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: 25

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

ALERT ALERT

Breaking:  FBI Admits Comey Leaked Memos 
 That Were Classified   Material! 

The FBI turned over the Comey memos to Congress today after missing their deadline earlier in the week.

Congressional leaders threatened to impeach deep state leaders if they continued to stall on the memos.

Fired FBI Chief James Comey wrote about the memos in his book and leaked the documents to reporters last year. Congress has not yet had a chance to look at the memos — Until tonight.

AND—– THE MEMOS ARE CLASSIFIED!

Meaning Fired FBI Chief James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO THE PRESS.

From the report:

From the DOJ to Congress:

Therefore, pursuant to your request, we are providing the requested memoranda in both the redacted and unredacted formats for your convenience. Consistent with your request, we are providing an unclassified version of the documents redacted to remove any classified information.

The DOJ wrote Congressional leaders this evening.

page 2

Hannity: Good news for Trump, crushing blows for the left

GOP Congressional Leaders Nunes, Gowdy And Goodlatte Release Statement On Comey Memos

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued a statement on the memos later tonight.

The House chairmen note that the memos prove that fired Director Comey never felt obstructed or threatened from his relationship with the president.

And… former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel.

The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence published the statement tonight:

Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service