United States Supreme Court Will Soon Issue a Landmark Decision on the Validity of the Constitution

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
We are at the mercy of the courts.

www.breitbart.com...
or
current.com...

These are the questions that will be answered:
"The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

1) Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?

2) Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?

3) Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?"


How can all witnesses giving false testimony not be relevant? Unbelievable!!
Perhaps one of our resident attorneys can make sense of this.
edit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: Add info
edit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with the Courts declaring the Constitution invalid or not. This is just about some man who is fighting a hefty fee bestowed upon by the courts for crimes he may or may not have committed.

Very misleading title.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Founding Fathers, leaders and civilians, wrote the Constituion correct??
Which GAVE the courts, in the 1st place, a right to to abide by these rights...

I suggest forcing the 2nd amendment, my American friends.
edit on 24-11-2010 by CanadianDream420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


As far as the 2nd goes, people here act like little girls when it comes to weapons. They are afraid of them and dont truly understand them. Its kind of funny considering we all grew up with them in front of us, on TV and in the movies.

The rest of it, well, the dude has a point, but I highly doubt that SCOTUS cares. They have other things to worry about now. Like, will our sassy new judges be bringing beer to the next SCOTUS party, or will the boys have to cover it, AGAIN?



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Please read the article before expressing your opinion.
Your dismissal with no knowledge of the facts is disappointing.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by havenvideo
 


Actually they are deciding on the validity of the Constitution.

www.freesteader.com...

Of course the Supreme Court may not even hear the Petitions.
edit on 11/24/2010 by VeniVidi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I waded through both "links" provided. Ultimately they reference the blog of the gentleman whom filed these "questions" for the Supreme Court to answer. One of the pitfalls of the modern internet is that it is easy to confuse something sourced from a blog as something being sourced from and circulating in the news.

The gentleman making these accusations and posing these questions is entirely responsible for the promotion of his actions. This is on a news network because this is not news. There is no way a decision by the court could void the constitution. To put it simply the Constitution is Constitutional and that is beyond argument.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Agreed because if they declared the Constitution "Void" then it would void the Supreme Court. And if the Supreme Court was voided then their decision to void the Constitution would also be void.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Here's a question that I have for someone/anyone who is far more well versed in Constitional law than I am.


If the SCOTUS did declare the Constitional to be null and void or somehow invalid... then wouldn't they immediatly become irrelevant? Isn't it the Constition that gives them power to make such a ruling in the first place? It seems like a big catch 22. They would almost be forced to validate the the Constitution or abolish all three branches of government and completely destroy our way of life in this country. Which is probably the point that the petitioner is trying to make.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Rather than reading an article that provides no details about why the guy filed anything, how about reading the actual decision that started all this?

Misconduct? Umm, no.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Windsor's motion with respect to Judge Evans, because Windsor failed to show that he would suffer irreparable injury unless the district court issued an injunction against Judge Evans. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Windsor stated that he would be harmed if Judge Evans ruled on a complaint over which she had no jurisdiction. This harm is not irreparable, because Windsor may contest jurisdiction before Judge Evans and, if Judge Evans rules against him, Windsor may then [*9] appeal the ruling. See Northeastern Fla. Chapter, 896 F.2d at 1285. Accordingly, because Windsor has not demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable injury, he has failed to show that he was entitled to injunctive relief. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176.


Abuse of descretion? Again, no.

Windsor also fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for injunctions against Maid, Maid's employees, and Maid's attorneys. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Windsor stated that he would be harmed by: (1) Maid's attorneys' destruction of documents; (2) the defendants' commission of perjury; and (3) the defendants' statements to the media. However, although Windsor alleged that Maid's attorneys had destroyed documents during the litigation of Maid I, the court noted that Maid I was litigated two-and-a-half years ago. Windsor acknowledged that the only evidence he had to support his claim was "what [the attorneys] did in [Maid I]." Thus, Windsor failed to show that harm was "actual and imminent." See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. Similarly, Windsor failed to show that he would suffer "actual and imminent" harm caused by the defendants' commission of perjury, [*10] because he admitted that he did not believe the defendants would commit perjury "in the short term."

