Once again, the American people* have been filibustered - that is, "screwed." The amendment to Senate Bill 649 failed to pass, even though 54 senators voted in favor. After quoting from the background story, as reported by CNN, I will reintroduce my claim that the Senate filibuster rule should be challenged in court, dealing primarily with the issue of who should initiate such a law suit. That is, I will challenge the concept of the standing required to sue.
Note carefully the part I highlight in yellow:
QUOTE:
Due to early opposition to the background check provision, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania worked out a compromise that was less comprehensive than what Obama wanted but still gained the president's support.
The Manchin-Toomey plan [an amendment] would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales, while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends.
Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides, all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal.
:UNQUOTE:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html
This part is worth repeating: "Due to procedural steps agreed to by both sides." What that means is, without that agreement, the GOP would have filibustered the entire package - not just any proposed amendments. So Democrats felt they had to agree to a "60 votes needed" rule to avoid that. Well, the GOP and the Democrats might have "agreed," but I didn't. So now a question arises: "Who am I that my disagreement matters?" Translation: Even though I believe all filibusters to be grossly unconstitutional, would I have sufficient legal standing to challenge the matter in court? And if I don't, who would?
Before I get started on "standing," this quote from one of my previous posts lays out my argument against the filibuster - an argument I'd like to see ruled on by the Supreme Court:
QUOTE:
More importantly, the practice of filibuster is in direct violation of at least three different sections of the US Constitution:
Article V: "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." If, for example, a state were (like all other states) allowed two senators but (unlike the others) only one could vote, that would be a clear deprivation of "equal suffrage." And yet, if a state's senators were to find their votes rendered meaningless by a minority threatening a filibuster, that is a comparably clear deprivation of "equal suffrage."
The Fifth Amendment: "No person...[shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." When a citizen's senator finds the value of his vote diminished in Senate chambers, that citizen finds the value of his own vote similarly diminished. In other words, that citizen is being denied full and complete representation in the Senate, which in turn means that citizen has been "deprived of...[his] property [that is, the full value of his vote], without due process of law."
The Seventeenth Amendment: "...each Senator shall have one vote." That must mean, by any fair and sensible standard, that each Senator's vote is to be considered equal to each other Senator's vote. Allowing for filibusters denies this equality.
:UNQUOTE.
"Standing" in the eyes of the law
I'll start with a example. If you are injured in an auto accident, you have the right to sue for damages. And you have the right to determine how much you should sue for - let's say, you and your lawyer decide on $200,000 as a just compensation. I, a total stranger, can't jump in and say, "That's not enough; I will sue instead of you and try to obtain $400,000." Even if I'm willing to share the settlement with you, the judge wouldn't allow me to proceed on your unauthorized behalf. That's the kind of standing-to-sue I understand.
What I don't understand is this (again, note my highlight):
QUOTE:
In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.
In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit. Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries) to be too attenuated. "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".
If, as indicated in yellow, the IRS isn't "enforcing standards and procedures," any American* citizen should be able to sue. If the IRS isn't doing its job, that should concern any citizen whose taxes help support that monster. As far as "injury" is concerned, any citizen should be considered injured when a government agency isn't doing its job - even if that citizen can't demonstrate specifically how he is being injured.
I'll even expand my claim to cover citizens who don't even pay income taxes, even though a court might claim that since he isn't helping to fund the IRS, he shouldn't have any grounds for complaint due to IRS selective enforcement of its own rules. I would ask the court: "Applying your standard, such a non-taxpaying citizen should also be denied the right to vote since he isn't paying anything to help support the government." Even a non-taxpaying citizen has rights, which must include his right to expect government agencies supported and empowered by his elected representatives to do their jobs. I'll even extend this right in the case of a citizen whose Congressman votes consistently to abolish the IRS! In such a case, there's of course no way to know if the suing constituent himself agrees with his representative's negative votes or if he even voted for that lawmaker in the last election.
Or even if he voted at all!
As you can see, I have a very broad standard concerning who should have standing to sue. Especially when it comes to violations of the Constitution of which each of us should be empowered as guardian since it belongs to all of us.
The Obligation of SCOTUS to respond
The US Supreme Court should be expected to respond to my lawsuit. I start my defense of this claim by citing Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."
