States second class status again!

supreme court

Twenty-six states should not have had to sue and plod their way through the federal court system to stop the Obama amnesty-like immigration authority issued without the consent of Congress.  In fact this Presidential effort, not actually an Executive Order, violated a number of laws and created some new ones via the executive branch (constitutional questions apply), also when state’s rights and billions of dollars are at stake.

  • What happed to the Supreme Court being the court of original jurisdiction for the States for immediate redress under the Constitution?
  • Why do these States have to sue the United States starting in the lowest federal court?

Now that a federal judge has issued an injunction ordering the Obama administration and the Department of Homeland Security to “cease and desist” activity to carry out this effort a speedy resolution is not on the horizon, giving the Obama administration the opportunity to act and cement their rules into place? Yes, the Obama administration plans to continue its activity despite the “cease and desist” and will be appealing this ruling to the federal appeals court, as if the lowest level of the minor judiciary did not issue an injunction.

Both the federal court and the federal appeals court are considered under the Constitution to be minor courts or tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, but established by Congress under Article 1, Section 8.

We do have the Supreme Court established and empowered under Article 3, Sections 1 and 2, and Amendment 11. “The judicial Power of the United States shall extend to all Cases,…,arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…; to all cases which the United States shall be a Party;…  In all cases affecting…, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

Based on the above, why should the twenty-six states NOT be able to carry their case straight to the Supreme Court and bypass the inferior courts?

Well Congress relieved the Supreme Court of its obligation, mandated in the Constitution, by stepping in with 28 U.S. Code § 1251 – Original Jurisdiction.

In this law, Congress, with the signature of the then sitting President, gave the inferior courts the ability to hear matters between the States and the federal government and thus freeing the Supreme Court from its obligation from being the court of original jurisdiction in all controversies between the United States and a State(s).

It appears that Congress took the action to shield the Supreme Court from being the court of original jurisdiction for the States, essentially moving the States to a level far inferior than the federal government. But this was not complete since Congress cannot tell the Supreme Court what to do.  Thus the Supreme Court could now base its new rule, because it was now freed up by the 28 U.S. Code § 1251, to pass its Rule 17.

Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action (abbreviated)  This Rule applies only to an action invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. §1251 and U. S. Const...

Previously, under our Constitution, the States could seek immediate redress from the Supreme Court under “Original Jurisdiction”, but two, actually the three, branches of the federal government eliminated this empowerment of the States,  This now thrust the states into the inferior courts process.  This now could add as much as two years before the Court to decide Constitutional matters between the federal government and the States.

Is this a Constitutional action?

Well it has not been challenged, and if it were who would decide on the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s action, the Supreme Court?

Perhaps if an Article V convention for proposing amendments were to occur, this inequity could be rectified, plainly and clearly allowing no misinterpretation.  Moving challenges from the States, one or more – against the U.S. Government directly to the Supreme Court and bypassing the appellate and district courts will serve to get quick resolution of these very often critical matters. This law and Supreme Court rule serve to negate and infringe upon the States challenges against the federal government’s abuse of limited power, the basis of the U.S. Constitution.

Where is the respect for the states (click here)?

Better yet, Congress can simply fix 28 U.S. Code § 1251 – Original jurisdiction. It can change the power of the inferior courts forbidding them to hear original jurisdiction on matters involving state actions against the U.S. government, deferring these original jurisdiction cases to the Supreme Court. Congress, under our Constitution, established the inferior courts or tribunals and can make the rules for these courts.

  • Recently twenty-six states have had to plod through the appellate process, even though the matter of executive branch violation of the Constitution is of paramount importance to the nation, States, and the people.
  • In Rule 17, the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed hearing original jurisdiction cases sought by States against the United States operating as the “Court of Original Jurisdiction” for the States.

Why would the Congress give the Supreme Court an out, unless this was an attempt to diminish the States and make the federal government more powerful over the States.  It is time to change this back to the way it was.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s