Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Discuss the citizen right and remedy etc.

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby Jethro! » Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:46 pm

mertensv16 wrote:
Jethro! wrote:The limitations of Article I do not apply since Congress is "without limitation" when dealing with territorial matters, which includes your precious, non-applicable Article I procedures (though there is probably hair-thin requirement of notice and/or due process Congress must provide there, but that's another discussion).


There are few limits to the rules that are to apply within an unincorporated territory (btw, the "without limitation" language isn't in the Constitution; it has been used by the courts to refer to the kinds of internal, substantive rules that are to apply within a territory), but this doesn't mean that the procedure by which Congress adopts these rules is unlimited. It still must comply with I.7.2.

Sez you.

mertensv16 wrote:Incidentally, it is not the case that the Constitution never applies in a territory -- it applies to incorporated territories, and certain provisions can apply to unincorporated territories (e.g., the right to trial by jury was held to apply to the unincorporated territory of American Samoa; see King v. Morton, 520 F.2d 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1975), on remand King v. Andrus 452 F.Supp 11 (D. DC 1977).)

I see your appellate court case and raise you a Supreme Court one. Downes v. Bidwell makes it clear that Congress' power in a territorial venue is "without limitation" and the Constitution has "no application" there.

mertensv16 wrote:You might as well argue that Congress needn't present a bill dealing with the jurisdiction of a lower federal court to the President. After all, III.1 gives Congress the power to ordain and establish the lower federal courts, and this obviously includes the power to define their jurisdiction.

Yes, for Art. III courts, not for Art. IV.

mertensv16 wrote:Since this is within the complete discretion of Congress, just as are the rules to be applied within a territory, it follows from your argument that a bill dealing with the jurisdiction of a lower federal court just has to be passed by Congress; it doesn't need to be signed by the President. Wow, who knew? How come neither Mr. Edwards nor the Supreme Court picked up on this in the Edwards case? They could have avoided the entire can-the-President-sign-a-bill-after-Congress-has-adjourned issue by simply saying, "Congress passed the bill; the President's approval was unnecessary." And why did Congress even bother to send such a bill to the President in the first place?

Did you forget? Edwards was about a PRIVATE matter. Private ≠ public.

mertensv16 wrote:Your problem is that Congress has no remaining duties after the President approves a bill that both houses have passed.

If the president signed all pending legislation, I'd agree that Congress could then adjourn. However, not until then for an (Article I matter).

mertensv16 wrote:In any event, SCOTUS has decided against your position in the Edwards case

No, it didn't.
mertensv16 wrote:(I noticed you have apparently abandoned the frivolous public/private argument).

Nope. I believe "private" bills also fall under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction power because there is no authority otherwise in Art. I, Sect. 8 for Congress to create "private" anything.
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 200 time
Have thanks: 166 time

 

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby mertensv16 » Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:37 pm

The law dealing with the procedure by which Congress adopts rules and regulations for the territories is not itself a rule or regulation that is to apply within the territories; rather, it is a procedural rule that applies to Congress and the President and spells out how something becomes a federal law. Nothing in IV.3.2 suggests that Congress can use whatever method it wishes in enacting these territorial rules or that it's somehow exempt from I.7.2. For example, nothing in IV.3.2 suggests that the President can’t veto the legislation Congress passes to adopt territorial rules. To the contrary. a claim that territorial legislation is immune from a presidential veto would violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Before Congress can make a rule to apply in a territory, someone has to introduce a bill for that purpose. Once that happens, I.7.2 takes over. Any attempt to call the bill something else (e.g., a “territorial resolution”) won’t work, due to I.7.3. The whole purpose of I.7.3 was to prevent Congress from circumventing the requirements of I.7.2 (especially the President’s veto power) by calling a bill something else.

There is nothing in I.7.2 that suggests that its procedures apply only to actions Congress takes under its Article I powers. There are other provisions in the Constitution outside of Article I that refer to congressional action – II.1.4 (Congress can determine the time for choosing presidential electors); II.2.2 (Congress can vest the appointment of certain officials in the President, the courts, or heads of departments); III.1.1 (Congress can establish lower federal courts); III.2.2 (Congress can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts); III.2.3 (Congress can determine where a criminal trial is to be held if the crime isn’t committed within a state); III.3.2 (Congress can determine the punishment for treason); IV.3.1 (Congress can admit new states). It is absurd to claim that the normal legislation procedures in I.7.2 don’t apply to these areas of authority, especially when you consider that anytime Congress has legislated in one of these areas, it has followed the I.7.2 procedure.

Tell you what, though – see if you can find a case in which legislation outside of Article I has failed to follow the I.7.2 procedure and has been upheld (hint: to my knowledge there’s arguably only one, and it didn’t involve IV.3.2. The case is a very old one and has been the subject of a lot of critical discussion, most of it negative. In fact, it probably didn't involve legislation at all.)

