The 4th Circuit Appeals Court’s Circular Argument

By on September 8, 2011 in Featured
  • Share on Tumblr

by Michael Maharrey

A federal appeals court unanimously struck down a Virginia challenge to the federal health care act Thursday, ruling that the state does not have standing in the case.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Car Act unconstitutional. The judges did not rule on the constitutionality of insurance mandates, but instead asserted that Virginia Health Care Freedom Act does not create a conflict allowing the state to challenge the PPACA in federal court.

Virginia brought suit on the basis that its statute clashed with the federal act, giving the state standing to challenge in federal court. Virginia’s case rested on the Tenth Amendment, arguing that the insurance mandate requirement, contrary to provisions in the state’s health care freedom act, represents an overreach of federal authority. Virginia argues that the federal individual mandate causes the state “sovereign injury.”

The Appeals Court ruled that a state can’t sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens. (Massachusetts v. Mellon 1923)

This prohibition rests on the recognition that a state poses no legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from the government of the United States. With the respect to the federal government’s relationship to individual citizens, “It is the United States, and not the State, which represents [citizens] as parens patriae.” When a state brings suit seeking to protect individuals from a federal statute, it usurps this sovereign prerogative of the federal government and threatens the ‘general supremacy’ of the law.

The appellate judges concludes, “The individual mandate in the health care law does not affect Virginia’s ability to enforce VHCFA Rather, the Constitution itself withholds from Virginia the power to enforce VHCFA against the federal government.”

James Madison did not agree with the Court’s assessment. In fact, he said that a state has a duty to protect its citizens.

“In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Not one option among many. Not just a good idea. Duty Bound.

“This was exactly a role that the Founding Fathers planned for the states to have,” Virginia AG Cuccinelli said.

The Appeals Court goes on to assert a state does not have the authority to nullify federal law.

The VHCFA regulates nothing and provides for the administration of no state program. Instead, it simply purports to immunize Virginia citizens from federal law. In doing so, the VHCFA reflects no exercise of “sovereign power,” for Virginia lacks the sovereign authority to nullify federal law.

Notice the Catch-22 the Court creates. In arguing the supremacy of federal law, the ruling presupposes the constitutionality of the PPACA. Logically, an unconstitutional act would not stand the test of supremacy. It would, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, be “altogether void, and of no force.”

But Virginia can’t challenge the constitutionality of the law because it lacks standing. Why? Because federal law stands supreme.

Round and round we go.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling illustrates the absurdity of relying on courts and lawsuits to stop the implementation to the federal health care act. Expecting a branch of the federal government to protect the interests of the states and the people against the federal government makes about as much sense as someone trusting my mother to fairly resolve a conflict between us.

It’s not just about insurance mandates. The federal government has no constitutional authority to implement a health care plan.

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Health care rightly remains a sphere left to the states respectively and the people.

States must assert their sovereign authority to stop the advance of evil. Jefferson said nullification is the rightful remedy. He also pointed out that courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter.

That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

It’s time for state government to stand up and do their duty.

Nullify. NOW!

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.
View all posts by Mike Maharrey →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
20 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Kathleen Moore
Kathleen Moore

Sorry, typo up there, don't see how to fix it: meant to say -- "it does not (lawfully) exist as such; it is de facto, NOT de jure. "

Kathleen Moore
Kathleen Moore

@jkendal - "I am in no way conceding defeat."-- glad to hear it! In Canada, under our constitution, we view the terms of the Constitution as compulsory, so that where a statutory or constitutional body or office is not constituted strictly according to law, it does not (lawfully) exist as such; it is de facto, de jure. Again, the power of the federal government to erect courts is strictly limited as constitutional to avoid encroachment on the powers of our main courts, and of our provinces. If any of these structures or offices is not constituted according to law, they are de facto, not de jure; in other words, they are not the real thing.

For us, the oath is constitutional; the Parliament and Legislatures are constitutional. In order to constitute a concrete Parliament or Legislature, the members composing these bodies must be under constitutional oaths. In other words, they must be REAL oaths. If they are not REAL oaths, they are not REALLY in office. I have seen RON PAUL in a video on YouTube casually declare that these usurpers, which it is convenient to call them, are all VIOLATING THEIR OATHS. If that is the case, it is tantamount to saying they are NOT IN OFFICE.

