Court

Supreme Court Deals Democrat Party another Hefty Blow

The Supreme Court of the United States struck a blow against the far-leftist Democrat-Socialists desperate to undermine the constitution and shift the balance of power into their favor by any means necessary. Fortunately for the American people, the eminently unreliable though supposedly majority “conservative” bench, remembered their duty well in refusing to hear a case that ran directly contrary to the US Constitution and lies outside of their jurisdiction and purely in the realm of Congress. The case: Castañon v. United States,  an attempt to force Congress to allow a voting seat in the US House of Representatives to Washington, D.C., a ceded territory which is not entitled to direct congressional representation under the Constitution.

The applicable section of the US Constitution: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 grants Congress the power, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States”

The Supreme Court Shuts Down Democrats Latest Ploy

The case which can easily be described as a complete waste of the court’s time was ruled upon by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch who summarily dismissed the case from the docket, declining to hear it and affirming the ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against it.

"

The Associate Justices wrote,

CASTAñON, ANGELICA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL. On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The judgment is affirmed. See Adams v. Clinton, 531 U. S. 941 (2000). Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch would dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The District Court for the District of Columbia ruled,

“Because Congress’s District Clause power does not include the power to contravene the Constitution’s express provisions, and because the Constitution by its terms limits House representation to “the people of the several States,” we find that Plaintiffs’ claims that their exclusion from apportionment is violative of their rights to equal protection, due process, and association and representation fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). We therefore dismiss those claims. Having also dismissed those of Plaintiffs’ claims that sought to compel affirmative congressional action, and having remanded to a single District Judge Plaintiffs’ Senate claims, our work is now at an end.

But before we end, we note what gives us pause. We have been and remain cognizant of the gravity of Plaintiffs’ asserted injury, which has long been of great concern both to those similarly injured and to sympathetic others who take to heart the democratic ideals that impelled and informed the creation of the Union. After all, “[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.” Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 17. But the House’s makeup, though enshrined in the Constitution, is not written in stone. The Founders provided for processes for the admission of new States, see U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 1 – which are then represented in the House under the provisions of Article I – and for amending the Constitution, see id. art. V, as was done to give District residents the presidential franchise, see id. amend. XXIII. In other words, Plaintiffs may continue to “plead their cause in other venues,” Adams, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 72: those the Constitution countenances. “

Plainly and simply, lacking the super-majority necessary in the US House and Senate to convert Washington, D.C. from the constitutionally permitted “seat of government” under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, into a State of the Union under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, which even then falls upon constitutionally shaky ground.

“New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” – US Constitution Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1,

This situation, reversing the cession of 10 square miles of land from Virginia and Maryland to the federal government in 1790 is not addressed in the existing text of the Constitution, but could theoretically be enacted by Congress by Amendment. And according to the Supreme Court, no amount of lawfare or “end-runs” will circumvent the hurdle the Democrats cannot clear: America-First Republicans.

 

 

Related Posts