Re: Trump "Special Master" Judge Admits She Lacked Jurisdiction

On 12/12/22 1:52 PM, Lee wrote:
> The one-page order and its
> extremely brief explanation,
> “dismissed for lack of
> jurisdiction,” completely
> unraveled the 24-page screed
> she issued in September—one
> that shocked the legal
> profession because of the
> unprecedented way she
> justified inserting herself
> into an ongoing Department
> of Justice investigation.

I post here all the time saying that those Democrat judges have no power 
to change laws or to hear a particular case because they lack the 
jurisdiction and when that is the situation they can't rewrite the laws 
to make it their jurisdiction or create legal opinions on the case that 
they can't hear in a legal court setting...  the Democrat Leftist judges 
always seem to rule on the case to try to make the law or case 
Constitutional when all they can really say is that they have no 
jurisdiction to hear the case and can't "then give an opinion on the law 
or the case"  It's like taking the 5th amendment when questioned and 
then making a statement that refutes the implications of the question.


Once you invoke the 5th, you are either silent on the subject or you are 
obligated to answer questions on that subject.

It's the same for jurisdiction, you either have or you don't and if you 
don't then you have nothing "official" to say on the subject.  The most 
egregious case was ObamaCare where the Republicans went along with 
changing the ObamaCare law from a commerce law to a tax law to make it 
Constitutional and then later the tax law MANDATE was declared 
unconstitutional and "outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution" 
because you can't use a tax law to force someone into commerce that they 
didn't enter into voluntarily.

"The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely 
because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice 
Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing 
Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"

The law was always unconstitutional even before they changed it from a 
commerce law to a tax law and as I have said previously it was outside 
the jurisdiction of the court to change that law in the first place...

Because it created SLAVERY and the 13th Amendment denies slavery "except 
as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly 
convicted" and no *laws* , NOT even tax laws, are superior to a 
Constitutional Amendment. ObamaCare was never within the jurisdiction of 
the courts as it was denied FEDERAL and State jurisdiction by Amendment 13.

The USSC's initial response would have had to legally been to declare 
ObamaCare the commerce law, unconstitutional and outside U.S. and State 
jurisdictions as they were attempting the use of a COMMERCE LAW to 
override the U.S. Constitution and that's just a clear violation and 
violated the Jurisdictional power of the United States.

Instead the USSC decided it could change the law into a tax law... that 
would avoid the commerce clause and allow a tax law to create a law that 
forced you to engage in commerce and the fine for violating the tax law 
was to basically pay the same amount and to the same place as though you 
had originally engaged in the commerce. It was a problem of LOGIC.  the 
law still can't over ride the commerce clause or avoid the SLAVERY being 
created by the commerce trap create by the law... The Constitution is 
always superior to laws. Making 10 laws that all converge to create 
slavery and use tax laws or Appropriations laws or criminal or any other 
type of laws but they never add-up to a point that they are suprior to 
the Constitution and SLAVERY is unconstitutional in all it's forms (and 
ObamaCare created FRACTIONAL SLAVERY). As well as the fact that commerce 
is NOT mandatory and making it a tax law doesn't increase it's potential 
for being superior to the commerce clause.

If anything it was an attempt at political hi-jinks to create the ruling 
on the commerce clause, but I still say it was all unconstitutional 
since the original ObamaCare law outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Constitution on so many levels that they should have never accepted it 
in the first place and just ruled it unconstitutional which is even more 
vague than outside their jurisdiction to point out where the problem 
is..    But then they couldn't control the process of making it a tax 
law and eventually using it to remove the ObamaCare Mandate and create a 
limitation on the commerce clause.

I can't say that limiting the commerce clause was worth all that 
wrangling of Constitutional violation to get there.




-- 
-Reality Matters-

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/12/09/elise-stefanik-twitter-lied-to-congress-about-shadow-banning-conservatives/
-------------------------------------------------------

And TWITTER and the FBI lied about working together as a part of the 
SHADOW GOVERNMENT to limit free speech.

They became the *Ministry of TRUTH* that was run by the *SHADOW* 
*GOVERNMENT* .

For those out there that said *the SHADOW GOVERNMENT is tinfoil hat* 
*territory*  ...you better stock up on tinfoil.