REJOIN OR DIE!

Arizona and Virginia are embroiled in court cases in which they and the United States are opposing each other, the former as a defendant in a case in which the Obama Justice Department is claiming Arizona is violating the Constitution by encroaching of the enumerated powers granted the federal government in Article I, Section 8.

In the latter, Virginia is suing the federal government for attempting to require its citizens to purchase health insurance in contradiction with both the Constitution and Virginia law. In both cases, a "State is Party." In both cases, either the United States or its representatives are a "Party." The U.S. Constitution's Article III, Section 2 established the federal judiciary, and defines in clause one which cases fall under the federal judiciary. In clause 2, it lists which cases would require the supreme court in the land to have "original jurisdiction."

For the past 70 years, through a variety of misguided citations of case law, and compounded by the support of unconstitutional federal statutes, a regularity of usurping a State's right to have its greviances heard before an appropriate court has been facilitated. "Massachusetts v. Missouri" (1939) has been cited by one of the litigants in the cases above as justification for not filing a complaint with the Supreme Court, but in reviewing "Massachusetts v. Missouri," one will find "Cohens v. Virginia" as the high court's justification for refusing to hear a case in which "a State is Party." This is a rabbit hole with a carrot at the bottom, for the high court actually cites the Framers via the Federalist Papers as one of the most important sources to determine how we should interpret the Constitution, and in this case specifically, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2.

In "Cohens v. Virginia," amongst the other gems, the Supreme Court's Justice Marshall stated the following:

“The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."

Justice Marshall also stated,

"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."

Justice Marshall continued to separate the wheat from the chaff as it relates to cases in which the Supreme Court should interpret Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, that:

“The article does not extend the judicial power to every violation of the Constitution which may possibly take place, but to "a case in law or equity" in which a right under such law is asserted in a Court of justice. If the question cannot be brought into a Court, then there is no case in law or equity, and no jurisdiction is given by the words of the article. But if, in any controversy depending in a Court, the cause should depend on the validity of such a law, that would be a case arising under the Constitution, to which the judicial power of the United States would extend."

If ever there were two cases that rise to a level that warrant no other court but the Supreme Court to have "original jurisdiction" to hear cases in which states are at odds with the federal government over the "validity" of laws, the Arizona and Virginia cases rise to such a level.

Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch federalist, recognized the prominence of States in respect to cases that might find themselves before the federal judiciary as requiring the Supreme Court to be the court of original jurisdiction, when he stated the following in Federalist 81:

"The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be party.

In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 81

A restoration of Constitutional governance requires more than the lip-service afforded it by the various 10th Amendment resolutions currently being put forth by the States. It requires actual action. It would be foolish of We the People of the sovereign States to expect a long-time rogue federal government to yield back that which it has usurped from the States.

The States must join together in support of each other's efforts at reasserting State's Rights, and the time for that is NOW, or the Republic will surely die. The facts are plain. Regardless of how one might feel about the particulars of either the Arizona or the Virginia cases, both States are claiming they have Constitutionally-protected rights.

The governors and other officials of those States have a duty to uphold the Constitution, thereby protecting the dignity of the States they represent, and preserving the Rights of the citizens and lawful residents that reside within their sovereign borders.

ReJoin Or DIE! That is the choice.

-Publius, August 12, 2010

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MUST READ: 14th Amendment does NOT grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

U.S. Senator Howard Says No to Anchor Babies! ~Publius, August, 21, 2010