Is the Supreme Court Acting Unconstitutional?

QUESTION: 

Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Re: The Ted Cruz/John Kasich Conspiracy and your comments about the Constitution and USC
In your opinion, might it be a crime to deny registered independents the right to vote in a primary?
Pennsylvania, one of only 11 states remaining with this law, is a prime example.
Thank you for a life devoted to the education of those with inquiring minds,
JS

ANSWER: Absolutely. Since we have created these “primary” elections, even though they are for delegates, once the state creates such a right it cannot deprive its citizens of it without violating civil rights. Now here is the real monumental problem. Does the Supreme Court act constitutionally or has it denied citizens the right to be heard as declared by the Constitution itself? We hear all this yelling about the Republicans blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. The real issue is the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the court itself.

I specialized, not just in history, but also in the rise and fall of nations. Historically, a collapse in the rule of law is a key element in the fall of nations. I studied law intensely and some lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very few cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statute. Instead, they merely challenge the unconstitutional acts of government agents such as police and politicians.

Roberts was granted the power to uphold Obamacare as a tax but socialism is not part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means citizens cannot demand that government create any social program for there is no such Marxist component to the Constitution that people assume exists. By the way, once the Supreme Court holds a principle of law, it remains the law even if it was written in 1792.

I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional lawyers that makes their eyes pop out. The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice.

The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases per year in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches) with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.

Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I, of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:

“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”

Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)

Your constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child could not speak to his or her father and would only communicate to them through some nanny? Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not. Inferior courts are under no obligation to apply even a uniform legal code. Each has their own rules and precedents are unique to each circuit. There is no guarantee to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States.

Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:

“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…” 

Cohen v Virgina, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324

Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress, a political party (e.g. Republicans right now), etc. cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

The inferior federal courts have become a joke. They are there to defend the government, not the people. In my own case, I confronted perhaps the most corrupt judge in New York City: Richard Owen. He had the audacity to alter the transcripts in court by changing the words people said to support the government. I submitted an affidavit outlining whole sections he removed. Many people showed up in court that day and lawyers were telling me I was crazy because you cannot accuse a judge of a crime. “They all say he does that,” I remarked. “Yes,” they replied, “but you cannot say that in public.” Since there were so many people in the courtroom that day, Owen became nervous and admitted to changing my transcripts, but denied making any material changes. The whole place went silent.

I appealed when he refused to step down but the Second Circuit refused to hear the case. Like police, judges protect each other. Since a circuit court would not take the appeal, I was denied the right to petition the Supreme Court. Strangely, when another judge changed the transcripts to help the defendant, the Court of Appeals in New York wanted to prevent that judge from practicing but they lacked the power to order a district judge to obey the law (see page 97, UNITED STATES v. ZICHETTELLO, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) ). If the Second Circuit has no “power” to uphold the Constitution when violated by a judge, then who does?

There is no honest rule of law in the United States. We are no different from some backwater court in the sticks where the judge and the sheriff are family, or a third world country where the majority cannot read since it really makes no difference. This entire process is in direct contradiction with the rule of law. The federal court exists to protect individual citizen’s rights under the federal Constitution for it has been acknowledged that this is the core purpose of their creation (see Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 US 388 (1971); Bell v Hood, 327 US 678 (1946), Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803). There is absolutely no right to anything because the inferior courts all know the odds of you getting to the Supreme Court are virtually zero.

In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” (id/ 5 US at 163). Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” (Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role and mandates the right to be heard.

We have no rule of law today all because of an unconstitutional Act of Congress known as the Judiciary Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 936). This barbarous act reduced the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States and in effect denied the right to be heard. From that moment on, your Constitutional rights all became discretionary.

This is the same chaos that was created when Andrew Jackson closed the Bank of the United States and every bank began issuing their own money, all of which defaulted in the 1840s. Without a central bank controlling the inferior banks, the financial system was destroyed. The Judiciary Act of 1925 did the same to our constitutional rights. The only reason I was released was because I won that lottery and the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond. I was one of the 80 out of 7,000+. You will never get in if you are not high profile and do not have a Constitutional claim.

The inferior courts are statutory and are not constitutionally required, and as such, they exist at the pure discretion of Congress. We have 94 U.S. judicial districts that are organized into 12 regional circuits. They are not bound to a single unified rule of law, which results in the denial of equal protection of the law.

The movement Black Lives Matter is based upon the issue that police treat blacks differently. Well, so does the law in every aspect because we have 12 circuits and a “discretionary” Supreme Court. The ONLY court secured by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. That’s it folks! If you cannot be heard in that court, then you are denied your Constitutional right to Due Process of Law. Therefore, someone in the 9th circuit in California will be treated differently from the 2nd Circuit in New York. The Supreme Court is supposed to settle such differences but is not obligated to do so. This is what the Judiciary Act of 1925 pulled off by undermining of our entire Constitution.

Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States courts of appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” and subject to grant of writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to further reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925.

The Judiciary Act or 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall, which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.

Instead of arguing and blocking the appointment of a single Justice, let’s straighten out this mess and repeal the Judiciary Act of 1925. How about we then adopt the original proposal of Ben Franklin who said that the legal community should nominate judges instead of politicians. That was the system in Scotland and he proposed we eliminate politics from the judiciary. That is the only possible way to achieve a real rule of law.

This should be the real fight. To those claiming to be “conservative”: how about returning the Supreme Court to its rightful position as a check and balance against Congress and the Executive? The Supreme Court should defend the people for once and act as our last, honest Equal Protection of the Law.

Feel free to repost this everywhere

Martin Armstrong