Indeed! A corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States and her citizens.
The fact is, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state “they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain” , as stated by Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941).
There is absolutely no question in my mind that our Supreme Courts’ refusal to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas Bill of Complaint, listen to sworn witnesses, assess evidence and fulfil that part of our Constitution with regard to a redress of grievances, was a wrongful slap in the face to 18 States and 75 million American’s who are on sound ground when asserting their was significant illegal voting activity in the States mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint.
The Supreme Court is partly responsible for some of the outrage expressed during the Jan. 6th event. It’s members ought lower their heads in shame!
JWK When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
And, there was no way at the time to actually calculate the massive number of illegal ballots cast and counted.
JWK
We need to start call these scoundrels what they really are! They are not “Democrats”, “Republicans”, “progressives”, or “liberal leaders”. They are radical, Cuban style, socialist revolutionaries, supported and defended by a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalists.
in my mind, the courts refusal to even hear a case in which they have original jurisdiction is a breach of contract. the constitution is a contract between the states and federal government in which the states agreed to surrender certain and enumerated soveriegn powers to the federal government. in exchange, one of the things they got was the right to redress greivances between one state and another before the supreme court. since there is no other recourse the court must assume if a state (which retains certain sovereign powers) claims a grievance it exists and must hear the case. hiding behind technicalities is shirking their responsibility to the constitution and a clear breach. these states should not secede, however, they should sue the federal government for the breach and claim the right to secede. it is well established in law that a party that breaches a cointract cannot force the other party to adhere to it.
and the 14th amendment gaurentees every person in a state shall be treated the same as any other person in that state, not that they be treated the same as every person in every other state. there is no federal issue in your completely inane whataboutism. abortion is legal in tx. the limitations in state law have no affect on the state of ny
No the idea that a plaintiff needs standing in order to sue is not ludicrous.
Original jurisdiction is separate from stabding but you knew that
Jude because the only place i can sue for a grievance is a state court for example doesn’t require the state court to hear my case if i lack standing to being the lawsuit in the first place
I should probably secede.
If you were to live in my state snd i were to sue you because your car has an expired registration the court should let me proceed with the case regardless of whether i actually control car registrations. It’s an amazing position. Truly
Snd yet the state of Texas managed to restrict abortion snd the right to privacy associated with it.
Of course there is a federal issue. The right to privacy resulting in New York having to pay for a child through taxes it sends to the federal government.
That’s two federal issues right there.
Your entire position rejecting standing as a prerequisite is pretty crazy but here we are discussing it anyway
there is only one place a state can seek redress and it is part of the contractual obligation of the constutution for the scotus to honor it. states are soveriegn, they still enjoy the rights and authorities of soveriegns (where not surrendered). they are not individuals. one of those soveriegn priveleges is that your claims, as a state, are assumed valid. not necessarily true, they still have to prove them. the minority in the case are correct, the scotus does not have leave to refuse a sovereign standing, they have it by nature of being soveriegn.
