johnwk
08-03-2012, 06:21 AM
<br><p>
Two years ago when the State AGs said they were going to file suite in a lower federal court over Obamacare, I immediately posted in various forums that something was wrong because the Supreme Court by our Constitution “shall” have original Jurisdiction in cases in which a State shall be Party.<br><p>
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.<br><p>
In fact, a State is Party in the case in question, and as such, the Constitution commands that the “supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”, which means “shall“, not should, or maybe, but "shall" have original jurisdiction and not an inferior Court created by Congress. District courts are inferior courts created by Congress.<br><p>
The meaning of "original jurisdiction" is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance, and “shall“, as used in “the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” preempts another tribunal, such as the inferior district courts created by Congress, from assuming the case in the first instance.<br><p>
In addition, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in the supreme Court and not a district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:<br><p>
Hamilton says:<br><p>
“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”<br><p>
And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: Supreme Court, Original Jurisdiction (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=203) (scroll to bottom of page) we find:
<br><p>
"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."<br><p>
It seems the State AGs intentionally delayed the case so as to allow the people’s rage to subside and to allow various portions of Obamacare to be implemented making it more difficult and almost impossible to reverse. There was no legitimate reason for the AGs to not file directly in the Supreme Court which, by our Constitution, shall have original jurisdiction in such cases. And this is why I felt from the very beginning Tea Party Activists were being played, even by Pam Bondi!<br><p>
So now that Justice Roberts has sided with Obamacare tyranny, why have the State AGs given up so easily and are hanging the Citizens of their State out to dry who they are supposedly representing? Has Justice Roberts identified the kind of tax which is being levied? No! Has Justice Roberts identified the delegated power in our Constitution which allows Congress to tax a Citizen of Florida, or any State, for not having health insurance? No! So why is Pam Bondi and the other AGs not immediately filing directly in the Supreme Court charging that the Obamacare tax does not fit within the limits of a duty, imposts, excise, or direct tax as our founding fathers understood and applied such taxes, nor is there a delegated power which can be pointed to which authorizes Congress to tax a Citizen of Florida or any State for not having health insurance? Additionally, why have they not charged that our Constitution’s amendment process, Article V, has not been followed to obtain consent of the people prior to Congress exercising a power to regulate their health care needs and choices which in fact is a power retained by the people under our Constitution’s 9th and 10th amendments?<br><p>
Why is Pam Bondi and the other State Attorney Generals submitting to despotism and tyranny?<br><p>
JWK<br><p>
[I]"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story<br><p>
Two years ago when the State AGs said they were going to file suite in a lower federal court over Obamacare, I immediately posted in various forums that something was wrong because the Supreme Court by our Constitution “shall” have original Jurisdiction in cases in which a State shall be Party.<br><p>
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.<br><p>
In fact, a State is Party in the case in question, and as such, the Constitution commands that the “supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction”, which means “shall“, not should, or maybe, but "shall" have original jurisdiction and not an inferior Court created by Congress. District courts are inferior courts created by Congress.<br><p>
The meaning of "original jurisdiction" is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance, and “shall“, as used in “the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” preempts another tribunal, such as the inferior district courts created by Congress, from assuming the case in the first instance.<br><p>
In addition, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in the supreme Court and not a district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:<br><p>
Hamilton says:<br><p>
“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”<br><p>
And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: Supreme Court, Original Jurisdiction (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=203) (scroll to bottom of page) we find:
<br><p>
"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."<br><p>
It seems the State AGs intentionally delayed the case so as to allow the people’s rage to subside and to allow various portions of Obamacare to be implemented making it more difficult and almost impossible to reverse. There was no legitimate reason for the AGs to not file directly in the Supreme Court which, by our Constitution, shall have original jurisdiction in such cases. And this is why I felt from the very beginning Tea Party Activists were being played, even by Pam Bondi!<br><p>
So now that Justice Roberts has sided with Obamacare tyranny, why have the State AGs given up so easily and are hanging the Citizens of their State out to dry who they are supposedly representing? Has Justice Roberts identified the kind of tax which is being levied? No! Has Justice Roberts identified the delegated power in our Constitution which allows Congress to tax a Citizen of Florida, or any State, for not having health insurance? No! So why is Pam Bondi and the other AGs not immediately filing directly in the Supreme Court charging that the Obamacare tax does not fit within the limits of a duty, imposts, excise, or direct tax as our founding fathers understood and applied such taxes, nor is there a delegated power which can be pointed to which authorizes Congress to tax a Citizen of Florida or any State for not having health insurance? Additionally, why have they not charged that our Constitution’s amendment process, Article V, has not been followed to obtain consent of the people prior to Congress exercising a power to regulate their health care needs and choices which in fact is a power retained by the people under our Constitution’s 9th and 10th amendments?<br><p>
Why is Pam Bondi and the other State Attorney Generals submitting to despotism and tyranny?<br><p>
JWK<br><p>
[I]"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story<br><p>