If we apply this to officers under the Constitution of Canada, who have been elected or appointed, and who have sworn what can be proved to be FALSE OATHS, a false oath is not only perjury but tantamount to NO oath. No one can sit & vote and make (VALID) law in the Parliament or a Legislature of Canada without an oath; meaning a valid oath; not a "formula" recited but proved by pernicious acts to be a false oath. Precedent shows that where, due to an error or oversight, an elected Member sat and voted to make law without being properly sworn in under oath, his votes were stricken; and he then had to go and be properly sworn before he could go back and vote.

Someone under a FALSE OATH, someone blatantly and wilfully violating their oath under the Constitution is most certainly a usurper. As a usurper, they are NOT a part of government. If they were part of a political party which stood on a platform to perform acts contrary to the lawful Constitution, and if that party was elected by the populace in ignorance of the law, and if that party swore "formal" but empty oaths in a proceeding tantamount to pass perjury, they would be USURPERS, they would never be capable of becoming lawful government. They would be "something other" to borrow a phrase from MacMillan Bloedell (1985) where the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a s.96 court would be no longer a s.96 court if Parliament could wantonly transfer out its core jurisdiction to some other body.

A government or cabinet composed of USURPERS is manifesly not "government", it's a coup d'etat. Their status as such can be readily determined by their acts or intended acts. Where there is mens rea to do a deliberately unconstitutional act of widespread gravity, there is NO government, but a coup d'etat.

Therefore, what puzzles me in your system, is how you can purport to "nullify" the acts of usurpers who are a coup d'etat on the grounds that they are merely pereptrating ultra vires acts of "government". A government does not INTEND to exceed its powers; it is the INTENT (mens rea) that makes the difference. USURPERS clearly intend to exceed their powers; that MENS REA means they are under false oaths, and therefore they are self-discharged under the Constitution. They are nothing but usurpers; they are not and can never be government, as usurpers & government are absolutely not ejusdem generis.

This is why I wonder if you are attempting to put a Nullification bandaid on a very different problem, one that requires perhaps something called impeachment?

I have read Mr. Woods, and seen some videos.

Regards.

jkendal
jkendal

I'm apparently failing to make my point. I'll give it one more shot and then I'll move on to another thread.....

For decades our federal government (all 3 branches, not just the Executive) has been illegally taking our powers away from us one by one and assuming those powers for themselves. I'm not sure why you seem to be hung up on their oaths as they've been breaking those for decades with impunity - and they most certainly intended to do so all along (after all, power corrupts).

Merely going to them - i.e. through their own federal court system - to ask them to uphold their oaths and return those powers to us ** IS the bandaid **, so to speak. It hasn't worked - the federal courts routinely rule in the federal government's favor. That's why leftists want us to think this is the only way to correct Constitutional wrongs - they get to hold onto those powers. And it's very ingenious, I might add, because the people have fallen for it for a very long time. It's only been in recent years that the idea and principle of Nullification has been circulating - and the reaction to it by the leftists signals that we're on the right course.

If something was wrongly taken from you and you routinely ask for its return and the taker routinely says "No", what then? Give up or keep asking? Giving up isn't an option (not from where I'm standing, anyway) and if we keep asking, they'll keep saying "No". That's why Nullification is the correct way - the ONLY way - by using the power of our state governments to, at most, force them to back down, or at the very least make it next to impossible for them to exercise their ill-gotten powers against us. It seems to be the only way to "enforce" their oaths of office because they've certainly proven they're not going to uphold said oaths themselves.

Hope that helps.

And again, good luck.

audentesfortunajuvat
audentesfortunajuvat

@jkendal - you said: "In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that even if an “activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’ “.

It sounds like they copied Canada's fairly old "national dimensions" doctrine but with a twist; ours was imposed by interpretation to keep the hands of the fed out of provincial matters unless they had become national in significance. This effectively helped to decentralize our constitution by tying the hands of the Fed where it actually had express power to act in order to keep Canada centralized. Therefore, the strategy is to find a jurisdiction that the fed cannot so easily interfere in, and where you have a chance of getting your procedure in front of a judge who has integrity. They are not all 100% under federal thumb. This is why I chose HABEAS CORPUS for my next foray, because this procedure allows me to sail past the registry desk and into any courtroom and seize a competent judge; therefore eliminating a huge amount of potential interference from the bureaucrats who might be called the dogs guarding the gate to the judges. This gives me at least a prayer of getting my procedure through to a real hearing. The precedents also assign the court a much wider jurisdiction now in Habeas Corpus.

