Vote Non-Politician
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 9:23 am
I get it. I'm with you. I don't want to see politicians (in the pejorative self-interested sense) running things. Write in "James E. White, Okemos" for President and your pick of non-politicians for VP. And especially do so if you're mistakenly thinking that Donald J. Trump is a non-politician. He isn't. He's 100% out for No. 1, himself. He grabbed money (for him and kin) off of his Presidency by appointing family to (well paid) posts of trust and at the very least by owning a hotel across the street from the White House.
At the very least I, as President, would provide some breathing room for us to figure out how to fix the issues that are so divisive today and many other that you are likely not aware of. For instance, do you realize that the judiciary have almost completely blocked the use of Amendment VII?
Also, do you think you can sue the government, either state or federal, for "redress of grievances" occasioned by (rogue?) government employees? Guaranteed by Amendment I and/or Article III Sec. 2 Cl. 1 & 2:
And it gets worse. While you and I would think that correct arithmetic, valid logic, and law interpretation in plain English would all be protected under Amendment IX, the Supreme Court Justices have, in effect, said otherwise by making it plain that if the Supreme Court has not decreed something as Amendment IX protected, then it is not one of your protected rights.
If, instead of casting a vote for Donald J. Trump you instead write in "James E. White, Okemos" you will at least have a shot at keeping your Constitution for the next 4 years. If Kamala Harris wins instead of me, it doesn't matter, she will adhere to the Constitution and thus give us little guys a chance to see what we can do to start fixing the real issues.
At the very least I, as President, would provide some breathing room for us to figure out how to fix the issues that are so divisive today and many other that you are likely not aware of. For instance, do you realize that the judiciary have almost completely blocked the use of Amendment VII?
It's true, by creating a heap of judicial rules and by taking power to themselves the judiciary now make it almost impossible for a little guy, like you and me, to take on either government or deep pocket people because their lawyers can simply keep filing (often classic frivolous) motions, etc., until the little guy financially, timewise, or tripping on a small rule violation, can be declared "the loser" no matter how much merit the underlying claims have. In other words, the actual issues are irrelevant, only lawyer and judicial POWER count.In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. (my emphasis)
Also, do you think you can sue the government, either state or federal, for "redress of grievances" occasioned by (rogue?) government employees? Guaranteed by Amendment I and/or Article III Sec. 2 Cl. 1 & 2:
Right, Congress has made no law blocking redress against the Federal Government, but the Supreme Court justices took it upon themselves to create such case "law" (e.g. the Bivins doctrine) themselves and decree they and all lesser courts must follow it even though the oaths of the lesser court judges are to the Constitution, not the Supreme Court.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1. 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; ...
Again, the Supreme Court has almost completely removed your right to sue your State by decreeing, against the obvious intent of the Framers to make the Supreme Court a defense against State power grabs and to empower State courts (in conjunction with the Supreme Court) as a defense against Congressional power grabs from "the People." Whether you call it "States rights" or "sovereign immunity" they are largely fictions created by Supreme Court Justice decree, not the law or the Constitution.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.
And it gets worse. While you and I would think that correct arithmetic, valid logic, and law interpretation in plain English would all be protected under Amendment IX, the Supreme Court Justices have, in effect, said otherwise by making it plain that if the Supreme Court has not decreed something as Amendment IX protected, then it is not one of your protected rights.
Yes, the Supreme Court has decreed interpretation of Amendment IX 180 degrees out of sync with the clear intent of the Framers.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If, instead of casting a vote for Donald J. Trump you instead write in "James E. White, Okemos" you will at least have a shot at keeping your Constitution for the next 4 years. If Kamala Harris wins instead of me, it doesn't matter, she will adhere to the Constitution and thus give us little guys a chance to see what we can do to start fixing the real issues.