Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected

COMMENT: Marty, you understand markets and the legal system. You were right again. The Supreme Court rejected the Brunson case.

KQ

REPLY: As I wrote before, this was an interesting argument, but it will be even more

“earth-shattering if the Supreme Court actually takes the case and rules on the validity of taking an oath of office.”

How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic if you refuse to even investigate the claim?

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? This is why they fight to stack the Supreme Court because the law is just not the law. 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.

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. There is no government obligation to pay for an abortion or a heart transplant.

I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional lawyers that make 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. No statute or rule can negate the constitution as defined by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2).

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 with 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 its own rules and precedents that are unique to each circuit. The law as practiced in New York is different than as practiced in California, Texas, or Florida. It is not all the same! There is no guarantee of 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. You have to get to the Supreme Court and they are supposed to take such cases to establish the law nationally when it differs among the circuits.

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 Virginia, 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 cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

The Constitution ONLY created the Supreme Court. Congress created the statutory inferior court which can be closed at any time because they were NOT created by the Constitution. Therefore, it is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Judiciary Act of 1925 to reduce the Supreme Court to one of discretion. That is a constructive amendment to the constitution which in itself is an act of outright rebellion.

The post Supreme Court Refused to Hear the Brunson Case As Expected first appeared on Armstrong Economics.