Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Chief Justice John Roberts has reassigned circuit court responsibilities among the Supreme Court justices and interestingly, he has given the States that are smack-dab in the middle of election litigation to the conservative justices on the court. Interesting move by a Chief Justice I have figured is under pressure by leftist interests.
Circuit Assignments
It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective November 20, 2020.
- For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
- For the First Circuit - Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice
(Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island) - For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice(Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
- For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice(Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Island)
- For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice(Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
- For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
- For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice(Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
- For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice(Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
- For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice(Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
- For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
- For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice(Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
- For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice(Alabama, Florida, Georgia)
- For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.
On Facebook an individual indicated this was a case of Trump playing chess against a Democrat Party regime only capable of playing checkers. Then, a conversation erupted between two conservatives that became an interesting bout that dragged me in at one point. One of the individuals is a lawyer, and the following is my response to their exchange.
Interesting exchange of ideas. Thank you, Joe, for including me in the conversation. As a strict constructionist I do not accept case law and precedent as being constitutional, though I do recognize the value of case law, precedent, and even judicial review (of which I abhor as a constitutionalist) in the legal industry. That said, just for clarification, the Constitution does not say the election of the president and vice president goes to Congress if the election is contested, it says that it goes to Congress if a majority of electors for any candidate is not reached. That is why December 14, the date the electors meet to present their votes, is so critical. Originally, the vote of the people in relation to the electors was not a factor, there was no public vote. The people campaigned to their regional electors in the hopes of convincing the elector to vote for their candidate. The State legislatures, rather than the political parties, appointed the electors (so the current appointment of electors by the parties is actually unconstitutional) which means the people indirectly voted for the electors through their votes for their assembly (or State House of Representatives), and the counties indirectly voted for the electors through the State Senate. Originally, state senators were appointed by county leadership with one senator per county, a feature of a republic rather than democracy. People voting in the presidential election, and then the electors voting in line with the popular vote of their electoral district, and the "winner take all" thing which 48 States to this day follows, was added during the Andrew Jackson administration because that president, who is the father of the Democratic Party (he changed the Jeffersonian Republicans into the Democratic-Republicans, and then ultimately to the Democratic Party) believed in pure democracy, a dangerous system that has been slowly bringing down our American system over the last two hundred years. To be honest, I am surprised Roberts appointed the circuit responsibilities as he did because ever since Obamacare I have been convinced the left has something over his head and he has been afraid to displease them ever since. The court cases in place thanks to the willingness of the Trump team to do what they can to expose the truth, which I explain are not designed to change an election, but are designed to bring to light criminal behavior that may have influenced the election, and could in the end alter what we believe to be the results, are a necessary part of the game, but in the end if we were to follow the constitution the States would fire the existing electors, and reappoint them themselves, and ultimately the court cases would not be a necessity as they seem to be at this moment. That said, I am not disagreeing with the litigation going on, and I am glad we have a president willing to fight back, it's just that if we were following original constitutional principles and procedures, this wouldn't have happened and the court cases would not be necessary. The left would have never been able to pull this garbage off had we remained on the original constitutional path. This problem is larger than merely the Electoral College, though, and spans the entire era since 1787, and unfortunately it will take likely just as long to get it back to where it is supposed to be, if we have the eternal vigilance to do so. As for you stating you would not need to take my class due to your expertise in law, and having taken constitutional classes in law school, what I teach is not the current legal lie, but the original content of the Constitution, and the original intent as we understand it based on Madison's Notes, the notes taken during the ratification conventions, and other correspondence, notes, and various literature from the time period. In other words, I teach what should be, not what is, and I am a firm believer that if we are to be able to challenge what is, we must firmly understand what should be. I have a feeling original language in the document known as the U.S. Constitution did not dominate your education in constitutional law, and to be a well-rounded attorney you ought to consider educating yourself on that particular originalist philosophy. No, I do not have a law degree, I am self taught from the founding documents and literature, of which I have studied my whole life, and to be honest, I know more about history and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution than nearly all historians and lawyers that I have met. Sometimes, to truly learn, we can't have our minds clouded by the noise of academia. For your own information, if you would like to attend a class, I conduct three in Southern California. One, which begins December 3, will be on ZOOM, and you are welcome to watch (out of wanting to learn, or out of curiosity). Here's the eventbrite link for that in case you are so inclined, which includes the email address to contact for the ZOOM link. https://www.eventbrite.com/.../constitution-classes-14... Thank you for your time, and thanks for being in the fight for liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment