My buddy Bart sent me his thoughts on this battle between North Carolina & the ‘Federales’. It is fairly simple too.
Here’s how it would work…
Governor Pat McCrory issues an Executive Order directing the NC State Board of Elections to proceed with SL2013-381 as written. Bart even wrote up a Sample template for the governor to go by:
..
Proposed Executive Order
From the Office of the Governor of the Great State of North Carolina – For Immediate Release
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. _____
WHEREAS, the U.S. Constitution plainly states that the federal judiciary has certain limitations on what it can, and can not do. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states that any case in which a ‘State’, or any of its ‘Public Ministers’ is a party, the Supreme Court shall have ‘ORIGINAL JURISDICTION’.
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
WHEREAS, The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has clearly overstepped their authority, henceforth the North Carolina State Board of Elections, and all related agencies, shall consider this opinion by the court, issued on July 29, 2016, to be Null & Void.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf
WHEREAS, The North Carolina Constitution, Article III, Section 5, Clause 10 states;“…the Governor may make such changes in the allocation of offices and agencies and in the allocation of those functions, powers, and duties as he considers necessary for efficient administration. If those changes affect existing law, they shall be set forth in executive orders, …”
NOW, THEREFORE, by the power vested in me as Governor by the Constitution and laws of North Carolina, IT IS ORDERED:
The Great State of North Carolina will proceed with our November 2016 general elections according to the provisions and procedures defined in SESSION LAW 2013-381, aka “Voter Information Verification Act” that I signed into law on August 12, 2013.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H589v9.html
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed my name and affixed the Great Seal of the State of North Carolina at the Capitol in the City of Raleigh, this ___ day of _______ in the year of our Lord two thousand and sixteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty.
Now, folks will be screaming saying “YOU CAN’T DO THAT! You’re Violating Federal Court Rulings.” Actually, no he isn’t. You see, here in the U.S.A., our courts do NOT issue rulings. They issue what is called “An Opinion of the Court”. Kings make ‘Rulings’, judges do not.
..
As I have pointed out in earlier blog posts, our US federal district & appeals courts, the 4th District in this case, they have no authority over any cases in which a ‘STATE’ is a party. The supreme Court has ‘Original Jurisdiction’ over those cases. It plainly says so in the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
..
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
…
Now, has the supreme Court heard the arguments concerning this case? Have the lawyers for both parties presented their evidence directly to the supreme Court? No they haven’t!
Is the ‘STATE of NC’ a party in this law suit brought on by the liberal left? Yes, it IS!
Is Governor Patrick McCrory (who is a public Minister BTW) — is he ‘affected’ by this suit? Yes, he IS!
Has the supreme Court recently made an opinion that stated Voter ID was acceptable? Yes they have. Just back in 2008.
..
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photo IDs did not violate the Constitution of the United States. ~ Wikipedia
..
So, we’ve established that lower districts & circuit appeals Courts have no authority & we’ve established that the governor has the power to direct his agencies for an ‘efficient administration’.
..
Lets put some ICING on this cake, shall we.
…
18 U.S.C., Chapter 29 § 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments
Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, … uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap29-sec595.htm
…
Summary: The feds have made opinions by courts that do not have jurisdiction. The state of NC recognizes this fact and ignores the said opinions. And we’ve now been informed that the feds can’t interfere with this general election without breaking federal law.
..
Isn’t it great how ‘We the people’ still have the power of rational thought?
…
Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this First Day of September in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.
SilenceDogood2010's Blog 
I Like Icing!
It appears the Plaintiffs decided to sue them as individuals in order to circumvent the Article 2 Secton 2 requirement, but even if that is the case, then no decision coming out of it can be binding on the State since it wasn’t a party to the case. They can’t have it both ways. – Major Dave 🙂
Reblogged this on The way I see things … and commented:
Will Pat have the kahunas to stand up for North Carolina (America)?
—
ow, folks will be screaming saying “YOU CAN’T DO THAT! You’re Violating Federal Court Rulings.” Actually, no he isn’t. You see, here in the U.S.A., our courts do NOT issue rulings. They issue what is called “An Opinion of the Court”. Kings make ‘Rulings’, judges do not.
..
As I have pointed out in earlier blog posts, our US federal district & appeals courts, the 4th District in this case, they have no authority over any cases in which a ‘STATE’ is a party. The supreme Court has ‘Original Jurisdiction’ over those cases. It plainly says so in the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
..
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Reblogged this on Vrais USA's Blog.