With respect to Windsor's claim regarding the defendants' comments to the media, although Windsor may suffer harm as a result of these comments, he is unable to show that he is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of a defamation claim. In Georgia, truth is an absolute defense in a defamation action. See Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004), citing O.C.G.A. 51-5-6. Windsor admitted during the preliminary injunction hearing that the defendants' comments to the media were true. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Windsor's motion for injunctive relief as to the remaining defendants. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176.

Source

There's more at the link for those who are interested. This is what the guy thinks was done wrong by the lower courts, and none of that comes close to this"


1) Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?

2) Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?

3) Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?"


None of those questions will be answered because that's not what the lawsuit was about or what the appeal was about and I'd be surprised if that's verbatim from the petition filed with the SCOTUS. And frankly I'm rather appalled that this story is being re-posted practically verbatim on the OP's source and elsewhere without anyone bothering to look into the background of the story. Doesn't give one much hope for alternative news sources...



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
There is nothing to see here.

Jurisdictional issues like those on which the case is founded are first-semester topics in law school. They're not new, unestablished, or relevant to the validity of the constitution.

Defamation is a tort and Torts is a required first year subject at every accredited law school in the U.S.

This guy is just mad that he lost his case and is throwing a tantrum that includes ridiculous claims that the courts are invalidating the constitution. There might be lots of bad court decisions with dangerous constitutional implications, but this isn't one of them.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
This was already posted. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The guy arguing against this has argued against federal judges 62 times. He feels that if the supreme court doesn't agree with him then the constitution is invalid because the judges told him no.

Breitbart's a crock and just looking for crazy headlines.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
The fact that all the testimony given was untrue and the "old man" had sworn affidavits from those that testified stating they had lied. If this has no bearing in the court, then the courts need to be disbanded. Truth and justice should go hand in hand.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xizd1
We are at the mercy of the courts.

www.breitbart.com...
or
current.com...

These are the questions that will be answered:
"The Questions Presented to The Supreme Court by Grandfather Windsor are:

1) Will The Supreme Court declare that the Constitution and its amendments may be voided by federal judges?
--The Judicial is forbidden to declare anything that either threatens, hinders or interferes with the Constitution itself. No entity has the authourity to declare any portion of the doc as invalid as well as ordering that it cannot ever be voided.

2) Should federal judges be stopped from committing illegal and corrupt acts to obstruct justice and inflict bias on litigants?
--There is already Ethics panels and State justices who are deputized to try and hear cases pertaining to corruption amongst their own ranks.

3) Will The Supreme Court be afraid to disclose the corruption in the federal courts?"
--No, this nation is ruled by the letter of the law and not the law of man so any Federal Court is hereby under direct orders to guarantee that the dispensement of justice is carried out via the letter of the law.

How can all witnesses giving false testimony not be relevant? Unbelievable!!
Perhaps one of our resident attorneys can make sense of this.
edit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: Add info
edit on 24-11-2010 by xizd1 because: (no reason given)


Answered in quote!
edit on 29-11-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I should also point out that the article is on "PRNewswire", a source where anyone can put any news story for a fee. And the gentleman in the article (who you are supposed to sympathize with) is actually the AUTHOR of the piece, speaking about himself in the third person.

Check the bottom of the page where it says who the author is.

Ain't gonna happen, folks.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by xizd1
 


The supreme court so far has a good record of siding with the constitution or at least trying to keep the constitution intact.

I would not worry about anything for now.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xizd1
 


The way I see it - The Constitution grants rights to the lawmakers, so if the Constitution is deemed void, then all laws since the constitution are null and void, including the existence of the Supreme court itself, which is established by the constitution.

Think of the total chaos that would ensue, because - IT'S ALL GONE - All laws, all courts, the Congress, the Senate, the President

I'd like to think the Supreme Court is smarter than ruling against the constitution...or maybe they're not, and we the people actually win and can start over and do things the right way like our founders intended.





top topics
 
2

log in

join