Therefore, I suggest again that you be extremely innovative in preparing evasive action against the undermined system. There has to be a way to get through, because it's a manmade system. Therefore, a human can study it and find a way in past the gate. Do not simply concede defeat because the fed "controls all". The fed does NOT control all. It may control MOST at most times, but not ALL at all times.

jkendal
jkendal

I am in no way conceding defeat. I'm advocating action at the state level as the most effective way to stop un-Constitutional federal encroachment. It (Nullification) is currently being employed in numerous states to great effect regarding marijuana and the Real ID Act (as well as other federal encroachments). I encourage you and everyone reading this to read more articles by Michael Maharrey concerning Nullification and read the works of Thomas Woods, too. It sounds like you have access in Canada to effect change and that's great, but here in America our federal government has usurped the power of the states and of the people for decades and they've insidiously conditioned the average American to believe that the only way to right un-Constitutional wrongs is through the federal court system. What Michael is saying (and I agree with him) is that going to the federal government to ask the federal government to stop violating our Constitutional rights doesn't work - and hasn't worked for decades now. It may work in Canada but not here. Nullification works and it's working as you read this.

Good luck to you all up there in the Great White North. See you on another thread.
jkendal

audentesfortunajuvat
audentesfortunajuvat

Problem with this blogger commenting system: I was just posting something, when I hit REPLY, it wiped out my comment apparently because one or two others were commenting simultaneously.

Henry
Henry

I don`t understand one thing. Why does Cuccinelli keep taking this to court for their decision of the constitutionality of the PPACA?
Cuccinelli and the Virginia State Legislature has the authority to nullify the Act right now! So do all other states.
Why are we waiting for a Supreme Court decision?

jkendal
jkendal

Michael, you buried the lead...

"The federal government has no constitutional authority to implement a health care plan.
...
Health care rightly remains a sphere left to the states respectively and the people."

Otherwise, another GREAT article - one of your best.

That last sentence that I quoted points to the irony of the Appeals Court's ruling that the state of Virginia has no standing when the reality is that it is the Appeals Court that has no business hearing a case having to do with a federal act that forces the people of the states to do something that is clearly in direct violation of the Constitution. The quote also makes it quite clear that regardless of how ANY federal court rules on the PPACA, the states are STILL well within their rights to reject it - just as some are now rejecting federal marijuana and REAL ID laws - um, sorry, un-Constitutional acts - some of which the SCOTUS has ruled on already. In other words, the states can still, to quote another of your articles, tell the federal government to go to hell.....

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

The assertion that the States do not have standing is absurd. Article VII states:

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present..."

The words “between the States” were added by the members of the Federal Convention of 1787 “so as to confine the operation of the government to those States ratifying it.”

According to the Court, the parties to the compact do not have standing to intervene when the agent created by the compact usurps power.

According to the Court, the agent created by the compact is the only entity empowered by the compact to determine if the agent usurps power.

The federal government is a renegade government plain and simple.

audentesfortunajuvat
audentesfortunajuvat

Wow! You do have a problem. The renegade appointed the court!

Well, how about another tactic.

If the story goes that "agent created by the compact is the only entity empowered by the compact to determine if the agent usurps power", what if an ORDINARY CITIZEN sued for perjury of the oath of allegiance and office by the members of the usurping entity?

It seems to me that if a citizen sues, this is not a member of the "compact", but someone who surely has grounds for standing on the basis of democratic rights and entitlement to the rule of law.

If the citizen proves that the "agent created by the compact" is trenching on state powers and violating the Constitution in a manner so grave that it obviously perjures the oaths, which is to the detriment of the citizen, the court would at least not have the "agent usurper sole entity empowered" argument.

I think if you did some research you'd find precedents if not in your jurisdictions, then in other similar jurisdictions, for a suit by a citizen invoking democratic rights to lawful government.

For example, law is to be made only by the LAWFUL LAWMAKER. People under perjured oaths are not the "lawful lawmaker". It also cannot be reasonable, or rational, to assume that a Constitution has no provision for its own self-defense. In our system, the courts are the guardians of the Constitution. For example, in Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe [1965] AC 172 - Per Lord Pearce at 194 ‘The court has a duty to see that the Constitution is not infringed and to preserve it inviolate’.

And in Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General (Hong Kong) [1970]AC 1136 - Supreme Court of Hong Kong had jurisdiction to intervene in the legislative process to stop Legislative Council of Hong Kong from passing a law repugnant to the Colonial Laws Validity Act.