3 judges (that’s the panel that make up the US Circuit of Appeals; the 4th Circuit) DO NOT SAY WHAT THE LAW IS. The CONSTITUTION DEFINES THE LAW. And no where does the Constitution say that African-Americans are ENTITLED to a DIFFERENT set of standards, are ENTITLED to AN EXTRA WEEK of Early Voting, are ENTITLED to SUNDAY VOTING. These are just SOME of the provisions of the NC Voter ID Law that the 4th Circuit held to be intentionally discriminatory against African-Americans. The 4th Circuit held that the Voter ID law evidences an INTENTIONAL DESIGN and an DISCRIMINATORY INTENT by the North Carolina legislature to deny African-Americans their right to vote, likening them to the Southern Democrats of the 1860’s thru the 1960’s who used poll taxes, literacy tests, scare tactics, and force to prevent African-Americans from voting. If I were the NC legislature, I would sue the 4th Circuit for slander and libel. The Voter ID law passed in Indiana was a “strict photo ID” law (stricter than North Carolina’s law) and it went before the Supreme Court in 2008. In an opinion authored by the most liberal member of the Court at the time, the Supreme Court found that a Photo ID requirement was NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN to ANY citizen. In fact, just a few years earlier, a federal government committee looking into the election process took a number of polls and found that only 31% of Americans had confidence in the integrity of the election process. In other words, 69% of Americans believed that our election process is corrupt and racked with fraud. With that finding, states began enacting voter ID laws, some requiring a photo ID. Indiana was one and so was Texas. it was this law that went to the Supreme Court. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION – and I wish I could ask this directly to the judges of the 4th Circuit: If a strict Photo ID requirement (in Indiana’s Law) was found by a LIBERAL Supreme Court to be a permissible and constitutional condition on the exercise to vote and found NOT TO BE AN “UNREASONABLE” BURDEN on ANYONE, how is it that a lesser federal court can find that a photo ID requirement in NC’s law, which is not as strict as Indiana’s, is unconstitutional?? How is it that the LIBERAL Supreme Court can find that a strict Photo ID requirement (in Indiana’s Law) is a permissible and constitutional condition on one’s exercise to vote and is NOT an unreasonable burden on ANYONE but a lesser federal court can find that the photo ID requirement in NC’s law, which is not as strict as Indiana’s, is an unreasonable burden on AFRICAN-AMERICANS? No other minority group was found to be burdened. For these UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS (for there can be NO answers to these questions), as well as for the fact that North Carolina is a SOVEREIGN state vested under the Tenth Amendment with all sovereign rights to control the voting process in her state and to ensure honesty and integrity, that North Carolina is riddled with documented instances of voter fraud, and that North Carolina will be a contested battleground state in November for a presidential election that will SURELY be accompanied by various schemes perpetrated by the Democratic Party and Democrats in general to add votes illegally, Governor Pat McCrory MUST do either one of two things: (1) Issue an Executive Order (as Silence Do-Good writes) instructing all Boards of Election in the State that the Voter ID law will be enforced regardless of the “Opinion” of the 4th Circuit and the “opinion” of the Supreme Court (which was no opinion at all since it was a 4-4 split opinion as to whether to really hear the case on the merits, so it won’t be heard – and hence the opinion of the 4th circuit stands); or (2) Call an Emergency Session of the State Legislature and pass a NEW LAW just in the nick of time for the election (essentially providing the same provisions). There won’t be time to challenge that law. Remember, the federal courts are part of the federal judiciary and thus are a very branch of the federal government that seeks to keep the States without much individual power. The aim of the federal government is eventually have all the States abiding by the very same laws and policies so that instead of 50 independent/individual States, they are all the same, just located in different geographical locations. The government is trying to establish a “one-size-fits-all” policy on the States so that one day soon it can make the claim that there really are no state borders and that the government is no longer “federal” but “national” since it rules over all people not as residents of their States but as residents of the United States. This way it rules over We the People directly, without the States acting as a buffer and providing the local type of governance that our Founders envisioned. The federal courts act as an umpire and arbiter ONLY for the federal government. The States have no such umpire in the federal judiciary, which sadly, the government has forced us to believe is the most authoritative tribunal to assess the meaning and intent of the US Constitution, federal laws, and state laws. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, John Taylor of Carolina, and even James Madison stood up for Liberty and States’ Rights…. for there can be no liberty if the States lose their sovereign rights. They were vigilante and sounded the alarm at every perceived instance of federal over-reach. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Taylor urged the States to declare unconstitutional federal laws unenforceable in the individual states and to use state powers to make sure the government did not try to do so in their borders. Patrick Henry first pleaded for his State of Virginia to call up a militia to fight the British should they try to come into the State and deprive them of their arms and their right to govern themselves (“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!”) and then pleaded again for his state to be cautious about signing the new Constitution in 1788 and not to do so unless a Bill of Rights was added and that additional guarantees added to prevent the federal government from becoming too ambitious and attempting to usurp powers from the States. Today we are using our essential First Amendment Right of Speech to sound the alarm that our liberties are under attack from an ambitious central government and that its courts have no authority to undue laws that come under the purview of the Tenth Amendment and are duly enacted for our benefit. While our First Amendment can only sound the alarm, other measures are necessary to actually protect them. What will Governor McCrory do? What do you believe he should do? What would Jefferson, Madison, and Taylor do?
