Restoring Constitutional Governance

UPDATE from Valley Forge: FRIDAY, Aug 13, 2010 (REJOINORDIE REPORT now includes letter to AZ Gov. Brewer, VA Attorney General Cuccinelli and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts)

  We the People have a problem. In fact, we have a whole host of problems, not the least of which is our refusal to use the God-given "common sense" we were born with. There are 50 states in the United States, but it wasn't always that way. This country started when 13 colonies declared their independence from a tyrannical monarchy, and then as independent states, enjoined themselves to form a nation with a Divinely-inspired compact, they called the "New Constitution."

Three major cases are winding their way through the federal judiciary right now that shouldn't be there. A lawyer I know counseled me against calling it a "kangaroo court" because he said there is no evidence that a preconceived outcome is afoot. Well, I guess in respect to the individual cases that may be true, but in the bigger scheme of things, they are ALL "kangaroo court proceedings" because in the grander scheme of things, We the People, and the sovereign states that created a federal government have no rule book by which we can expect a fair hearing.

The federal judiciary, with the help of Congress, is making up the rules as they go. In my opinion, the pre-determined outcome is to finish abolishing States' Rights, and to further divide We the People so that we won't put our differences aside and work together for the common good, as the Founders advised.

Case 1: U.S. v. State of Arizona  (SB-1070)

Case 2: U.S. v. State of California  (Defense of Marriage)

Case 3: U.S. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (ObamaCare)

In each of these cases, a U.S. District Court Judge has issued rulings that affect entire states. In each case, the respective legislatures of the sovereign states passed state legislation that their governors in-turn signed into law that affect millions of their citizens, and yet in each case, one inferior court judge, hearing the case before them, has issued injunctions, and passed judgment on a not-so-inferior party in their respective cases.

No offense to the District Court judges, but they are out of their league, and have ZERO jurisdiction to even hear the cases, let alone pass judgment. Why do I say that? Simple, because that is what the U.S. Constitution says.

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that there would be times when a single state might disagree with the federal government, or vise-versa. They also knew that a case involving a whole state was more important than one than involved a single citizen. The citizens of those 13 confederated states eventually signed a contract with each other that included an acknowledgment of the special circumstances that might arise if a "State" was a party in a case where the result might impact the entire Republic, and they did NOT leave it to the lesser or inferior courts to be the "first to hear the case."

No siree, they did not. States which find themselves embroiled in a legal controversy with the federal government get "front-of-the-line" privileges, bypassing all the inferior courts. States get to have their cases heard before the supreme court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part One, reads:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State is Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

It does not say the Supreme Court "may" have original jurisdiction. It says SHALL.

Legal and political pundits would have you believe that "precedent" and "statutes" have been in place for decades that allow the federal government to sue a state, or vise-versa, and use the U.S. District Court system to act as the court of "original jurisdiction." This practice has been made near perfect for the political animals amongst us, for it affords them the opportunity to gather political capital as the cases proceed through the rat-maze of the appellate process, and it eases the burden on the Supreme Court to actually have to sit through and actually "hear" cases.

Depending on how a case is going, and which way the political winds are blowing, when it reaches the Supreme Court, they have the option, primarily at the discretion of the Chief Justice, as to whether they will even hear the appealed case at all, or simply let the appellate decision stand.

This can be a very handy shell game to play on the ignorant, and rarely is justice served, and rarely is REAL scrutiny applied to the Supreme Court and its occupants.

By the time most cases make it to the Supreme Court through the appellate process, the majority of the public has forgotten about the case altogether, and find themselves saying, "Oh, yeah. I remember that...," when they hear of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Do the elected leaders of a State have the right to marginalize the sovereignty of that State by participating in an un-Constitutional inferior court proceeding on behalf of the State? No, they do not, and yet, over time that has become the norm. We the People, so busy with our pursuits of happiness, haven't even taken the time to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights put in place to protect our liberties and freedoms, and over the centuries, aspiring men and women, playing on our ignorance, have nibbled away at the very sovereignty of the States. And these States, I might add, are supposed to be powerful enough to stand between us and a rogue, out-of-control federal government.

How can a State do that, if they allow themselves to be relegated to an "inferior" status? How can a State expect it will get a fair hearing of its grievances, in a timely manner, such that the inner-workings of that state and its citizenry aren't held hostage for years, waiting for justice to pay them a visit.

Uncle Sam, looking down his nose, is telling Virgina, Arizona, and California, "We'll get to you in our own sweet time. Go play in the inferior courts for a while. Maybe when you appeal to the Supreme Court, we'll try to squeeze you into our busy schedule."

That may not be what the occupants of SCOTUS say, but that is the reality, and it IS OUR FAULT.

We the People must demand that our respective States stand up for their State's Rights when Uncle Sam comes a calling with a complaint against them.

If we find that our State's Attorney General and/or Governor doesn't have the backbone to stand up for a State's Right against the federal government, then we must replace them. An oath to uphold the Constitution is no small commitment, and we must stop letting our elected and appointed officials "fudge" on that commitment.

Are we "united" States when foreign governments are allowed to enter briefs in a lowly and inferior district court case brought by our own government against a sovereign state. It is obvious that Arizona is fighting for its life. Who in the federal government sees Arizona as more than simply a group of sheep, being led to a collective slaughter?

Why is Governor Brewer even participating in this charade? Why is Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli particpating in his suit against Obamacare in an inferior court?

Does not A.G. Cuccinelli represent an entire State? Has he read the Constitution? And what about California? Should they allow an inferior court judge to tell them their constitution is un-constitutional? Wake up People! We must restore Constitutional governance at all levels of government, or it won't be long before the Constitution is just a "piece of paper."

I have written Arizona Governor Brewer and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts regarding this dangerous and ongoing usurpation of the Constitution.

Open Letters to Governor Brewer, Attorney General Cuccinelli, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts

RESTORE CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

RE-JOIN OR DIE!