Power Politics News
Best Case I Ever Read
I think I first grasped the ‘separation of powers’ concept when I realized that I could use these power for my own benefit.
This made me feel powerful towards the government. At the time, I didn’t realize that the power was to be used not only individually by me, but also against an individual who would be the one violating my rights whether in government or not.
Knowing how the court works also gives one the feeling of power. To gain this knowledge, paralegal skills and knowledge of the rules and procedures are necessary. Along with knowing how the court works requires the understanding of ‘equity’ and the many aspects of judicial power relating to the case or controversy.
It’s been almost 30 years and one of my conclusions for a quasi-criminal jurisdiction, is that there is no remedy “at law.” Therefore the remedy would be a ‘separate civil action’. A separate civil move to restrain the original action by the individual that is violating one’s rights.
Last Friday, the Supreme Court came out with an opinion on June 16, 2011, ( Bond v U.S. ) stating that an individual, under certain circumstances, may challenge the federal jurisdiction. This meaning there are limits to the federal laws and those limits arise because of the powers being separated.
I had accepted the concept that each individual had a right under the Tenth Amendment to those rights enumerated to the United States and those denied to the states, are reserved to the states or the people respectively. I didn’t know that in 1937, dealing with a familiar party of the time, Tennessee Valley Authority, which we know from the Ashwander Doctrine ( Ashwander v TVA ), the court mixed the concept of ‘standing’ and ’cause of action’ in an improper way, and the appellate court, in this case, Bond, relied on that one single sentence to deny Bond. It’s in the opinion and everyone should read and try to comprehend it.
So, now I see that a separate civil action can be made to pursue violations of one’s rights and further direct challenges to the jurisdiction of the legislative power. The Article III standing now allows for not only this, but appears to allow the challenge directly to the lower court and can be taken up by appeal or interlocutory appeal.