Excellent Comment — Very Thorough & Insightful.
Thank you ma’am.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010.
If they want to impose that law then I will refuse to answer all of the questions they have for me as the law states I have to produce ID “Not Answer There Questions” and I wont. This is an F-ED up BS Law and I will comply ONLY TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW! And yes this is civil disobedience!
Every member of Congress, that includes each senator, takes an oath of office swearing to uphold & defend the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that when a Supreme Court justice must be replaced, the President will nominate that replacement and the Senate will review that nominee. A partisan block of Republican Senators have REFUSED to review judge Merrit Garland, the President’s nominee, intentionally undermining our Supreme Court, which would have jurisdiction in this case regarding State’s voter laws. These Republican Senators have broken their oath of office, clearly, in order to disable our Supreme Court. They have betrayed our country and should be arrested, charged with treason & tried, according to our laws.
Mr. Lane, Let us review a couple of items;
1) Barack Hussein Obama has usurped the office of the president. He is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States. His Birth docs. have been proven to be forgeries & even if he was born in Hawaii, his father was NEVER a citizen — SO, he has NO AUTHORITY to appoint a supreme Court Justice. Matter of fact, Kagan & Sotomayor MUST be removed from the bench.
2) Art. 2, sec.2 — “… and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, …”
No where does it state that the Senate “MUST” hold a hearing on a SCOTUS. Actually, he DID NOT have the ‘Consent of the Senate’ to even nominate Garland. So no ‘TREASON’ (on this Issue anyway) has been committed by our senate.
Good Day Sir.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010
Words mean something. If North Carolina is indeed a “sovereign state,” then it should act like one. Silence is not always golden, and in this case, will be caustic, as the Constitution is further eroded by North Carolina’s leadership’s refusal to keep their oath.
Conservatives and alleged constitutionalists continue to support Republicans because they aren’t Democrats, with a blind-eye, deaf-ears, and dumb tongues when it comes to defending our rights, upholding the rule of the “supreme Law of the Land,” the U.S. Constitution.
Original jurisdiction is not “optional” when it comes to cases in which a State is a party. It doesn’t matter whether they are plaintiff or defendant. If a sovereign state enters the federal justice system as a party in a suit, there is only one court, as Silence correctly lays out, and that is the U.S. Supreme Court, period.
There is no vague or ambiguous language in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2.
According to the law which trumps all other man-made laws governing the United States, the voter ID ruling by the 4th Circuit is as null and void as the U.S. Supreme Court’s “appellate” ruling that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
North Carolina need not wait for spineless Republicans in Congress to act. They could have defunded Obamacare five years ago when they regained control of the House of Representatives. They did not.
Former House Speaker, now-U.S. Senator Tom Tillis, has done nothing before or after leaving Raleigh to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to defending our inalienable Rights. Nothing. Tillis blocked efforts to protect North Carolinians from being subject to the “laws of war” in violation of no fewer than 14 provisions of the Constitution, including over half the Bill of Rights.
Governor McCrory does NOT deserve to be re-elected if he won’t uphold Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. This is the same misguided politician who thinks hiding police body cameras from public scrutiny increases “transparency”.
I covered this issue years ago, but conservatives and tea party types, while in agreement with my analysis, (just like I see here with Silence), did NOTHING to hold elected officials or candidates accountable for their unconstitutional rhetoric and actions (inactions).
There is no “representative government” in North Carolina which stands between a rogue federal government and the People. We have taxation out the wazoo, but no representation to speak of. None.
READ: “Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit
“Treason to the Constitution, and are Null and Void.”
Click to access SCOTUS-RULING-VOID.pdf
Get informed, and then get busy being honest patriots! You should also join the Tax Revolution, our First Amendment Alliance ( http://FirstAA.org ), and our initiative to audit the IRS: http://AuditIRS.com
Jeff Lewis
National Director, Patriot Coalition
Senior Advisor, Tax Revolution Institute
Voter ID is not the worst idea in the world, but doing it by Statute is unconstitutional. It amounts to the incumbents picking and choosing who may vote.
I am for demanding of the Governor that he fulfill his duty to stand up for “we the people” of N C.
This is good news, I hope the Governor will follow up. If we do not have honest elections there is no hope for our nation.
