I saw this on my buddies site, and realized it belonged here too.

Reasons why Federal District and Appellate Courts Lack Standing to Rule on Trumps EO

Reprinted with permission of author Oren Long;

Here's something I hope you take seriously.   If you like it, perhaps you can post it far and wide and ask readers to forward it to Trump for his perusal.   IF (and it's a big "if") enough people send it to him, sooner or later he will see it.
>
President Trump's Immigration E.O. has been struck down by Federal District and Appellate Courts despite the fact that they lack standing or jurisdiction to hear the case.   Here's why:
>
Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentence One of the Constitution states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State may be Party, the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction".  
>
This means that since the States filed suit against the Federal Government, making themselves "Party" to the suit, ONLY the Supreme Court can hear the case, period!   ONLY the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, period!   Federal District Courts and/or Appellate Courts cannot, by Constitutional mandate, hear the case, period!
>
The Founders CLEARLY did not want lower courts ruling on cases that might impact international relations OR cases where States sued the Federal Government, impacting national policy through a hodge-podge of conflicting lower Court rulings.   The Founders clearly believed that such cases should be heard by the Supreme Court -- ONLY!
>
Ergo, under Article III, President Trump is legally and Constitutionally free to ignore the aforementioned lower Court rulings and proceed with his E.O. unless and until the Supreme Court strikes it down.
>
President Trump's legal team should make only one argument before any lower Court hearing the case, "This Court has NO jurisdiction in this matter.   Under Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two of the Constitution of the United States, ONLY the Supreme Court can hear this case.   Since this case was filed by the State of ________, through that State's Attorney General, the State is, by Constitutional definition, Party to the suit and MUST, therefore, by Constitutional mandate, file directly with the Supreme Court.   That said, the President has instructed me to advise the Court that, regardless of this Court's ruling, he is proceeding with his Immigration Executive Order unless and until the Supreme Court strikes it down."
>
This Constitutional stance, by the President, could go a long way towards bringing the Federal Judiciary back within its Constitutional constraints.  
>
What do you think?   Will you post it far and wide?
Oren Long

Views: 61

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Please send a message to Mr. Long for us, we do miss him, a true patriot, but the United States Supreme Court does not answer to the voice of the American People, according to Parliament of the United Kingdoms Magna Carta, "agreements", they have the finale say so.

 welcome to all most 2/3rds majority vote,

  How big is the problem here in America, United States  Congress has 535 voting members: 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Connected to Parliament Impalement Infrastructure, which includes Treaties  between nations. The list is below, and hello to 2/3rd of Congress.

David Rockefeller, Chairman Emeritus
            Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations
            58 E. 68th St. New York, NY 10021
            Phone (212) 734-0400
            Fax (212) 861-1789

            Paul Volker, North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission
            345 E. 46 St. New York, NY 10017
            Phone (212) 661-1180

            President of the United States of America
            William Clinton -- CFR, TC, BB

            Asst. Sec. for Administration, United Nations
            Dick Thornburgh -- CFR

            National Security Advisor
            Anthony Lake -- CFR

            Vice President of the United States of America
            Albert Gore, Jr. -- CFR

            Secretary Of State
            Warren Christopher -- CFR

            Secretary Of Defense
            Lee Aspin (Deceased)-- CFR

            Chairman Joint Chiefs Of Staff
            Colin L. Powell -- CFR

            Director Central Intelligence Agency
            James Woolsey -- CFR

            Chairman, Council of Economics Advisors
            Laura Tyson -- CFR

            Treasury Secretary
            Lloyd Bentsen -- Former CFR, BB

            Secretary of Interior
            Bruce Babbitt -- CFR

            Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
            Henry Cisneros -- CFR

            Secretary of Health & Human Services
            Donna Shalala -- CFR, TC

             

            JUDICIARY:


            Sandra Day O'Connor, Assoc. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court -- CFR
            Steve G. Breyer, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Boston -- CFR
            Ruth B. Ginsburg, U.S. Court Of Appeals, Wash., DC Circuit -- CFR
            Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Wash., DC Circuit -- CFR

             

            U.S. INSTITUTE FOR PEACE:

            John Norton Moore, Chairman -- CFR
            Elspeth Davies Rostow, Vice Chairman -- CFR
            Samuel W. Lewis, President -- CFR
            John Richardson, Counselor -- CFR
            David Little, Senior Scholar -- CFR
            William R. Kintner, Director -- CFR
            W. Scott Thompson, Director -- CFR

            

This is only 1% of the information above, the data exceeds 4000 carters....

 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service