So, if the "usurping agent" is passing laws, or executive orders "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, don't U.S. courts have a similar duty to protect the constitution and maintain it inviolate?

Seems to me they do. How about Chief Justice John Marshall, who reinforced the principle that federal courts are obligated to exercise judicial review, by disregarding PURPORTED laws if they violate the Constitution. That should include PURPORTED executive orders.

Moreover, in our system (Canada), election makes the Member (of Parliament); but ONLY the oath (and it must be VALID) entitles the Member to sit & vote, i.e., to make LAW as part of the lawful lawmaker. What are your provisions for the OATH in terms of exercising office, and acting as a lawmaker? I noted that President Obama had to be resworn because he flubbed the statutory (or perhaps it's constitutional?) wording. However, not only the letter of the law must be satisfied; the spirit and meaning must be satisfied. The process of repeating the oath is an outward sign of a promise whose affiant alone is aware at that time or any time thereafter whether he intends to keep that promise. But when he does things so egregious that it is inescapably clear that he KNOWS he is violating his oath, those actions should be evidence for its invalidity.

By analogy from Anisminic, where "determination means a REAL determination and does not include an apparent or purported determination which in the eyes of the law has no existence because it is a nullity" -- an "oath" means a REAL oath and does not include a merely apparent oath, which is to say a FALSE oath, which would then render the office of the affiant a nullity because the oath is not a real oath, but void as an empty form. Surely, U.S. courts have to protect citizens from usurpers if a citizen rallies sufficient proof that the oath sworn is void.

Regards.

Ice
Ice

No one can sue the Federal government unless the Federal government gives it "permission" to sue it.

So... suing the federal government isn't going to happen because they won't allow it.

jkendal
jkendal

You're still talking about asking a federal court to rule on something they have an interest in - namely holding on to power over the rest of us - power they do not legitimately have. Michael is trying to point out the absurdity of doing that. The correct course is nullification - the states saying NO and then preventing federal agents from enforcing said unconstitutional acts within their boundaries - protecting their citizens from the illegal encroachment. If enough states stood up and said NO, the feds wouldn't have enough resources for enforcement and would, therefore, have no choice but to back down.

Our founders were smart and they knew that the federal government at some point would try to amass power over everyone else (history bears this out). The system they gave us is really brilliant when you think about it. No other form of government in the world protects individual liberty more. It's just that over the years we've allowed those who crave that power - statists (or leftists) - to take it when all along we had the power to prevent it. I'm just glad people are finally waking up and taking that ill-gotten power back. We live in very interesting times.....

jkendal
jkendal

"So, if your appeal courts are consistently going to say that a State can't sue the Fed, then that leaves you two options: either destroy the Union, or find one or more citizens with standing who can sue the Fed."

Who said anything about destroying the union?? If anything, nullification (the 3rd option you left out) STRENGTHENS the union. Also, the last part of of your sentence doesn't make any sense. Ninety nine times out of a hundred the fed is going to find in their own favor, regardless of who has or doesn't have standing. Michael's point about letting his mother decide who wins a dispute between himself and someone else points out the absurdity of asking the federal government to decide the Constitutionality of a clearly un-Constitutional federal act.

In the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court decided that even if an “activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.’ “. Anybody with a third grade education can see that the federal government was clearly over-reaching, putting any and all acts of a private citizen under the direct control of Congress - in DIRECT violation of the Constitution. So why should we waste our time asking a non-impartial court for permission to exercise the rights we already have under the Constitution? It just doesn't make any sense.

Nullification is the ONLY way to fight federal over-reaching. The left wants everyone to think that the federal government is the sole arbiter of what is and isn't Constitutional. I don't know much about Canada's history but here in America the states existed BEFORE the federal government did - they got together to form it, not the other way around. They have just as much right to decide what is and isn't Constitutional. If states DIDN'T protect their citizens from an over-reaching federal government the union would be in greater danger of breaking apart. Nullification strengthens the union by FORCING the fed to adhere to the Constitution. With all due respect, if you think the fed will force itself do this, then you don't know its history...

Kathleen Moore
Kathleen Moore

What is more important? Winning the point on "absurdity", or forcing it to the extent that a real secession is declared? If you can win by taking another path to court, then what's the problem with doing so?

"The Appeals Court ruled that a state can’t sue the federal government on behalf
of its citizens. (Massachusetts v. Mellon 1923)

.... When a state brings suit seeking to protect individuals from a federal statute,
it usurps this sovereign prerogative of the federal government and threatens the
‘general supremacy’ of the law."

In Canada, a province does not have the authority directly to nullify federal law. Our division of powers expressly limits the provinces to enumerated measures having local effect only, within the territory of the province. We have in the Constitution express federal powers of reserve and disallowance over provincial laws in limited circumstances, but there are no such provincial powers over the federal level.

Neither the federal nor the provincial level can "sue" the other in court to void each other's laws. This is apparently one reason that in 1875 when passing the first statute attempting to erect the Supreme Court of Canada, our fed added a "special reference jurisdiction" for advisories, to provide a provincial-federal forum for an opinion on the respective powers; but this is in no way a "law suit". (And by the way, it's an illegal jurisdiction in Canada, which is one of the points I am going to be going to court on; the advisory jurisdiction here is not only unconstitutional, it's been viciously exploited.)

Nullification of laws of both levels in Canada therefore is normally left to the competent courts on judicial review, upon institution of valid proceedings by someone with clear standing, i.e., a citizen, a corporation, or some other entity genuinely affected by the or measure in view.

I think the basis for denying standing to one or the other level of government in Canada to "sue" its counterpart has been the idea that each level is a "sovereign" political entity, and that sovereigns cannot sue each other to void each other's laws. It looks as if your 4th Circuit Appeals Court may be taking a somewhat "Canadian" position. But it could be broader.

Thus, even if your smart founders "interpreted" the Constitution as implying a state power to sue to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, without an express provision in your constitutional text, your courts may well decide that a State has no such power.

So, if your appeal courts are consistently going to say that a State can't sue the Fed, then that leaves you two options: either destroy the Union, or find one or more citizens with standing who can sue the Fed.

What's your class action position? Could a citizen institute a class action to join other citizens in a suit to nullify unconstitutional federal acts; and at the same time, or even in a separate class action, invoke perjury of the oaths of office & allegiance?

If the courts are going to route you on direct state-to-fed action, then a citizen has to get it done by other means. Unless you really want to destroy the Union for the Leftists. Have you considered that the Leftists who are running things WANT you to destroy the United States of America? Have you considered that they NEED you to destroy it? Have you looked at who your governors and other State actors are in the case of these types of suits? Are they CFR-controlled Leftists? If so, their interest in BRINGING suit is precisely to drive the State head-first up against a wall, so the States will rally their people to react, so the Leftists running the State have a pretext to declare secession? There is more than just a point of law here; there is strategy involved depending on the current circumstances. If you have an agent usurper at the federal level, you may equally have agent usurpers at the State level. If the Leftists have taken the Fed, it would be unreasonable to think they had not also taken the States.

I did an analysis of the situation in Massachusetts and found that those Governors, one after the other, support continental merger: North American Union, which cannot be done unless the States secede.

In the same way that the autonomous republics seceded from Yugoslavia and ended up with some annexed to the EU and others waiting, secession is the key to dismantling both Canada and the USA to complete the North American communist regional union. Who's in charge of Virginia? Are they collaborating with the federal usurper to get the multiple secessions done?
http://canadian-state-of-the-union.blogspot.com/2...
http://onceuponatimeinthewest1.wordpress.com/

Regards.

audentesfortunajuvat
audentesfortunajuvat

I do not see why the States would choose nullification of federal "law". First of all, if federal "law" is unconstitutional, as outside the powers of the fed, it would be VOID as "ultra vires". If this happened in Canada, any Canadian tax[payer could launch suit for a judicial declaration of nullity -- and in our case it would be retroactive to the date when in force & effect. Surely, you have a system of litigation which allows for judicial nullification for encroachment beyond the proper division of powers? Second of all, if federal "law" encroachments are so blatant as to represent willful violation of oaths of office & allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, then those attempting to pass such laws are under VOID oaths and are by definition USURPERS and not lawful GOVERNMENT. Therefore, by continuing to pretend that you are challenging "federal government" -- as if it were a LAWFUL constitutional government, instead of dealing with the PERJURY of OATHS which is tantamount to TREASON, and which deprives them of power, you are basically giving them power they do not lawfully and constitutionally HAVE.

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey

The "system of litigation" in the U.S. relies on the federal courts to rule the law unconstitutional. This is a clear conflict of interest. You are allowing one party in the dispute to serve as the final arbiter - as the federal courts are obviously a branch of the federal government.

