Which "Supreme Court" izzat?
First, I diagram the first sentence of Article III, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, viz.: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-1 "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." (Emphasis supplied.) The basic truths are the best.
It is a grade school exercise to diagram a sentence, and I've had this diagram checked by three grade school teachers, and two principals. Separate the subjects from the predicates, note the punctuation and verbiage, determine and note what modifies what; and determine the meaning of the statement. The meanings here are unambiguous: 1- That any and all Courts established by the Congress were to be "inferior" to the "one supreme Court" of vested right; 2- That the phrase "shall be vested" (Emphasis supplied.) is in future tense, prescribing a state of affairs that did not exist at time of statement http://www.sanityclause.com/Prescrip.htm; 3- The clause "Congress may" (Emphasis supplied.) signifies grant of privilege (license), establishing a ministerial special trust within a constitutional paradigm, not a blind or discretionary trust. Too, bear in mind that Principals are accountable for their Trustees under respondeat superior (let the master answer).
This all goes to construction, the way our supposedly servant government was put together as it is written de jure. This is not an attempt to interpret the Constitution, or expound upon the intentions of its Framers. The issue of whether or not the US Supreme Court's claim of exclusive interpretive authority is valid is not yet here in question. The paragraphs above simply apply the tools provided to grade school students here in the United States to promote their understanding of the English language. Whether the people of the United States may interpret their own "supreme Law of the Land" http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-6.html might be questioned; but whether or not they are capable and qualified to understand it may not be; as the presumption of the knowledge of the law attends every prosecution, and ignorance of the law excuses not! Too, the right to show others my thoughts in writing is the free speech and freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment. But don't take my word for it, diagram it for yourself; a sovereign people have both the right and the responsibility to know what their laws are after all….
The FIRST CONGRESS, in Session I, Chapter 20, 1789, Statutes at Large, Volume 1, page 73 http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html[Go from URL to GIF image.], legislated: "Chap. XX.—An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." (Emphasis supplied.) including, in Section 1 (ibid.), what is now known as the "supreme court of the United States." Now, in the sure and certain knowledge provided by using gummit taught language tools, that any and all Courts the Congress may establish are "inferior" to the "one supreme Court" of vested right; how can the "Judicial""supreme court" established by Congress be the same as the "one supreme Court" of vested right? What's up with that?
So much for the thesis, on to the muse!
I am not intimidated or even impressed by the US Supreme Court's asserted "exclusive authority to interpret the US Constitution." If, as is also claimed, the Justices of the US Supreme Court are empowered by the sovereign public's trust and subject to the provisions of that Constitution, they contradict themselves by saying their acts are not subject to check or balance by the other two magistracies of government. Put another way, if the Judicial Supreme Court claims ultimate and final authority, it is usurping the people's sovereignty that very Constitution was meant to protect. Even England's infamous Star Chamber Courts lacked the temerity to try to rule their sovereign. There is no grant from the sovereign people anywhere in the US Constitution for the judiciary to say what the laws are or just how much authority they should have. The sovereign people laid the onus of law making upon the legislative branch; ergo, it traverses of the separation of powers, which provide our "checks and balances," for the Justices of the US Supreme Court to legislate, as this authority is assigned to others. Authority for the existence of government flows from the sovereign people to and through our servants, at least that's how it works out on paper. But when the courts legislate, in effect the judiciary rules the people as monarchs instead of serving them within the constitutional paradigm. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "To rest upon a formula is a slumber that prolonged, means death." ["Ideals and Doubts" (1920)]
The key to understanding is context. The Act of the FIRST CONGRESS supra, established "Judicial Courts" (Emphasis supplied.) only. "Judicial" according to Black's Law means "Belonging to the office of a judge." America's Framers created a system of checks and balances so that the magistracies of government could and hopefully would each keep the others in check. Learning their lesson from history, the Framers usurped their sovereignty from George III and said it was "the people's" as a whole. Never once, in word or deed, did the Framers show they intended that they should be ruled by the government; quite the contrary, the American Revolution was for the manifest purpose of turning around the flow of political power so that a sovereign people would at last have true autonomy, and be served by their government, instead of being the servants thereof. This turning around was spoz'ta be accomplished by separating the powers of government into distinct offices, to provide "a system of checks and balances," i.e., each of the magistracies was given, and had, the onus to judge the actions of the other two, and to act to correct any deviation from the constitutional paradigm. Having delegated to their servants, in ministerial special trust, that each branch would ride herd on the other two, such onus can not be lawfully reassigned to the judicial magistracy alone without the express direction or consent of the Principal, namely, the sovereign people, without amending the Constitution. Whether that ministerial special trust is upheld in the real world, is, as usual, the root of my angst. As Robert Burns said, "The best laid plans of mice and of men (often go wrong)."
Some things "go without saying" so it is only by understanding the colloquial idioms and history at the time of the American Revolution that the true meaning of the US Constitution can be known. George III was not the first English monarch to face a successful rebellion; neither was he the last. EXAMPLES: 1. In 1215 King John, with Magna Carta, placed himself and all future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/magnacarta/. 2. In 1649 Oliver Cromwell and his gang beheaded King Charles I for "treason." [Cromwell himself was such a tyrant that his body was exhumed and posthumously 'executed', 30th January, 1661.] http://www.cromwell.argonet.co.uk/3. In 1660 Charles II restored to the throne of England http://www.royal-stuarts.org/william_ii.htm, but not before the common English people got their first BILL OF RIGHTS. 4. The power of common law juries, acting upon the compulsions of their consciences and doing what they believe is right and just, regardless of judicial instructions to the contrary, is basic to the public's autonomy. 5. Mahatma Gandhi threw the British East India Company, the Crown's colonial power in India, out without firing a shot.
Us "We, the people—" folks as a whole, in the history of our country, have never completely agreed on anything. But I do feel safe in saying it is agreed by most of us that our government is spoz'ta be our servant, not our master. I can only suppose what the Framer's of our Constitution meant by "one supreme Court" as distinct from "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." I can not say for certain what or who would comprise that "one supreme Court" of vested right. My best educated guess into the minds of the Framers, based upon the presumption of their integrity, is they were referring to a jury empanelled to act as a microcosm of the sovereignty of the people as a whole; exercising "original Jurisdiction" in "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party" to judge of both "Law and Fact" http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2. Yet, Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices are obviously the very "public Ministers" to be regulated before the "one supreme Court," so it is a contradiction in terms to allow Congress legislative authority over "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" as that puts the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop. Are "We, the people—" the collective sovereign with a servant Government, or are we serfs held as subjects to laws over which we have no control? We can not be both. Who is in charge here?
Working on the subject matter of this piece, and discussing it, a larger question arose than was answered by my initial research, viz., "Who is qualified to choose the jury?" An independent common law jury is a microcosm of the sovereignty held by all. But a "jury" of 12 or so that chooses itself often has a foreman named Lynch! Prevention of lynch mobs, and other chaos, is the reason: "- Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.htmlA jury within the Constitution must be consented to by all parties, else government grounded upon consent is meaningless. Conversely: A party who refused to accept any jury would be setting himself above the law evincing criminal contempt of court, due process of law, and the people's hard won right to self govern. But can that jury truly be "impartial" http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html - art-6 as the Constitution mandates? Assuming our Constitution is a valid document, that is, that all us "We, the people—" folks who might be jurors have agreed to be bound by that Constitution, who will judge the jurors if they stray from that paradigm? Juries, to rule under a constitution, must be partial thereto; else that constitution has no meaning or force. This is where the right of appeal comes into play. An appeal from the verdict of a jury says the jury was in error or misinformed. In such case, the original jury panel is at interest and is no longer qualified to render an "impartial" determination. Likewise, when the constitutionality of judicially legislated jury instructions attends the appeal, all officers of the judicial magistracy, in toto, are at interest and incapable of claiming impartiality or independence towards the subject matter as expressly mandated by the Sixth Amendment http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html - art-6 and CANON 1 of the Missouri Rules http://www.sound.net/~duncan10/qxcn1aju.htm.
On January 26th, 1830, Daniel Webster said, "It is, Sir, the people's Constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people." Where is our government to answer? Certainly not in any Court established and ergo controlled by itself! James Madison, in The Federalist #10 http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Federalist/feder10.html, wrote: "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
The US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2 squarely and expressly states " the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" of Cases involving "public Ministers and Consuls" (office holders and lawyers?). This proviso can and does NOT refer to the Judicial Court of the same name, established September 24, 1789, because: 1- As shown supra, any Courts the Congress established were to be "inferior" to the "one Supreme Court" of vested right; 2-That Judicial Court was established almost two years ex post facto (after the fact) of ratification http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-1.html - sec-9 and for that reason did not exist to be referred to; and, 3- Presidents, Congressmen, and Judges are the very "public Ministers" who are spoz'ta be regulated before the "one supreme Court" so for them to stand before a court of their own making, which they themselves have complete control of, evinces a conflict of interest.
Responsibility is measured by accountability. There is no other empiric means to show a trust is being upheld than for Principles to call their Trustees to account. This is the answer to Juvenal's ancient rhetoric: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who shall guard the guards themselves? - Who will watch the watchers? - Who will judge the judges? - How do we know we can trust our trustees? [literally] Who has custody of the custodians?). Accountability is the sole empiric means "We, the people-" can exercise to know our government is still our servant. This is the pillar supporting a truly democratic government, as stated by Aristotle, that: "The only truly stable state is one in which all are equal under the law."
Universal peerage, basic to popular sovereignty, requires that judges avoid the specter of partiality. But when the gummit claims, for instance, that only judges are qualified to judge judges, it sets itself apart from and above the rest of the population as superior. A Titled Nobility by any other name, as they have no peers among the general population, sucks royally.
The keys to good government under collective sovereignty, in my humble opinion, are: 1. "Men must choose to be governed by God or they condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants." as William Penn said; 2. Decorum (the whole world is watching); 3. That all parties consent to the jurors (Refusing to consent to any jury at all is a criminal contempt, conversely, a "jury" that selects itself is known as a mob and often has a foreman named Lynch!); 4. Preservation of the substantive right of appeal; and, last but certainly not least, 5. Constitutionally valid subject matter jurisdiction determined by people who are qualified to judge the issue.
A "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," [Lincoln] means the judiciary must be as accountable to the laws as anyone else must. The alternative is to see judges as a privileged class, a.k.a., Titled Nobility by any other name, eschewing consideration for popular sovereignty. But where is the "one supreme Court" of vested right? When and if a citizen has a beef with judges, complaining of criminal activities, where is the open public forum mandated for the redress of such grievance? The Court stipulated to hold "original Jurisdiction" of such issues is not listed in any directory. It's been two hundred and twelve years since the ratification of the US Constitution, so I think the Establishment has had due time to establish it. Where is it?
The US Constitution expressly divides the gummit into three distinct magistracies. Article I states the extent of authority the newly sovereign people would permit to their Legislative Branch, Article II covers their Executive Branch, Article III their Judicial Branch, etceteras. Legislators are not empowered either to execute or adjudicate the laws they write; executives have no constitutional authority to legislate or adjudicate; and the judiciary is not empowered to legislate or execute. The separation of powers, and other constitutional prohibitions, are spoz'ta be the bulwarks which vouchsafe our Liberty; and they have never been honored.
The fact that our constitutional prescriptions and proscriptions have been held as void is easily seen by a review of history. 1. The "one supreme Court" of vested right, distinct from "such inferior Courts as the Congress may - establish" has yet to exist http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-1; and 2. The Justices of the Judicial Supreme Court operate under a conflict of interest in holding office, for they claim to be the "one supreme Court" of vested right, when in fact their office was created ex post facto and is "inferior" to that Court in which they themselves, as "public Ministers," were to be regulated by their collective sovereign http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-3.html - sec-2 and, http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html; and, 3. The provision that, "Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/art-1.html - sec-2 eschews all consideration of any direct regulation by the people, puts the fox in charge of guarding the chicken coop, and makes faith and trust in government mandatory; a contradiction in terms, a conflict of interest, and a direct assault on the freedom of thought basic to Liberty itself.
The argument that Congress should, or does, "have the sole Power of Impeachment" when voiced by any so-called public servant, is circular logic, states that only the gummit has jurisdiction of its members, and that the people, instead of being sovereign are servants, and have only such redress before the law as is allowed to them. This absolute want of recognition and standing before the law evinces servitude and slavery to the arbitrary whims of others, and is expressly prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.udhr50.org/UDHR/default.htm. But, that Declaration too is prescriptive, not descriptive http://www.sanityclause.com/Prescrip.htm.
FIt is evident by the above facts that the US Constitution contradicts itself. Oh well, nobody's perfect, not even the Founding Fathers. Whether the Framers knew about the contradictions and regulated government via other means is moot, as they can not correct the errors now. If, truly, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." then "the voice of the people" will rule. Yet nowhere in history have "the people" as a whole lacked dissidents. In fact, some people seem to disagree just for the egocentric fun of it. How, therefore, to bridle the gummit by peaceful means, since the "checks and balances" of our Constitution have been side stepped ab initio (from the first), is the question at present.
I am but one voice crying in the wilderness. Whether my opinions are ahead of their time, or pure and utter nonsense, time will tell. I find this promulgation of my thoughts, as protected by the First Amendment, to be sufficient catharsis for my angst http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html - art-1; and I call for reform, not insurection or revolution. Peace.
Namasté,
©Sanity ClauseRE.(Rascal Emeritus.) 8-26-99.
BACK to- http://www.sanityclause.com/