Your reading of the Article is correct in so much as the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this case but your understanding of it is improper and I’m afraid it shoots your whole theory to bits. Original Jurisdiction is NOT exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court having original jurisdictions means a lawsuit MAY be brought directly to the court as opposed to merely appealed to it (normally the SC cannot take cases first. They have to wait for it to go through the whole appeals process). The plaintiffs in this case choose not to do so (probably because they thought it would be easier to get a lower court to overturn it and the SC to decline to overturn the lower court than get the SC to take the case directly. That seems to have been a proper assumption).
Now, the Judiciary Act of 1789 does give the SC original AND jurisdiction in suits between two or more states, between a state and a foreign government, and in suits against ambassadors and other public ministers. But non of those apply here. It should be noted that despite your insistence seemingly without evidence McCrory is a public minister he has no diplomatic function and is NOT one. Public minister is a term of law and has an express and specific meaning that McCrory’s position does not meet.
Ahhhh Yes…YES… Ze old Lawyer Ploy… (voiced as Chief Inspector Clouseau)
You’ve been to law school haven’t you? You’ve been taught this mumbo jumbo by some other crooked lawyer who was indoctrinated by another indoctrinated lawyer before your time. Congratulations Mr Anix. You have just proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lawyers can NOT read and comprehend what they read.
Allow me to Cross Examine you now sir —
Do you agree, that ANY legislation passed by the US Congress, that violates the Constitution, is null & void?
Let us assume that you answer “YES” to the above question.
Now sir, since the 1st Congress passed the ‘Judiciary ACT of 1789’ and added that term, ‘EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION’, which, BTW completely CONTRADICTS THE US CONSTITUTION, the entire Judiciary Act is null & void.
The witness may step down. Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury… “If the ‘Terms’ Contradict… NULL & VOID the law is. You MUST call Bull-S**T!”
Respectfully submitted by SD2010.
Now Mr. Anix, Concerning your comment on the Governor NOT being a public Minister —
“A minister is a politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government, … ” Just one such definition.
Let us delve into the ‘Origins’ of the word minister —
Again, just ONE example:
“minister (n.)
c. 1300, “one who acts upon the authority of another,” from Old French menistre “servant, valet, member of a household staff, administrator, musician, minstrel” (12c.), from Latin minister (genitive ministri) “inferior, servant, priest’s assistant” (in Medieval Latin, “priest”), from minus, minor “less,” hence “subordinate,” (see minus) + comparative suffix *-teros. Formed on model of magister. Meaning “priest” is attested in English from early 14c. Political sense of “high officer of the state” is attested from 1620s, from notion of “service to the crown.”
Source of above Quote:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=minister
Have a good day sir.
“I’m done with this GUY” ~ Vinny Gambini (My Cousin Vinny)
Respectfully submitted by SD2010.
1. Well, not quite. It isn’t constitutional but laws passed by Congress are presumed Constitutional until they are found by a court of law not to be. So, no, it is not null and void because no court anywhere has found it constitutional. But in an effort to give your position its due weight, let’s presume that isn’t the standard.
2. Where does the Judiciary Act of 1789 contradict the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that Original Jurisdiction must mean Exclusive Jurisdiction? If any the Judiciary Act is CRITICAL to your argument because without it there is no basis for the Supreme Court to be required as first venue for any lawsuit whatsoever.
3. Sure, McCrory is a public minister in terms of a common parlance definition. But common parlance is not the same as the legal definition of a word. Common Parlance has no weight in court when it conflicts with the legal definition. It’s like Hillary Clinton’s legal status: A criminal is someone who commits a crime in the common parlance. Now I assume you believe Hillary is a criminal regardless of the fact legally speaking she has been convicted of no crime, yes? That’s common parlance vs. legal definition.
Apologies. The line “So, no, it is not null and void because no court anywhere has found it constitutional.” should read “So, no, it is not null and void because no court anywhere has found it UNconstitutional.”
My apologies Ms. Anix for referring to you as a “Mr.” earlier.
And I must make some clarification here. I had NOT READ the Judicial Act in it’s entirety before. You are correct. It does NOT violate the Constitution.
The Exclusive Jurisdiction you refer to, in Sec. 13 of the J.A., DOES in fact give the the supreme Court “EXCLUSIVE Jurisdiction”.
“SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, . . .”
Now, I know you’re going to say I left the EXCEPT part out — The Except MEANS: The ‘STATES’ have the 1st jurisdiction over their cases. The supreme Court has “Original & Exclusive” as far as the federal courts go.
That’ll be $5,000.00 for the legal education ma’am. Please respond as to where I can send my bill. My terms are “Net 30”.
Respectfully submitted by SD2010