Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Sibley v. Congress III: Monkey see, Monkey do

Thomas Henry Huxley has been quoted as saying that if you left a hundred monkeys pounding on a hundred typewriters for a hundred years eventually one of them would type out a Shakespearean sonnet.

Maybe I am that Monkey.  For you see, I have been pounding on my "typewriter" for what seems like a hundred years seeking to get the judicial system to do its duty.  Now, I might have typed out the legal equivalent of a Shakespearean sonnet.

In my litigation regarding the present-duty of Congress to "call" a Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, Senator McConnell has "removed" the case from D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  His reason, I believe, is that District Court Judges are famously pro-government.  I am seeking to "remand" the case back to D.C. Superior Court which I believe would allow a fairer venue in my opinion to address the issues raised in my lawsuit.  Indeed, I might even get an advisory jury, something that one seldom sees in federal court.

To accomplish that, on May 22, I filed my Motion to Remand arguing that the federal court did not have "subject matter jurisdiction" over my Article V claims.  Accordingly, I argue, that without subject-matter jurisdiction the case must be remanded back to D.C. Superior Court.

This puts Judge James E. “Jeb” Boasberg on the horns of a dilemma.  For my Complaint only alleges that I possess the general right of every Citizen: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”.  Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 130 (1922).  However, an appalling line of cases tracing back to  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561(1992) have held that in order for a U.S. District Court to have subject-matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have "standing" which means that I would have to have suffered an injury in fact which is concrete and particularized -- something I did not suffer in this instance. My "suffering" is the same as yours -- a Congress which is a law unto itself, ignores the mandates of the  Constitution and listens only to those who pay for their attention.

So here is the dilemma for the good Judge Boasberg.  Follow the controlling law and remand the case to D.C. Superior Court and thereby confirm that as U.S. Citizens we no longer have the right: “to require that the Government be administered according to law. . . .”   That would be one hell of an admission of the erosion of the social compact which is the U.S. Constitution to that of an aspirational document only.

Or, Judge Boasberg can keep the case by refusing the remand and break with the last 23 years of legal cases which have served to disenfranchise our First Amendment right to petition.  But then, he would have to address the merits of my claims.

It will be an interesting decision in either event.


Monday, May 18, 2015

Sibley v. Congress II

Regarding my lawsuit against Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner, I have now perfected service of process on both Gentleman and thus the lawsuit can move forward. That lawsuit seeks to challenge the refusal of Congress to call an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments despite 35+ states having applied for the calling of such a convention.

Senator McConnell promptly removed the case from D.C. Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

I will in due course be contesting that removal.


Monday, May 4, 2015

Harvard Law, Ted Cruz and "natural born Citizen"

In March, the Harvard Law Review stepped into the political arena with an article by two former Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement and Neal Katyal. They wrote a Note seeking to establish that the Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz was eligible to be President under Article II of the Constitution.  Article II requires, among other conditions precedent, that the President be a "natural born Citizen".  In their Note -- “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen” -- Clement and Katyal argue that "natural born Citizen" means all those who were: "U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time."

This legally-indefensible argument deserves refutation given that it comes ex cathedra from the prestigious Harvard Law Review. Grotesquely, six of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices graduated from Harvard Law School:  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer, John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, and Elena Kagan.

Hence, the distinctive intellectual bias of graduates of that law school has a disproportionate impact on the direction of law in the United States. The Harvard Law Review has refused to publish my Response to the Note of Paul Clement and Neal Katyal: “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen”.  I post it here for what it is worth. I guess the powers-that-be believe that there is no sense in muddying the intellectual waters with the apparently pre-ordained Harvard Law School coronation of Senator Cruz as "eligible" to be President by allowing my Response to be published.

In sum, in my Response, I refute the arguments of Messrs. Clement and Katyal, and conclude as follows:
Thus, I must maintain that the manipulation of the framingera sources and law by Messrs. Clement and Katyal to conclude that Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to be President cannot stand.  They conclude: “Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent -- whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone -- is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.”  The British statutes, Blackstone,  de Vattel, The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the holding in Minor v. Happersett are all consistent: “natural born Citizen” is a privilege bestowed upon a special class of U.S. Citizen, to wit, a child born of two U.S. Citizen parents.
Thus, insomuch as  Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal were born in the United States to parents none of whom were United States citizens at the time of these gentlemen's respective births and Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents only one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen, none of these fine gentleman are eligible to be President of the United States.