It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for any Constitutional lawyer...

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:25 PM
link   
So people should be aware of what our Constitution says and does. A lot of our Constitution comes from the Magna Carta, courtesy of our British cousins, that dates back 800+ years - 1215.

So what is it? (from wiki)

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter of Freedoms"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"),[a] is a royal charter[4][5] of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215.


One of the many key concepts our founding fathers brought over into our Constitution is part of the 1st amendment. Specifically "redress of grievances".

When the government does something wrong the people have a right to petition the government in order to fix the issue.


In it's infinite wisdom (or lack of) Congress passed a law -

28 U.S. Code § 1251 - Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 927; Pub. L. 95–393, § 8(b), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 810.)


Basically a disagreement between states goes directly to the Supreme Court, skipping the need to go thru lower courts and appeals courts. The Supreme Court in this area has original jurisdiction.

So my question is this -

If the Supreme Court is the only entity that can deal with issues between states where do they get the authority to "pass" on taking / hearing the cases? If the Supreme Court is the ONLY entity (original jurisdiction) that can deal with those cases, and SCOTUS doesn't take the case, how does that not violate the 1st amendment, specifically #5, redress of grievances?



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's a really good question. You should take that to the Supreme Court! (LoL I jest)

But it begs the question-- what's a body to do when the Supreme Court is breaking the law? They're not... like... God, hence not infallible, ya know? So what gives?



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It’s my understanding the SCOTUS gets its authority to interpret the constitution any way it wishes from

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

It’s important because it established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions. The exercise of judicial review would help to ensure that the judiciary remained a coequal branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches.

So in other words The SCOTUS is the only one that can interpret the constitution well BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY CAN. Also, if a case doesn’t have standing the SCOTUS can refuse to take any case they want. They refuse hundreds of cases every year. It happens all the time



edit on 6-10-2022 by Brassmonkey because: Grammar



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this in reference to the Texas V Pennsylvania case?

Eggcelent thread!




posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Brassmonkey

True but in this case it is a Federal Law.



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:42 PM
link   


But it begs the question-- what's a body to do when the Supreme Court is breaking the law?


That is why you have the 2nd Amendment.

Remove and replace SCOTUS as you wish.

P

edit on 6/10/2022 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this in reference to the Texas V Pennsylvania case?

Eggcelent thread!



That is one of the issues, but it covers that and the 2020 election, The electoral count act, etc...
edit on 6-10-2022 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Also the SCOTUS is there to check the executive and legislative branches so the congress doesn’t make laws that are unconstitutional and the president doesn’t become a dictator with unconstitutional excecutive orders.

Congress can impeach Supreme Court justices although I don’t think it’s ever been done but I may be wrong.



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thought so.

That one confused me as well as a legal layman.

If TX had no standing then where is the redress.

Even moreso after it was proven in court that Penn violated its own constitution.



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Email congress to impeach the SCOTUS members then .
I doubt you will get nothing back but a form letter though

a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

That was the issue I was looking at. Only Scotus can hear the case and dismissing it by claiming Texas didnt have standing, when they clearly did, seemed cowardly to me. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to deal with the hard issues, not run away from them.



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I agree with everyone on this one when SCOTUS didn’t hear those cases for the 2020 election I was so pissed but ir was purely political and they didn’t have the guts to get involved but I remember they had no problem getting involved with Bush/Gore election in 2000!

What a joke



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brassmonkey
Email congress to impeach the SCOTUS members then .
I doubt you will get nothing back but a form letter though

a reply to: Xcathdra



I communicate with my federal elected officials, House and Senate, and usually get a response back. I have not on this topic because I was unsure how redress of grievances argument would work.



posted on Oct, 6 2022 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

That was the issue I was looking at. Only Scotus can hear the case and dismissing it by claiming Texas didnt have standing, when they clearly did, seemed cowardly to me. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to deal with the hard issues, not run away from them.


Did they give a public opinion as to how TX didnt have standing?



posted on Oct, 7 2022 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Nope.. when Scotus passes on a case its usually occurs without comment, or they will give a one sentence response with no real info.



posted on Oct, 7 2022 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

Nope.. when Scotus passes on a case its usually occurs without comment, or they will give a one sentence response with no real info.


That needs addressed then IMO.

Especially given your source in the OP.



posted on Oct, 7 2022 @ 01:10 AM
link   
In looking to what is really meant by 'No Standing', its too hard, just keep moving.

The courts have a reputation for long drawn out court cases, some taking many years to process, occasionally decades. With another election coming up soon, sort it out then. In the mean time, some places done a few things. As for the underlying systemic issues of election fraud, still a lot of problems.

With the FBI dropping the ball on this issue, it ground a lot of investigations to a halt. With the way the US Administration is, lot of support for Biden for some reason. With all the mud getting thrown at Trump with none of it sticking by the DOJ, yet Biden gets a free pass with all the evidence out there, things look sick.

With the state of Empire these days, a conflict between the will of the people and corporate (limited liability) agendas is growing. Is it even possible to cut out the cancer without killing the patient? Best advice is not to consent to things that don't make sense.

So as for no standing, the Supreme Court is getting pressured to sit its butt down on this one. It is a part of the courts responsibility to protect government. Get out the bad apples when can, otherwise getting rid of government entirely has a reluctant Mad Max vibe most don't want to go. The system ain't perfect, but compared to no system things can get worst.
edit on 7-10-2022 by kwakakev because: spelling



posted on Oct, 7 2022 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Is this in reference to the Texas V Pennsylvania case?

Eggcelent thread!



That is one of the issues, but it covers that and the 2020 election, The electoral count act, etc...


The Texas v Pennsylvania case was about Texas trying to tell Pennsylvania how to run elections in Pennsylvania.

Texas has no 'right' to do that, only Pennsylvanians can do that. The Pennsylvanian election process did not affect Texas in any way, so there was no redress that the Supremes could have granted.

That is why the Supreme Court declined to accept the case.

However it should be noted that Texas still owes Pennsylvania for finding voter fraud cases. Texas promised to pay lots of money to 'anyone' who found legitimate voter fraud cases. Pennsylvania found several fraudulent Trump votes but Texas refuses to pay up.

Now there's a case for the Supremes!



posted on Oct, 7 2022 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JinMI

That was the issue I was looking at. Only Scotus can hear the case and dismissing it by claiming Texas didnt have standing, when they clearly did, seemed cowardly to me. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to deal with the hard issues, not run away from them.


Enlighten us. How does Texas have standing to tell Pennsylvania how to run an election in Pennsylvania?



posted on Oct, 8 2022 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa
a reply to: rnaa


When the Pennsylvania constitution is broken, directly affecting the voting in Texas, they have standing. Any illegal voting in Pennsylvania negates the legal vote in Texas.

Thats why the Texas lawsuit only covered Texas. Trying to argue the vote in other states would have been negated by Pennsylvania's illegal and unconstitutional (State constitution) actions would have qualified for a dismissal for lack of standing. Hence the reason it was only Texas, who has standing.
edit on 8-10-2022 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join