You Must Have A Right To Sue To Uphold The Constitution

[MadRat]

The fundemental principles of the U.S. Constitution is that all people will suffer equally under the Law. Unfortunately the courts have gradually stripped your rights away from you by progressiely making it harder to challenge the government in court. The Constitution allows you several avenues of keeping the government in check, including your right to sue the government for crossing the Law. The Law begins with the U.S. Constitution and those laws contained within require the highest standard of challenge, an Amendment process, for them to be changed. The Supreme Court has a long held tradition that all laws outside the Constitution are subject to change because of factors of change in the American culture, and therefore are not set in stone. Unfortunately, the Supremes have allowed the lower federal courts to adopt their own traditions outside of the same tradition that has now made it impossible to challenge the government unless you have grounds that the government has either directly harmed you by their actions or indirectly created a harmful environment to your well-being. This means that in order to challenge bad laws you must have a reasonable personal loss or the court will dismiss the challenge.

The basic premise is that the courts don't need to waste time on these matters due to the fact that the same U.S. Constitution gave you the right to petition the government in order to change the law. Therefore, the message is its okay for the government to break the Law as long as they pay compensation after the fact. Well, folks, this is a direct contradiction of your rights to express yourself directly to the government. By requiring people to petition it staves off some lawsuits, true, but it also then denies the people the very right to due process in their own ability to stave off the government from breaking the Law.

Two totally different court cases in the news lately have caught my attention for the very same reason, the courts are poised to dismiss both unless the plaintiffs can give a reason that they have been harmed BEFORE the law takes affect. Lawsuit one, the city of Omaha is going to bypass state law (that requires a city to adjoin the other) to annex the city of Elkhorn (Nebraska) by annexing them in the same swoop as a thin strip of land that leads within reach of the smaller city. The smaller city in this case is set to annex local SID's around it to reach a population fo 10K, which exempts them from future annexation attempts. (Omaha saw their plan and is trying to beat them to the punch... and because Elkhorn has $7 million in surplus this year alone.) The second case, the rights of Libraries and joe public to sue the FCC for writing their own rules requiring the digital Broadcast Flag. Neither case may make it past the preliminary hearing exactly because NO HARM has been committed prior to the move by the government entities in question.

So how long have we lived under these new rules? Answer at 11.