View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Wed Oct 24th, 2018 02:45 am
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
The top step is swept (draining the swamp) when the whole country through trial by jury agree that this act is a crime (for example eating babies) and it is against the law and that the whole country can agree on this crime as it is a crime in fact.

"The Court has insisted on these minima with an amazing degree of orthodoxy: "Any other conclusion," the Court has warned, "would mean that the Founding Fathers intended to set up something in the nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England town meeting to oversee the conduct of the National Government by means of lawsuits in federal courts.""

". Consider the well-known example of qui tam actions, which allow an individual to bring suit in the government’s interest.25 There is little evidence that the founding generation thought qui tam actions raised constitutional doubt, which might suggest that the original conception of Article III did not include a strict standing requirement or limitation on citizen suits.26
The claim that standing is a twentieth-century innovation is broadly consistent with the Framers’ acceptance of qui tam actions, as well as a host of other public actions (e.g., prerogative writs27) recognized by English courts.28 Judicial efforts to reconcile modern Article III limitations with historical practice may therefore prove of limited value. Second, the insulation thesis shows how doctrines may become constitutional in the future, without legislative amendment and popular ratification. Developments internal to the standing doctrine of course already offer proof of the fluidity of the doctrine. Linda R.S. arguably constitutionalized causation and redressability components,29 and, more recently, Lujan arguably moved the bar against generalized grievances from the prudential to constitutional side of the ledger.30 Our evidence adds empirical proof to potential for change. "

qui tam
: (kwee tam) n. from Latin for "who as well," a lawsuit brought by a private citizen (popularly called a "whistle blower") against a person or company who is believed to have violated the law in the performance of a contract with the government or in violation of a government regulation, when there is a statute which ...

Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:
"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states." Page 102