When a state nullifies, it is simply declaring a truism - a unconstitutional act is null and void. The state is simply saying, "No." We declare this outside of the federal governments enumerated powers and therefor unenforceable within the state. As Jefferson pointed out, the states are parties to the Constitution and have as much right to judge the constitutionality of an act as the federal courts.

audentesfortunajuvat
audentesfortunajuvat

Thank you, I appreciate this. In Canada, our "federal" courts are prescribed by the Constitution at s. 96 et seq. Every province has a s.96 court as its court of general first-instance jurisdiction. This was done in 1867 to make it clear Canada was one integrated nation. These courts have been responsible since Confederation for ruling on the division of power. In our Constitution, it's the provincial powers that are enumerated.

Our s.96 judges are federally appointed and federally paid; so are the federal officers who act as provincial heads of government -- the Lieutenant Governors, and the Attorneys General/Justice Ministers. However, each province has the power of administering its own courts.

But I can see what you mean by "conflict of interest". We do have a similar problem here; if we get a malign government at the federal level, its malign appointees occupy the federal offices in the provinces, and it can always appoint malign subversives to the s.96 bench and to other federal courts all the way up the line. This doesn't mean that decent judges with integrity never get appointed. You have to count on the fact that there are good and decent judges out there who will rule with integrity according to law.

We have a fake "case" here that was generated precisely that way with federal cognizance in 1995, to help the FED forcibly dismantle Canada by a fake secession of Quebec, designed to convert Canada to the European system. It was a coup d'etat, not a secession. And they're still working on it!

I ran headlong into the "conflict of interest" aspect in 2004. I had a personal file at a different court, a somewhat parallel statutory (not constitutionally based) Federal Court in Montreal. I was suing the Crown; the federal Attorney General responds for the Crown, but also administers the file he's being sued in. I showed up for a motion hearing that I had scheduled against the federal AG, only to find he'd shipped the file for "hearing" to the other side of the country, Vancouver.

I am glad to say, however, that I eventually won by catching the AG's malign female attorney in a procedural trap she tried to set for me, and I got a court order preserving all my rights to institute again, because I caught her without going to trial! Boy, was she fuming! Consider that tactical advice!

The judge in that final motion hearing, where I got her, was ok. He was an independent jurist. So, as hard as the fed may try to populate every bench with their own partisans, you can get lucky and win when they don't see you coming. That's how I won. I scheduled a more or less irrelevant motion that they wouldn't waste a judge on that was in their pocket; and when I got to the hearing, I surprised the AG and changed the motion, in front of an honest judge, and I won! He was even laughing, he enjoyed it.

So, you could still try! Surely, there's a gutsy citizen or two willing to do it?

However, I do think both our court systems need major renovation. LOL : )

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

I'm sorry if I overlooked the following bit of information in the article, but please note the following. Two of the three judges who decided against Virginia with respect to Obamacare were appointed by Obama.

"The 4th Circuit’s long-awaited decision isn’t a huge surprise: those who attended oral arguments in the suits said the judges seemed skeptical of the mandate’s critics, especially Cuccinelli. All three of the judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents, and two were appointed by Obama."
--Appeals court shoots down Virginia's healthcare challenge http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/180231-appeals-court-dismisses-key-challenge-to-healthcare-law

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

I'm sorry if I overlooked the following bit of information in the article, but please note the following. Two of the three judges who decided against Virginia with respect to Obamacare were appointed by Obama.

"The 4th Circuit’s long-awaited decision isn’t a huge surprise: those who attended oral arguments in the suits said the judges seemed skeptical of the mandate’s critics, especially Cuccinelli. All three of the judges who heard the case were appointed by Democratic presidents, and two were appointed by Obama."
--Appeals court shoots down Virginia's healthcare challenge http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/180231-appeals-court-dismisses-key-challenge-to-healthcare-law

Trackbacks

  1. The 4th Circuit Appeals Court’s Circular Argument – Tenth Amendment Center « The Cape Fear Constitution says:
    September 8, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    [...] 4th Circuit Appeals Court’s Circular Argument – Tenth Amendment Center 08 Sep The 4th Circuit Appeals Court’s Circular Argument – Tenth Amendment Center. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post.   Leave a [...]

  2. The 4th Circuit Appeals Court’s Circular Argument – Oregon Tenth Amendment Center says:
    September 8, 2011 at 9:05 pm

    [...] continue reading. [...]