If you really want to fix health care, I propose these three things: (1) repeal ObamaScare, (2) DON’T replace it with the Republicans' plan, and (3) pass massive TORT reform. True lowering of health care costs won’t happen until you get lawyers out of the health care industry. Health care costs also won’t be contained until we bridle the onerous cost cutting measures of insurance companies that interfere with the patient/doctor relationship. I’m not adverse to legitimate malpractice and negligence claims. I do oppose the “get rich at others’ expense” mentality that permeates our legal industry today.
I question whether bringing these challenges in the U.S. District Court system is really constitutional. Article III §2 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that all cases in which a state may be a party have ORIGINAL jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the states were the sovereigns. Under Article III the states retained the vast rights they had regarding being sued and to sue. Through Article III, the states consented to being sued in the U.S. Supreme Court and only in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I believe the language in Article III is plain and unambiguous, needing no interpretation.
No federal courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court were given “subject matter jurisdiction” over the States. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has absolutely no authority to act on a case, and any action the court takes is absolutely null and void from inception. (The same is true regarding laws passed in contravention of the Constitution and for the same reason.) This authority may not be taken by the court itself and the parties cannot consent or otherwise give the court this authority. The court either has it or it does not, period. The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.
In 1821, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
Thus, in my humble opinion, Obama’s suit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix was filed in the wrong court. The judge who accepted jurisdiction committed treason by accepting jurisdiction and all rulings made by this judge are null and void. The same can be said of the Virginia and Florida suits regarding ObamaScare.
Article III was altered by the Eleventh Amendment, but not in a manner that changed the original jurisdiction provision of Article III §2 Clause 2. I note with some amusement that the U.S. Supreme Court has no part whatsoever in the amendment process.
I’ve had all kinds of people tell me that Congress and/or the U.S. Supreme Court (through precedent) has changed the judicial hierarchy specified in the Constitution. Really? Congress is expressly forbidden from enacting legislation that contradicts the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, the judiciary is prohibited from issuing decisions that contradict the Constitution.
In the 1970’s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it could dispense and hand out its original jurisdiction via judicial discretion. The Court further stated that it needed to do so, as the times and society had changed and it was incompetent to handle original jurisdiction cases. Even if all the Court said was true, one thing had not changed: the means to amend the Constitution. Instead of appealing to Congress or the citizens, the Court took it upon itself to redefine its role. In so doing, it attacked the very sovereignty of each state in the union and committed “treason to the Constitution.” Our federal and state legislators violated their oath of office and their duty to the citizens by not supporting and defending the Constitution against this judicial attack. We The People violated our own duty by not demanding strict adherence to the Constitution.
Today many states actively participate in undermining their own sovereignty (and ours) by filing law suits in the federal district courts regarding “Obama care.” OR they defend themselves in lawsuits erroneously filed—as is Arizona by participating in the federal district court case filed against it over SB1070. The states have an absolute sovereign right to file their actions in the U.S. Supreme Court and may only be sued in the U.S. Supreme Court. By adhering to statutes which deny the sovereign status of the states, and which are repugnant to the Constitution, the states concede, acquiesce, and give implied consent to the validity of such statutes and precedent that undermines their sovereignty.
It is time to re-educate the public regarding their sovereignty. It is time to re-educate state legislators regarding state sovereignty. It is time to re-educate Congress regarding state sovereignty. And...it is time to reign in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court simply cannot summarily decide (without the intervention of Congress and the People) to change the Constitution.
I know these opinions are “out of the norm,” for we have been so conditioned to do whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says that we never challenge their conclusions. It is time for this mindset to change, as well.
I question whether bringing these challenges in the U.S. District Court system is really constitutional. Article III §2 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution clearly says that all cases in which a state may be a party have ORIGINAL jurisdiction in the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the states were the sovereigns. Under Article III the states retained the vast rights they had regarding being sued and to sue. Through Article III, the states consented to being sued in the U.S. Supreme Court and only in the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, I believe the language in Article III is plain and unambiguous, needing no interpretation.
No federal courts inferior to the U.S. Supreme Court were given “subject matter jurisdiction” over the States. Without subject matter jurisdiction, a court has absolutely no authority to act on a case, and any action the court takes is absolutely null and void from inception. (The same is true regarding laws passed in contravention of the Constitution and for the same reason.) This authority may not be taken by the court itself and the parties cannot consent or otherwise give the court this authority. The court either has it or it does not, period. The federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the states.
In 1821, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
It is most true that this Court [the Supreme Court] will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. ... We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we [the Supreme Court] would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. [Emphasis mine. 19 U.S. 264, 404 (1821).]
Thus, in my humble opinion, Obama’s suit against the state of Arizona in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix was filed in the wrong court. The judge who accepted jurisdiction committed treason by accepting jurisdiction and all rulings made by this judge are null and void. The same can be said of the Virginia and Florida suits regarding ObamaScare.
Article III was altered by the Eleventh Amendment, but not in a manner that changed the original jurisdiction provision of Article III §2 Clause 2. I note with some amusement that the U.S. Supreme Court has no part whatsoever in the amendment process.
I’ve had all kinds of people tell me that Congress and/or the U.S. Supreme Court (through precedent) has changed the judicial hierarchy specified in the Constitution. Really? Congress is expressly forbidden from enacting legislation that contradicts the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, the judiciary is prohibited from issuing decisions that contradict the Constitution.
In the 1970’s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it could dispense and hand out its original jurisdiction via judicial discretion. The Court further stated that it needed to do so, as the times and society had changed and it was incompetent to handle original jurisdiction cases. Even if all the Court said was true, one thing had not changed: the means to amend the Constitution. Instead of appealing to Congress or the citizens, the Court took it upon itself to redefine its role. In so doing, it attacked the very sovereignty of each state in the union and committed “treason to the Constitution.” Our federal and state legislators violated their oath of office and their duty to the citizens by not supporting and defending the Constitution against this judicial attack. We The People violated our own duty by not demanding strict adherence to the Constitution.
Today many states actively participate in undermining their own sovereignty (and ours) by filing law suits in the federal district courts regarding “Obama care.” OR they defend themselves in lawsuits erroneously filed—as is Arizona by participating in the federal district court case filed against it over SB1070. The states have an absolute sovereign right to file their actions in the U.S. Supreme Court and may only be sued in the U.S. Supreme Court. By adhering to statutes which deny the sovereign status of the states, and which are repugnant to the Constitution, the states concede, acquiesce, and give implied consent to the validity of such statutes and precedent that undermines their sovereignty.
It is time to re-educate the public regarding their sovereignty. It is time to re-educate state legislators regarding state sovereignty. It is time to re-educate Congress regarding state sovereignty. And...it is time to reign in the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court simply cannot summarily decide (without the intervention of Congress and the People) to change the Constitution.
I know these opinions are “out of the norm,” for we have been so conditioned to do whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says that we never challenge their conclusions. It is time for this mindset to change, as well.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment