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
I never disagreed with that. Why tell me?
Well alrighty then.
Now, when can we start dismantling the $3 trillion unconstitutional portion of the feds?
Don’t everybody raise their hands all at once...
You were responding to that specific part of the article - showing you something else the author “left unsaid” - like what the Constitution itself says about the topic.
No, I was only saying that the Constitution can be amended, and those amendments become part of the Constitution.
Simple—as stated.
FINALLY
Thank you Martin Armstrong for finally explaining the root cause of what has amounted to a lifetime of Supreme Court f*ckery. It explains so much about their behavior, and the resulting mess that we are dealing with.
Yes, but he wasn’t.
Except not a word of his analysis is accurate, as is typical of this source. See post 3 and post 16.
The Congress is not going to save us. The DOJ is not going g to save us. The courts are not going to save us. The military is the only way.
One of the most important things to this nation’s survival is honest elections and this Supreme Court and lower courts do not have the integrity, character or the backbone to address it because it hard for them. None of them should be in judicial positions.
No shit. That case was designed to fail.
We know Robert’s is a coward. ( btw, thanks GWB …. Your assistant , who had little law experience, you first nominated would have made a better Chief Justice)
bkmk
This case never had a shot. No way SCOTUS is going to remove half of congress.
The case i really thought had a shot was the one challenging the Constitutionality of mail-in ballots, but the traitors on the Court refused to hear it.
"Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion."
I agree 100%.
In fact, Supreme Court's response to Brunson is an example of the kind of government overreach that St. George Tucker had warned us about imo.
"If it were, in fact, an unconstitutional exercise of power in congress to pass a law establishing the bank, nothing can manifest the impropriety of over-stepping the limits of the constitution, more than the act which we have just noticed. It shows that the most unauthorised acts of government may be drawn into precedents to justify other unwarrantable usurpations [emphasis added]." —Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6, St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 262--64, 1803.
"Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected"
Why aren't House majority, so-called "MAGA Republicans" screaming impeachment of justices for obstructing Section 2 of the 14th Amendment concerning the Supremes ignoring Brunson?
Section 2, with its catch-all "or in any way abridged" wording, is a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred and guarantees due process concerning allegations of electoral votes being tampered with imo.
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
The misguided Roberts Court should have heard the Brunson case imo.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with headlines saying that the purpose of Brunson was to overturn election of 2020. Depending on how you interpret that, Trump 47 is due another full term in office imo.
Patriots, the bottom line is this imo. What is your threshold of “pain” for peacefully stopping unconstitutionally big state and federal governments controlled by bully, constitutionally undefined political parties, from oppressing the people under their boots?
The inevitable remedy for ongoing, post-17A ratification, corrupt political party treason (imo)...
All MAGA patriots need to wake up their RINO federal and state lawmakers by making the following clear to them.
If they don’t publicly support either a resolution, or a Constitutional Convention, to effectively "secede" ALL the states from the unconstitutionally big federal government by amending the Constitution to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A), doing so before the primary elections in 2024, that YOU will primary them.
If the proposed amendment was limited strictly to repealing 16&17A, relatively little or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification of the amendment imo.
With 16&17A out of the way, my hope is that Trump 47 becomes the FIRST president of a truly constitutionally limited power federal government.
In the meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for significant MAGA legislation to appear in the first 100 days of new term for what may still prove to be another RINO-controlled House.
Trump will hopefully do another round of primarying RINOs for 2024 elections.
Interesting article, thanks
Well, it’s an interesting argument. I’d say they certainly are not bound to hear appeals from cases where the state and local courts have original jurisdiction. And for cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, they might be bound to hear them, but that doesn’t mean they are bound to give them a full hearing. They should at least be able to say “we reject this case because it claims SC has original jurisdiction but that claim is invalid”, or even to reject it as baseless without a hearing if the plea doesn’t have any merit.
“The military is the only way.” As they are now all being programmed by CRT, as the nation’s children are.
That’s going to work out just fine.
Clean your fire arms and by practiced.
His writings should be treated with a high degree of skepticism prior to extensive verification.
same can be said of your writings nes pa?
Re: 38 - Perhaps. But I didn’t steal millions of dollars from clients and serve time in Federal prison.
>>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.”
That usurpation of power by Marshall — judicial review — has proven to be one of most serious threats to liberty in the history of the United States, rivaling only the infiltration of Marxist doctrine into our mores (which, more than likely, was provided an avenue for infiltration by Marshall’s usurpation.) Thomas Jefferson warned us that the Supreme Court had been given (or, had given itself) too much power:
“I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of the subjects of my former letter, for in truth there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” [To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Andrew A. Lipscomb, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15.” Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903]
More specifically, he warned:
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes.” [To Judge Spencer Roane, Poplar Forest, September 6, 1819, in Ibid. p.213]
Since Marshall’s usurpation, the Court has gradually eroded away our Christian heritage, our rights to property, and our liberty in general, or, as Madison warned:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.” [James Madison, “Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Defense of the Constitution.” Elliot Debates, June 6, 1788]
In case you have not noticed, of late the encroachments have been increasingly more violent by the left. But, in compliance with Saul Alinsky’s rules, the left blames all violence on the right. They, themselves, are “squeaky clean,” to anyone foolish enough to believe their rhetoric.
For the record, Alexander Hamilton was the probably the first crony-capitalist to serve in our government. He was a greedy, filthy-minded man, who was admired by John Marshall, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and other self-serving crony capitalists.
>>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.
Not necessarily. According to Murray Rothbard, Marshall’s goal was to “make the Constitution more elastic so as to permit wider extension of federal power, his very distrust of the Constitution itself and insistence upon incorporating a Bill of Rights.”
To those unfamiliar with the term “incorporation,” it was, in effect, a transfer of power from the states to the federal government, or, in other words, anti-republicanism.
>>>>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?’
This is a direct quote from Marbury vs. Madison according to Cornell Law School:
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.” [John Marshall, in U. S. Supreme Court, “Supreme Court Opinion 1805 Marbury v. Madison.” Cornell Law, 5 U.S. 137, 1805]
One would think from reading that statement that Marshall was a strict-constructionist in the mold of Jefferson; but no, he was an anti-constitutionalist. He was a member of the so-called “Federalist” party which, from the beginning, was anti-constitutional, anti-federalist, and, therefore, anti-republican.
Mr. Kalamata
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.