Reasons why Federal District and Appellate Courts Lack Standing to Rule on Trumps EO

[M]

Reprinted with permission of author Oren Long;

Here's something I hope you take seriously.   If you like it, perhaps you can post it far and wide and ask readers to forward it to Trump for his perusal.   IF (and it's a big "if") enough people send it to him, sooner or later he will see it.

President Trump's Immigration E.O. has been struck down by Federal District and Appellate Courts despite the fact that they lack standing or jurisdiction to hear the case.   Here's why:

Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentence One of the Constitution states, "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State may be Party, the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction".  

This means that since the States filed suit against the Federal Government, making themselves "Party" to the suit, ONLY the Supreme Court can hear the case, period!   ONLY the Supreme Court has jurisdiction, period!   Federal District Courts and/or Appellate Courts cannot, by Constitutional mandate, hear the case, period!

The Founders CLEARLY did not want lower courts ruling on cases that might impact international relations OR cases where States sued the Federal Government, impacting national policy through a hodge-podge of conflicting lower Court rulings.   The Founders clearly believed that such cases should be heard by the Supreme Court -- ONLY!

Ergo, under Article III, President Trump is legally and Constitutionally free to ignore the aforementioned lower Court rulings and proceed with his E.O. unless and until the Supreme Court strikes it down.

President Trump's legal team should make only one argument before any lower Court hearing the case, "This Court has NO jurisdiction in this matter.   Under Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two of the Constitution of the United States, ONLY the Supreme Court can hear this case.   Since this case was filed by the State of ________, through that State's Attorney General, the State is, by Constitutional definition, Party to the suit and MUST, therefore, by Constitutional mandate, file directly with the Supreme Court.   That said, the President has instructed me to advise the Court that, regardless of this Court's ruling, he is proceeding with his Immigration Executive Order unless and until the Supreme Court strikes it down."

This Constitutional stance, by the President, could go a long way towards bringing the Federal Judiciary back within its Constitutional constraints.  

What do you think?   Will you post it far and wide?

Oren Long