QUESTION: 

Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Re: The Ted Cruz/John Kasich Conspiracy and your comments about the Constitution and USC
In your opinion, might it be a crime to deny registered independents the right to vote in a primary?
Pennsylvania, one of only 11 states remaining with this law, is a prime example.
Thank you for a life devoted to the education of those with inquiring minds,
JS

ANSWER: Absolutely. Because we have created these “primary” elections even though they are for delegates, once the state creates such a right, it cannot deprive you of it without violating your civil rights. Now here is the REAL MONUMENTAL problem. Does the Supreme Court even act constitutionally or has it also denied citizens the right to absolutely behead as declared by the Constitution itself? We hear all this yelling about the Republicans blocking Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. I specialized not just in history, but the rise and fall of nations and how this unfolds. I also studied law intensely and lawyers will often call me on constitutional questions. Why? When you go to law school, you spend very little time on the Constitution. The bulk of law concerns statutory law which is everything written and passed by Congress from civil rights to Obamacare. Very little cases end up challenging the constitutionality of a statue – merely the unconstitutional acts of government’s agents such as police and politicians.

I am going to make a statement here I have made to Constitutional Lawyers that makes their eyes pop-out and say – OMG! The Supreme Court has ABSOLUTELY no right to exercise discretion to hear any case. They must in fact hear EVERY case presented to them for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by either a statute written by Congress or by its own rule making practice. The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term (year).  The Court grants and hears oral argument in about only 80 cases in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous and denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the structure of government crafted by the Founding Fathers created.

Chief Justice Marshall held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803) in which he declare the role of the Judiciary branch; “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” id/177. At the very beginning of the nation, the Supreme Court justices rode “circuits” meaning each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits traveling around the country. Article III, Section I of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution only guaranteed the Supreme Court no other! It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly.

“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”

Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)

Your absolute constitutional right to be heard is being DENIED. That right is being circumvented by demanding you go to a district court judge, then appeal to that circuit court, and then apply to be heard as one of the 7,000+ petitions when they only accept 80. What if a child cannot speak to their father who will only communicate to them by some nanny. Is there a relationship bond between the father and the child? Of course not. Inferior courts are under NO OBLIGATION to apply even a uniform legal code. Each have their own rules and precedents are unique to each circuit. There is absolutely no guarantee to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like.

Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:

“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…” 

Cohen v Virgina, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324

Therefore, regardless of the fact that Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court eliminating the constitutional status of the court by injecting their discretion to decide if they want to hear a case in the Judiciary Act of 1925, that act is totally unconstitutional for no statute can amend the constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress, a political party (Republicans right now), or whatever, it cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

The inferior federal courts have become a joke. They are there to defend the government, not the people. In my own case, I confronted perhaps the most corrupt judge in New York City; Richard Own. He had the audacity to actually alter the transcripts in court changing the words people would say to support the government. I submitted an affidavit outlining whole sections he removed. There were so many people who showed up in court that day and lawyers were telling me I was crazy because you cannot accuse a judge of a crime. I responded, they all say he does that. They replied; yes, but you cannot say that in public. There were so many people there he became nervous. He admitted changing my transcripts but denied he ever made any material changes. The whole place went silent. When he refused to step down I appealed and the Second Circuit refused to even hear the case. Like police, they just all protect each other. Without a circuit court taking that appeal, I was denied the right to even petition the Supreme Court on that issue.

There is no honest rule of law in the United States. We are no different from some backwater court or a third world country. This is in direct contradiction of the rule of law. The federal court exists to protect individual citizen’s rights under the federal constitution and laws for it has been acknowledged that this is in fact the core purpose of their creation. (see Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 US 388 (1971); Bell v Hood, 327 US 678 (1946), Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803). Good luck. There is absolutely no right to anything because the inferior courts all know the odds of you getting to the Supreme Court are virtually zero.

In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” id/ 5 US at 163. Chief Justice Earl Warren  stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 (1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role mandating that right to be heard.

We have no rule of law today all because of an unconstitutional Act of Congress known as the the Judiciary Act of 1925 (43 Stat. 936). This barbarous act reduced the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States and in effect denied the right to be heard by all citizens. From that moment on, your constitutional rights all became discretionary. Congress and the Supreme Court held you have the inferior courts. This is the same chaos created when Andrew Jackson closed the Bank of the United States and every bank began issuing their own money which all defaulted in the 1840s. Without a central bank controlling the inferior banks, we destroyed the financial system. The Judiciary Act of 1925 did the same to our constitutional rights. I was personally release ONLY because I won that lottery and the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond signally I made that cut – one of the 80 out of 7,000+.

The inferior courts are statutory, not constitutionally required, and as such exist at the pure discretion of Congress. We have 94 U.S. judicial districts which are organized into 12 regional circuits. They are not bound to a single unified rule of law or rules and that results in the denial of equal protection of the law. The ONLY court secured by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. That’s it folks! If you cannot be heard in that court, then you are denied your Constitutional right to Due Process of Law. Therefore, someone in the 9th circuit in California will be treated differently from the 2nd Circuit in New York. The Supreme Court is supposed to settle such differences, but it is not obligated to do so. This is what the Judiciary Act of 1925 pulled off – the undermining of our entire Constitution.

Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States courts of appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” subject to grant of writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to further reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925. It was Chief Justice Taft who pushed the passage of this bill in 1925, which rendered the majority of the Supreme Court’s workload discretionary.

The Judiciary Act or 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to effectively reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court was involved and has NEVER ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.