The Supreme Court’s Abdication

Posted By on May 6, 2011

Last month, April 2011, the Supreme Court refused to “fast track” the State of Virginia’s request regarding its suit against Obamacare. Since we have been brainwashed to accept the federal appeal process through the various District Courts, the Courts of Appeal and then finally to the Supreme Court itself. To the American public, in general, this was the expected decision of the Supreme Court, but my question would be what, if anything, does the Constitution have to say about this matter? Let’s take a moment to consult the document which authorizes and establishes the Supreme Court.

Article III the Constitution of the United States establishes the third branch of the federal government, and sets the basic structure for the Supreme Court. Additionally, this article sets the jurisdiction for the Supreme Court. In Article III, Section 2 Paragraph 2 we read:

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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (Emphases added)

This is very plain. The Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” in cases where a State, or States are a party. St. George Tucker, Professor of Law, at the University of William and Mary, wrote the following in his edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries published in 1803:

This, I presume, was intended to give the greater solemnity as as well as dispatch to the decision of such important cases, by taking away all unnecessary delays, by appeal.1 (Emphasis added)

We see that according to the Constitution, any and all cases in which a State, or States, is a party it is the Supreme Court which has “original jurisdiction,” not the District Courts and not the Courts of Appeal. This is further defined by the following sentence as it begins, “In all OTHER cases…shall have appellate jurisdiction.” Simply, if a State is involved it is the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, only, that has jurisdiction. The Constitution plainly states the District Courts, Courts of Appeal and all other Federal Courts have no jurisdiction in cases involving the States.

From these two sentences within the body of the US Constitution we see very clearly that the Supreme Court has abdicated its authority and jurisdiction in the cases pending in the Federal Court system concerning Obamacare and the States. Either the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and the Federal Court system, and provides the basis for its jurisdiction, OR it does not.

All nine justices of the sitting Supreme Court have taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Every District Court judge has taken the same oath. Every appellate judge has taken the same oath. So, based on this simple discussion, every single federal judge which has heard a State case against Obamacare, and HAS NOT immediately forwarded the case to the Supreme Court is now acting in direct opposition to the Constitution and is committing an act which should be considered to have performed an act of gross misconduct as a federal judge, and as a result should be impeached. They are not upholding the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, and have probably bordered upon treason.

So, to the nine justices of the Supreme Court, to the district judges and to the appellate judges who hold their position based upon Constitutional mandate, I say, “Put up, and move the cases – every State case against Obamacare – immediately to the Supreme Court for it just hearing in the sole court holding Constitutional jurisdiction over the cases. If you are not willing to do this, resign your position or be impeached for gross misconduct.”


1 Tucker’s Blackstone, Constitution Society, © 1997-2003, cited from, originally published in 1803


About the author


6 Responses to “The Supreme Court’s Abdication”

  1. David Bozarth says:

    Bob from Maryland responds via facebook:

    I think you are confusing “supreme Court” and “Supreme Court” . In Article III Section 1 of the Constitution you will note that the word “supreme” is not capitalized but Court is capitalized. Court in this case includes all Federal Courts, the “Supreme Court” being the highest court in the Federal Court system. US District Courts by virtue of being part of the Court have “original jurisdiction”

  2. David Bozarth says:

    My response on facebook was:

    You need to read the Constitution more carefully, and you will realize they capitalize a number of words we would not normally, and don’t capitalize words we would expect to be. In Article III, Section 1 it clearly states, “The judicial Pow…er 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.” Notice, “one supreme Court” and “inferior Courts”. There is only one “supreme Court” whether it is written that way or “Supreme Court” as today, all other federal courts are considered “inferior courts.” Simple language.

  3. David Bozarth says:

    Bob’s response was:

    Well if we are gonna throw stones, then I think you are a novice dabbling in an area that requires learned expertise. Unless you went to Law school since I saw you last, you have little to no training in this area. I admit I am in the sam…e boat, but I can read a definition and the definition of court is “A judicial tribunal established to administer justice. An entity in the government to which the administration of justice is delegated. In a broader sense, the term may also refer to a legislative assembly; a deliberative body, such as the General Court of Massachusetts, which is its legislature. The words court, judge, or judges, when used in laws, are often synonymous” I believe that Court as used in the Constitution is not singular and apparently the legislators that established the Federal Court system didn’t either.

  4. David Bozarth says:

    There was not intent to throw stones. The myth you espouse regarding the Constitution requiring expertise and Law school is the very thing the Framers sought to avoid. If you read their writings, and the notes from the Constitutional Conven…tion, they went to great pains to make sure the Constitution was written in plain English so the common man can understand it. When you compare the Constitution with some of the laws of that time, you find out just how simple the language is. It was commonly accepted, at least until the Civil War, that anyone could read the Constitution and understand it. It was only after 1875 that legal “experts,” lawyers and judges began the slow process of brainwashing to convince the citizens of this nation that they couldn’t understand it, and really only in the last century when they were able to convince us of our ignorance and their superiority. The very thing the framers hated from the British example they revolted against.

  5. SakaScotii says:

    Hello. Can you please get back to me asap? I am working on something and am having trouble finding information elsewhere. I would like to know if you are aware of any specific quotes by our founders as to the simplicity of the Constitution, and how it was intended to be readily it was understood by the common man. Preferably if they were made by Jefferson or Madison. I was fairly sure that their was a famous quote by Jefferson in these regards. If you cannot supply me with quotes, are there any books or sites you could refer me to? I would greatly appreciate any help. I will keep looking elsewhere in the mean time. Thanks.

    • David Bozarth says:

      This is an excellent question. I have been searching for the same quotes in the last few months. From my experiences in reading various documents from the founding era, I can honestly state the Constitution is one of the easiest reading from the period. While the Federalist Papers are in depth and provide a needed insight into the meanings and explanations of the concepts and principles found within the Constitution, they also tend to be very wordy and difficult to read. Also, a side-by-side comparative reading of the Constitution with legislative acts of the time will also bear this out. I recommend reading The Northwest Ordinance, an act passed in 1787, yes, the same year the Constitution was written. It is plain to see the level of “legalese” within The Northwest Ordinance, and the lack of it in the Constitution.

      Here on you will also find a comparison of various “bills of rights” from the same era; The English Bill of Rights of 1689 (if I remember correctly) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man from 1789. Once again you will witness for yourself the simplicity of the US Constitution.

      I am endeavoring to identify quotes from the founding fathers regarding this subject, and hope to post them soon.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: