by which the appointments are normally made, but this creates 51 elections, not one.
Those 51 elections occur at the direction of, and are subservient to, 50 legislatures and Congress. The States unwisely granted Congress 3 Electors by ratifying the XXIII Amendment in 1960, so Congress does have supervisory power OVER THOSE THREE, but not otherwise.
There is only one Presidential election in the Constitution, it takes place in December, there are 538 voters, and in December 2020 Biden got 306 of them and was elected President.
No State Legislature objected that its Electors were not the ones they had appointed. No State Legislature even convened to consider the matter. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Legislature fled to avoid considering the matter.
It has never been alleged that a single one of the 306 votes for Biden/Harris was a forgery, that the Electors who casted them were impersonating someone else, or that the Legislatures had secretly appointed other Electors.
There is zero space for an allegation of fraud in the Constitutional Presidential election of December 14, 2020.
As far as the 51 elections which occurred on November 3, 2020, they may very well have been rife with fraud, but since the appointment power of the 50 State Legislatures (535) and Congress (3) is plenary, that’s a problem for those legislatures to deal with should they choose to do so.
The “Brunson Case” was a clown show.
However, if congress critters were to bring that same sort of lawsuit as Brunson did, it could not get shoved aside on the basis of lack of standing.
Unlimited voter fraud is now the law of the land. It was legitimized, and sanctioned by Congress on January 6, 2021.
Well stated!
There is a huge fatal stretch in that last paragraph. Because the Constitution created the Supreme Court and congress created the inferior courts, the Supreme Court cannot exercise discretion????? There is no logical connection shown there.
I guess you could argue that the dismissal of a suit is part of the deliberative process, in effect the suit is considered and rejected.
Theory smashes up against reality if you’re going to argue that every case filed in Federal Court must be heard by the Supreme Court if the plaintiffs insist. Not remotely possible in a nation of 350 million citizens and an ever increasing gaggle of lawyers.
As far as the Brunson suit, asking the Supreme Ct. to overturn the 2020 Election, remove the President and VP, and also remove 300 members of Congress would at least seem to require that someone point to the section(s) of the Constitution that gives the Court the power to do this.
Correct.
This “source” is notorious for spreading this kind of nonsense on a host of topics. It is mind boggling that any sane person could read this and think it makes sense.
We are dealing with a crime where the Criminal is left with custody of all the evidence.
Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
What seems far less understood these days is what the law is, with respect to the Constitution, is also fixed to those who exercised the “original right” to Ratify that Law, what they agreed to is the Law ... likewise per Marshall in Marbury.
Review is not a power, it is an obligation that arises because of the oath of office, a clarion call to fidelity that the modern Court has perverted into presumptive authority to exercise the original right themselves, to make new law arrogating the Law, either by addition or by subtraction or even both at once. In the hands of the modern Court infidelity is the new fidelity.
By making themselves the judges of the law they are not doers of the law, they honor themselves and their legal theories and not their oaths.
Marshall would have none of that. Which is why Marbury was not made much of until so-called progressives finally managed to make their lies and usurpations stick in the first half of the 20th century.
Additionally, in Marbury Marshall expressly noted that others in other departments take the same oath.
So if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices to take such an oath but then close their eyes to the Constitution and see only statute then what is it to require others to take such an oath but then close their eyes to the Constitution and see only the opinions of the Court?
Martin Armstrong is a convicted felon and served time in Federal prison for embezzling money from clients. His writings should be treated with a high degree of skepticism prior to extensive verification.
It makes their eyes pop out because no one of any substance agrees with it.
I thought of that argument, but it makes no sense, because a group of activists could destroy the court system by presenting a nearly infinite number of lawsuits, which would prevent the court from hearing anything else.
A court, must by necessity, have some discretion over what cases they hear.
True.
Law schools and most of the "Establishment" in most areas have been commandeered by the Delusional Lying Left whose ultimate object is Worldwide Totalitarian Government. Of course the sovereign nation of America stands in the away of that objective which is why the Left, it's current mostly outlaw government with its outlaw President, and the "establishment", works to take down America and her foundations - the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise “discretion” to hear a case.
Depends. The case must fall within its proper constitutionally-defined jurisdiction. But if the case is properly within the Court's jurisdiction there may some other problems including standing. But if jurisdiction and the plaintiff's standing pass muster, then may be right, but, again, there must be a constitutional basis for showing the Court is violating the Constitution by refusing to hear a case.
it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion
I don't know the Judiciary Act of 1925, but I do know that most federal law today is blatantly unconstitutional. Much of the blame points to the flawed rational of the heresy of the unconstitutional "Incorporation Doctrine" regarding the 14th Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
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 all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
______________________________________________________
Note that this is from the US Constitution itself, not even a statute. Note the part that was bolded. Clearly, the cases the Court must or must not take are set by Congressional regulations - not merely because the Court is required to exist. This article is the typical embarrassing, total nonsense we get from this source.
If I had a functioning brain in 2020, I should have bought stock in weapons manufacturing.
Of course war always follows plagues.
Left unsaid:
Unless it is a constitutional amendment. Amendments become part of the Constitution.
See the bolded part of post 16 - it is entirely within Congress’ power to have passed such a regulation. The Constitution clearly spells that out with absolutely no ambiguity.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote: “There are no second acts in American lives.” He was wrong. When a Ponzi operator like Martin Armstrong, who spent over a decade as a guest of the government, is now regarded as a solon without portfolio, it may be that second acts are now the rule, not the exception.
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.