Posted by
Glenn Flowers on Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:04:30 PM
For all intents and purposes for which it was created, the Constitution has been rendered null and void by those whose duty it was to obey, safeguard, and accurately administer that very document. And I’m not being presumptive or predicting future policy changes, I am correctly and conservatively stating the present situation today as it really exists.
Even though the Constitution has been assaulted and in peril for many years, even many decades, it has taken the abuse and challenges remarkably well, until 2006.
CONGRESS CLAIMS THE POWER TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION
In August, 2006, a lawsuit was filed by Bill Walker against Congress because of Congress’ refusal to obey Article Five of the Constitution and call for a convention to allow the states to propose ammendments to the Constitution. Walker v Members of Congress was carried all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The appeal began with the submission of a writ of certiorari to the court. Under Supreme Court rules, a writ of certiorari is required to be submitted to the court by the plaintiff or appellant in the lawsuit. On the basis of that writ of certiorari, the court decides if it will hear arguments in the suit. Otherwise it denies the writ of certiorari and the suit is not heard by the court. This has the effect of the Supreme Court affirming any lower court’s decision whatever that may be. As with all courts, the Supreme Court operates under a set of rules. However few people realize the Supreme Court rules are actually federal law which can be found in 28 U.S.C. Appendix Rules of the Supreme Court. Thus, these rules are not only court rules of procedure but federal law as well which apply to all parties before the Supreme Court. Therefore it can be stated that federal law requires an action on a party appearing before the court.
Federal law requires that before the Court determines whether or not it will hear a case under certiorari, it must first establish the facts and law of the suit as required by the Constitution. The federal law governing the filing a certiorari certiorari to the Supreme Court requires the appellant (the party bringing the appeal) to assert what is correct and true as to fact and law in the suit. The opposition party (appellee or defendant) is required by federal law to declare formally and officially for the public record whether these assertions of law and fact are correct and true or not. This requirement in the law is described by the phrase "misstatement of fact or law". If the appellee (defendant) believes the stated fact and law are not true and correct, they are required to so declare this and state the reasons why these asserted facts and law are not correct. If the appellee waives their right to challenge the assertions by appellant of fact and law, the appellee has formally and officially acknowledged the assertions made by the appellant in the suit are correct and true as to fact and law. In Walker v Members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States, as authorized by federal law, represented the members of Congress as attorney of record. In this dual official capacity the Solicitor General decided to waive the right to challenge the assertions of fact and law made by appellant in Walker v. Members of Congress. By waiving this right, under federal law, the attorney for the members of Congress formally and officially admitted these assertions were true and correct as to fact and law.
On October 30, 2006, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, essentially refusing to hear the case, but not before it was established and admitted, for court and public records, that all assertions made in the writ of certiorari were true and correct as to fact and law.
In sum, the federal court system, admitting it had no jurisdiction to do so, endorsed a "right" by the members of Congress to disobey the law of the Constitution in violation of federal criminal law. The court, however, did not exempt the members of Congress from the penalties of these federal criminal laws, allowing the possibility of prison sentences being imposed on every member of Congress for crimes already admitted to and on the record, if and when a federal court does claim jurisdiction in this matter.
Because of the following reasons:
- that the Congress was required under federal law to take a formal public position disobeying the Constitution in a federal lawsuit,
- that the members of Congress knew they were violating federal criminal law by taking this formal public position,
- that they did so voluntary,
- that they accepted a report written by the Attorney General of the United States required by federal law outlining who, when and why such an action was justified,
- that the members of Congress raised no objection to this report,
- that their attorney of record at the Supreme Court admitted as a matter of fact and law these members were peremptorily required to call an Article V Convention and were in violation of federal criminal law for refusing to do so,
. . . it is highly unlikely that the Constitution will be paid attention to by Congress in the future anymore than they have so far. The Constitution is, according to Congress, null and void.
THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION
Wa are all aware of the challenges and claims being made against Barack Obama’s eligibility to be the president because he is not, allegedly, a natural born citizen of the USA as is required by the Constitution. This requirement is clearly defined in the Constitution, but the responsibility to insure a candidate is qualified to become the president is not specifically delegated to any single department, agency, or official, except that the Speaker of the House is required to pronounce said person qualified at the inauguration. No proof or verification is required to be shown by the speaker at that time.
However, in the US Code, federal election law, the Constitution, and various other documents, the qualification of a candidate is a pre-requisite for such things as being put on the ballots used by the various states, receiving any votes from the official electors of the electoral college, receiving any public campaign funding, receiving classified security briefings, engaging in the hiring of staff and support employees, and being sworn in as the president. The Constitution makes it clear that any decision as to the constitutionality of a matter is the implicit responsibility of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it is their duty to insure the president elect meets the constitutional requirements for holding the office of president.
In spite of valid challenges, having bases in fact, being brought to the court for their consideration, the court, instead, has dismissed each of these challenges, NOT because of the merit of the arguments made in the challenge, but because the challenger supposedly lacks the right or standing to file such a challenge to the qualifications of the candidate.
In other words, we, the people, have no right to question the qualifications of a person soon to become the president, even though there is reason to believe that person might not be qualified.
The Constitution demands the Supreme Court decide all matters of a constitutional nature, but, the court has, instead, shirked that mandate by dismissing cases claiming the people don’t have the right to question the qualifications of their new president. The justices are wary, no, scared to death, at the thought of overturning the votes of 60+ million Americans, and would gladly allow a non-citizen to be sworn in as president.
Clearly, the SCOTUS, like Congress, feels no obligation to obey the Constitution, and just ignore it. According to the SCOTUS, the Constitution is null and void.
When two branches of government, having the reponsibility to obey and enforce the Constitution, refuse to do so, the Constitution ceases to be of any importance and is, essentially, null and void.
Glenn Flowers