Northwest Indiana Patriots, i got One Nerve Left
i  got  ONE NERVE LEFT  and  you're  on  it .

Article IV of the Constitution, the “Guarantee Clause”

I recommended that people read Dr.Kate as she walks through an interpretation of the constitution. She writes in a very readable manner and again I urge people to bookmark her site and stroll through her previous posts regarding the constitution.

It seems to me that the constitution was written to protect the people from the federal government , but today it is being used against the people by the federal government. Politicians wield their legislation as a weapon against the people. The constitution has become so twisted, while we slept, that now the very document we desire to preserve, is being used by politicians to hold onto the power that the constitution sought to never allow them to have.  Only a tattered document allows them to punish and batter the people. They are the ones who placed the constitution in tatters and now sit in power, lording over the people in lieu of defending the constitution and being servants to the people.

The people are awakening and there is much work to do. Our Congress is corrupt and we are fighting to preserve America and we never thought that those sworn to defend the constitution would be the ones fighting against us. We must arm ourselves with knowledge.

Dr Kate outlines:

The Assault Revealed

Utilizing both the ‘political question’ and the ’standing’  issue,
the Courts seem to be, at their discretion, dismissing key
Constitutional questions, including the WTP’s  petitions to the
government under the First Amendment and legal proceedings under
Articles II  and IV of the Constitution.

It has been implemented over history under the guise of ‘checks and
balances’, but appears to be a convenient tool for ’stacked’ courts to
avoid key questions or upsetting the true balance of power
right now.  It certainly seems a potential avenue to influence judges.
At the very least it creates a power vacuum into which nefarious
politicos readily enter.”

Clear Signs

Like Paul Revere, we are looking for signs of which way they are coming, ‘one if by land, two if by sea’.  If you begin to see more and more Constitutional issues being thrown out by Courts using the ‘political question’, or even suspicious uses of ’standing’, understand that the Courts are infected too. Yes, as if we didn’t already know that.

But also, these signs just require us to be vigilant in thinking everything all the way through.  Legal preparation, cases, and tactics must be impeccable.  And, our strategies must be coordinated, effective, and aimed at outmaneuvering them on the avenue by which they come.

Read the entire article with comments here http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-political-question/

Titled:

The ‘Political Question’

©2009 drkate

In my earlier article on the First Amendment, 912, and the Continental Congress 2009,
I suggested that Article IV, or the “Guarantee Clause”, was an
important underlying principle of protecting our ‘republican form of
government’, and could prevent the assault on our current
Constitutional Republic by fiat or decree by Congress or the
Executive.  Specifically, Article IV Section 4 states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.

I initially read this to mean that the Federal government cannot move this country to a socialist form of government, because it was required to ensure to each state a government that was a republic.

More Questions

In reading further,
however, another layer of assault on our Constitutional Republic is
revealed, as the Courts employ the ‘judicial invention’ of the
‘political question’ to avoid court review of the exercise of governmental power:

As with other judicial doctrines created by the Court, the rule is interpretive and self-imposed.
It is neither a result of legislation nor a part of the U.S.
Constitution, although it appears to emanate from the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.
The Court created the political question doctrine as part of the
broader concept of justiciability—the issue of whether a matter is
appropriate for court review.

The doctrine was first articulated in 1803 by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney:

“federal courts should leave certain constitutional
questions to the legislative and executive branches in any matter that
is “a political question to be settled by the political power.

Otherwise known as, ‘political process’.  When the We the People Foundation’s
petitions for redress under the First Amendment were dismissed by a
federal court under the ‘political question’ doctrine, founder Bob
Shultz rightly critiqued that the First Amendment rights of American
citizens under the U.S. Constitution were not guaranteed, but were
instead up for a vote by the very government it was petitioning.

While the Court has not ducked all publicly sensitive issues (see rulings on Abortion and Affirmative Action),
the blatant dismissal of  WTP’s First Amendment right is troubling. The
Courts would appear to have the discretion to dismiss important public
questions, and Constitutional cases,  under the guise of the ‘political
question’.  This sounds similar to the use of the judicially invented
doctrine of  ’standing’ to avoid the Constitutional question presented by the eligibility cases.

In the important case  New York v. United States
[112 S.Ct. 2408, 2432–2433 (1992)], Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited
Section 4 of Amendment IV as limiting the federal government’s ability
to commandeer state officers to implement federal law.  In addition to Gregory v. Ashcroft[ 501 U.S. 452, 463 (1991),

The opinions draw support from a powerful argument
for utilizing the guarantee clause as a judicially enforceable limit on
federal power
(Source:
Merritt, The Guarantee Clause and State Autonomy: Federalism for a
Third Century, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1988)).

The Assault Revealed

Utilizing both the ‘political question’ and the ’standing’  issue,
the Courts seem to be, at their discretion, dismissing key
Constitutional questions, including the WTP’s  petitions to the
government under the First Amendment and legal proceedings under
Articles II  and IV of the Constitution.

It has been implemented over history under the guise of ‘checks and
balances’, but appears to be a convenient tool for ’stacked’ courts to
avoid key questions or upsetting the true balance of power
right now.  It certainly seems a potential avenue to influence judges.
At the very least it creates a power vacuum into which nefarious
politicos readily enter.

The Kerchner v. Obama case, which was discussed extensively here, has not been granted a decision yet by the Court, although it was promised in early August.  This is late by the standards and practices of the Court and by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although Obama has not raised the ‘political question’ in his defense,
I am sure he has thought about this argument.  What do you want to bet
that the judges in the eligibility cases are thinking about using this
tool in ducking a Constitutional question, or delaying until sufficient
Supreme Court justices are in place to secure a ‘political resolution’
to the issue?

Indeed, our hapless senators and representatives, the foolish obots,
and the democrats continue to insist that ‘the election is over, get
over it, he’s our president’, as if our very Constitution was subject
to the ballot box.  The judge who dismissed the Hollister case cited
‘twitter’ as definitive proof that Obama had been vetted.

This is the subtle use of the ‘political question’, which now seems
applicable to an array of dangers we face as Obama and the democrats
nationalize the banking and auto industries, and attempt to do the same
with the health care and energy industries.  This is a move to change
the fundamental basis of our government from one of a Republic, and
capitalism, to a  ‘democratic’ socialist economy run by ‘majority
rule’, or ‘elite’ rule, or ‘government rule’.

When challenged in court, will health insurance reform, which may be at its core unconstitutional,
or the cap and tax legislation, or attempts to nationalize industries,
be ruled as ‘political questions’ and not subject to review by the
Courts?  Is the Constitution up for a vote? :???:

What is the line between Obama’s discretion as the so-called
Executive, traditionally covered by ‘the political question’,  in
foreign policy, and purposeful disarmament of America to enable our
enemies to attack us (treason)?

Clear Signs

Like Paul Revere, we
are looking for signs of which way they are coming, ‘one if by land,
two if by sea’.  If you begin to see more and more Constitutional
issues being thrown out by Courts using the ‘political question’, or
even suspicious uses of ’standing’, understand that the Courts are
infected too. Yes, as if we didn’t already know that.

But also, these signs just require us to be vigilant in thinking
everything all the way through.  Legal preparation, cases, and tactics
must be impeccable.  And, our strategies must be coordinated,
effective, and aimed at outmaneuvering them on the avenue by which they
come.

Paul Revere on "Big Brown"

Paul Revere on “Big Brown”

Related posts:

  1. Sept. 17th, Constitution Day
  2. The Census Form. What Do I Legally Have to Answer?
  3. Indiana Attorney General to review Constitutionality of Federal Health Care Overhaul Senate Bill

Comments are closed.