As far as the Downes case is concerned, it never said that no portion of the Constitution ever applies to the territories or that Congress’ power with respect to the territories was unlimited. To the contrary:

To sustain the judgment in the case under consideration, it by no means becomes necessary to show that none of the articles of the Constitution apply to the island of Porto Rico. There is a clear distinction between such prohibitions as go to the very root of the power of Congress to act at all, irrespective of time of place, and such as are operative only 'throughout the United States' or among the several states.

Thus, when the Constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed,' and that 'no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,' it goes to the competency of Congress to pass a bill of that description. Perhaps the same remark may apply to the 1st Amendment, that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' We do not wish, however, to be understood as expressing an opinion how far the bill of rights contained in the first eight amendments is of general and how far of local application...

We suggest, without intending to decide, that there may be a distinction between certain natural rights enforced in the Constitution by prohibitions against interference with them, and what may be termed artificial or remedial rights which are peculiar to our own system of jurisprudence. Of the former class are the rights to one's own religious opinions and to a public expression of them, or, as sometimes said, to worship God according to the dictates of one's own conscience; the right to personal liberty and individual property; to freedom of speech and of the press; to free access to courts of justice, to due process of law, and to an equal protection of the laws; to immunities from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as cruel and unusual punishments; and to such other immunities as are indispensable to a free government. Of the latter class are the rights to citizenship, to suffrage (Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627 ), and to the particular methods of procedure pointed out in the Constitution, which are peculiar to Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and some of which have already been held by the states to be unnecessary to the proper protection of individuals.
Whatever may be finally decided by the American people as to the status of these islands and their inhabitants,-whether they shall be introduced into the sisterhood of states or be permitted to form independent governments,-it does not follow that in the meantime, awaiting that decision, the people are in the matter of personal rights unprotected by the provisions of our Constitution and subject to the merely arbitrary control of Congress. Even if regarded as aliens, they are entitled under the principles of the Constitution to be protected in life, liberty, and property. This has been frequently held by this court in respect to the Chinese, even when aliens, not possessed of the political rights of citizens of the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 , 37 L. ed. 905, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1016; Lem Moon Sing, 158 U.S. 538, 547 , 39 S. L. ed. 1082, 1085, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962; Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 , 41 L. ed. 140, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 977. We do not desire, however, to anticipate the difficulties which would naturally arise in this connection, but merely to disclaim any intention to hold that the inhabitants of these territories are subject to an unrestrained power on the part of Congress to deal with them upon the theory that they have no rights which it is bound to respect.


Your public/private claim remains frivolous, as the Edwards court never relied on such a distinction. Nor did the Court rely on any kind of “exclusive legislative jurisdiction” rationale. Tell you what, though: while you’re trying to find a case to back up your claim that legislation outside of Article I isn’t subject to the I.7.2 procedure, see if you can find a case that distinguishes between private and public bills insofar as I.7.2 is concerned.
mertensv16
Statist
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby country_hick » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:12 pm

Not all courts must be article 3 courts.

Williams v. United States, 289 US 553 - Supreme Court 1933
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1217837966257149768&q=%22Chisholm+v.+Georgia%22+sovereign+unknown&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60

The validity of this view is borne out by the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of this court over judgments and decrees of the legislative courts has been upheld and freely exercised under acts of Congress from a very early period, a practice which can be sustained, as already suggested, only upon the theory that the legislative courts possess and exercise judicial power — as distinguished from legislative, executive, or administrative power — although not conferred in virtue of the third article of the Constitution.

From whatever point of view the question be regarded, the conclusion is inevitable that the Court of Claims receives no authority and its judges no rights from the judicial article of the Constitution, but that the court derives its being and its powers and the judges their rights from the acts of Congress passed in pursuance of other and distinct constitutional provisions. The questions propounded will be answered accordingly.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 37 time

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby palani » Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:55 pm

country_hick wrote:Not all courts must be article 3 courts.

Williams v. United States, 289 US 553 - Supreme Court 1933


To be an article III court you cannot be bankrupt.

Look at the date of that case cite.
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 158 time
Have thanks: 462 time

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby Jethro! » Thu Feb 02, 2017 4:33 pm

mertensv16 wrote:Tell you what, though – see if you can find a case in which legislation outside of Article I has failed to follow the I.7.2 procedure and has been upheld

palani has already pointed out that no such case has ever been heard. And probably never will. Way too much of a political hotbed.

Jethro! has been thanked by:
Jethro!
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:23 pm
Has thanked: 200 time
Have thanks: 166 time

Re: Federal Courts Are Not In Existence

Postby palani » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:21 am

Jethro! wrote:...probably never will. Way too much of a political hotbed.


I know of no method by which a debtor can declare his own court valid and cancel a debt. That is essentially what Roosevelt did in 1933.

Reflect on this. If this method is valid and the People are the source and authority of all government power then the People can declare their own courts to be the only valid courts and ignore the decisions of the bankrupt courts. Which court is superior? [hint ... which court can issue a summons which causes the other to voluntarily appear?]
Make me one with everything.
-- Zen Master to the hot dog vendor
palani
Out of Commerce
 
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:46 am
Has thanked: 158 time
Have thanks: 462 time

Previous

Return to Citizenship & Jurisdiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred