Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
I want the Judge to show me in The Constitution where it even mentions "popularly elected". Also, does this mean that because the sheeple, or a howling mob deems that something is OK, The Constitution can be dismissed?
I believe the judiciary is in place to interpret and enforce the law. Not make the law. If the "over sixty-nine million people" want to remove the Natural Born provision from The Constitution, they are welcome to go through the amendment process to do so. Until then, it is the law.
I'd like someone to do a first principles explanation, without refering to 20th Century case law, about how the Courts do not have jurisdiction under Article III, section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This is certainly a controversy. The Court apparently agreed that it involves the United States, since defendants were represented by DoJ attorneys.
AFAIK, the "particularized injury", in order to have a "case", that keeps the general citizenry from having standing, as opposed to just injury, is a 20th Century innovation. IOW, I'm interested in original undestanding or meaning of Art III, section 2.