I maintain that the Supreme Court not only has "the judicial power" cited above, but should be obligated to use it. SCOTUS shouldn't be allowed to deny, without providing a reason, a citizen's right to be heard by that Court. As things stand now, a case will not be heard by SCOTUS unless at least four of its nine justices say it should be. That standard is fine with me, however I would not allow the Court to deny a hearing without providing a written reason or reasons, in the case of different justices wishing to deny for their own particular reasons. Though each reason should be publicly matched to its denying justice.
The reason for this is quite simple. Since justices are allowed to "hold their offices during good behaviour" - per Article III, Section 1 - we must have some way of knowing if each justice is behaving (that is, ruling) properly. Is he doing his job or is he being capricious in deciding which cases which should be heard by the whole Court. All I'm asking for is an accountability which even the US President must provide. Here I cite Article I, Section 7:
"Every bill...shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated..."
In other words, POTUS can't just refuse to sign a bill into law; he's got to say why he objects for the public record. In the case of SCOTUS, Congress could merely inform the High Court of this new standard - threatening impeachment for non-compliance as a form of bad "behaviour." Of course, our current Congress - lacking any independence and possessing only loyalty to the causes of party and reelection - will not do this. I present this lacking as part of a mountain of evidence concerning the need to replace all Dem/Pub lawmakers with true independents.
But SCOTUS might object
If the High Court were to be expected to issue reasons for not hearing cases presented to it, it might object saying, "This new requirement represents an increase in workload we are logistically incapable of handling."
Fair enough. After all, the Legislative and Executive branches are provided ample resources to do their jobs. So SCOTUS should be granted an increase as well. I propose - as merely one possibility - that Congress increase the size of the Court to ninety - that is, to ten groups of nine sitting justices. This would still be regarded as one Supreme Court, but would be - in a de facto sense - ten Supreme Courts each with its own Chief Justice. If workload is to be a concern - and it's already widely acknowledged that SCOTUS is overworked - then randomly assigning incoming cases to any of these ten should be regarded as assigning them to "the" Supreme Court.
Of course, then it would be possible for one such "supreme" court to issue a decision that contradicts a ruling from another such "supreme" court. That possibility of contradiction or self-reversal exists in the Court we currently have on hand, especially in view of the many five-to-four decisions which seem to indicate judicial uncertainty. This is one reason why I propose that judges be appointed by a President and confirmed by a Senate - both of which are independent rather than Republican or Democratic. Another reason: Our current Constitution is simply too vague and archaic to be reasonably interpreted in this modern age; therefore we need a new Constitution.
To deal with SCOTUS's contradictory rulings, I would leave it to Congress to be the final arbiter - but of course that would require a Constitutional amendment. Or that this be a provision in a replacement Constitution.
Who will answer?
I have nothing but contempt for the hypocrites on the right who have no problem with the unconstitutional filibuster once again thwarting the will of the people - as long as their Second Amendment rights (as they interpret them) aren't threatened. Never mind that a majority of our senators - who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution - didn't perceive any such threats.
I would love to personally answer the call regarding who should submit a lawsuit suing the United States Senate for its unconstitutional filibuster rule. However, I can't - especially since I am no longer a US citizen, having renounced that status a few years ago. Even I can agree that I wouldn't have standing to present such a lawsuit. There are two other reasons: I am too poor to pursue such a case in light of the filing fees involved, and I am too sick - currently battling Stage IV liver cancer. Since my life might be cut short (I'm only 61 years old now), I might not be around long enough to be screwed too many more times by the filibuster rule.
I would love to personally answer the call regarding who should submit a lawsuit suing the United States Senate for its unconstitutional filibuster rule. However, I can't - especially since I am no longer a US citizen, having renounced that status a few years ago. Even I can agree that I wouldn't have standing to present such a lawsuit. There are two other reasons: I am too poor to pursue such a case in light of the filing fees involved, and I am too sick - currently battling Stage IV liver cancer. Since my life might be cut short (I'm only 61 years old now), I might not be around long enough to be screwed too many more times by the filibuster rule.
But most of you will outlive me and will, therefore, have many more opportunities to be screwed. Unless one of you decides to speak up and take a stand.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former US presidential candidate (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
"United we stand - unless the Supreme Court rules that we don't have sufficient standing."
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* I wrote "the American people" meaning no disrespect to Americans who are citizens of the countries other than the USA. Rather, I wrote to be consistent with my efforts to rename the USA "America."
No comments:
Post a Comment