THE LIBERAL NEWS™ © Assisting single mothers by our 441 society plan. The Gospel Followers of JESUS CHRIST[sm]© Editor: Dr. Stephen-James Warner

 A Constitutional Challenge To The WTO

 by Alan R. Adaschik

A constitution is written by citizens to establish the government they live under. The prime purpose of a constitution is to delineate how government will operate and function. Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to abide by the provisions of its Constitution and if it fails to do so, it is an affront to all citizens and by necessity, all citizens suffer equally when such offenses occur. To be sure, our government violates a provision of our Constitution, it is the unalienable right of any citizen or any group of citizens to petition our government for redress of this grievance. Unfortunately, in the United States of America, this unalienable right has been taken away from us.

Following are actions taken by one citizen in an attempt to address the constitutionality of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and our resulting participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). This Nation joined the WTO through an act of Congress in 1994.

In the latter part of 1995, the following letter of appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.

On December 1, 1994, the Congress of the United States of America enacted GATT and by doing so our Nation became a member of the WTO. In my opinion, the vote for GATT was unconstitutional because WTO rules and regulations supersede those of Congress and are not subject to definitive review by the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution.

Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be part; "State" referring to both the States of our Nation and Foreign States or Nations. Therefore, the subordination of Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America to a foreign trade organization is a matter where the Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction and may rule upon the actions of Congress without an appeal having been filed.

As a citizen of the United States of America, I do hereby respectfully request that the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution, review and rule upon the constitutionality of the Congressional vote for GATT and America's participation in the World Trade Organization.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The Supreme Court did not respond to the above appeal and as a result, a telephone call was made to Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant Clerk of the Court to the Supreme Court. Mr. Lorson advised that the Supreme Court only considers cases through the "appellate" process and if the issue raised in the above appeal were to be addressed, a case would have to be initiated in a District Court. However, this does not make sense because only the Supreme Court can make final decisions on issues of constitutionality and as pointed out in the original appeal, the Supreme Court should retain "original jurisdiction" in such matters. In any case, on March 2, 2000, the following petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The document presented is the filing amended in response to the defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss.

******

Alan R. Adaschik
and CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-6307
Registered Voters of the United States AS AMENDED
Of America, as a class.
(Plaintiffs) CIV-JORDAN
MAGISTRTE BANDSTRA
versus

William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States
and
The United States Congress
(Defendants)

UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION COMPLAINT

I, Alan R. Adaschik, who resides at 11484 SW 10 Court, Davie, Broward County, Florida 33325-4099, and the Citizens of the United States of America as a class, plaintiffs in the above styled cause, sues defendants; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States and the United States Congress.

Addresses of defendants

William Jefferson Clinton Denny Hastert Strom Thurmond, Senator
President of the United States Speaker of the House President Pro Tempore
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. U.S. House of Representatives. United States Senate
Washington D. C. 20500 Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this civil action is conferred by Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution which establishes that the judicial Power of the U.S. shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as established by Congress. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is an inferior court established by Congress. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution establishes the judicial power of the Courts shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, including Laws of the United States and Treaties made. The Supreme Court has declined to address the issue of the constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under its authority of "original Jurisdiction". An official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiffs that the proper course of action is to file a complaint in a District Court. The Attorney Pro Se of the Plaintiffs resides in geographical area of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida. This legal action has been filed in said District Court

CLASS ACTION

In accordance with rule 23, (a)(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. the following is true:

a. The member of this class number in the millions.

b. It is self-evident that the questions of law raised in this action are common to
the class.

c. It is self-evident that the claims of the representative party to this class is
typical of the claims of the class.

d. The representative party of this class will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class for the following reasons.

1. The Attorney Pro Se is a citizen of the United States.

2. The Attorney Pro Se is a registered voter.

3. The Attorney Pro Se educated to the Masters Degree level.

4. The Attorney Pro Se is and honorably discharge Naval Officer and
Fighter Pilot.

5. The Attorney Pro Se is a Public servant and has been one for 19
years.

6. The Attorney Pro Se record of achieve as a public Servant is
exemplary and extraordinary.

7. The Attorney Pro Se is a member of the class, the question of law
raised in this action apply to him, and has experienced the same
harm and injury as other members of the class.

e. The Plaintiffs hold that it is self-evident that the Defendant's have acted on grounds applicable to all of the Plaintiffs, thus making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole.

APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

This action is filed under the following Articles of our Constitution:

Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution this power.

Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in One Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

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 lads under grants of different states, and between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizen thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both house shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress.

Amendment XVII. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 1994, representatives from one-hundred thirteen nations of the world, including those from the United States, met in Marrakech, Morocco to sign the "Final Act Embodying The Results Of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations commonly known as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). By signing the Final Act, our representatives agreed:

· To submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and

· To adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.

On December 1, 1994, Congress enacted the Final Act of the Uruguay round of GATT. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed this bill and GATT, with all its Agreements, including the one establishing the World Trade Organization, became United States Law.

This legal action is based upon the following Articles of "The Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization, presented in List #1, and upon the Articles of Annex 2, to that Agreement, "Understanding On Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement Of Disputes", presented in List #2.

List #1. Articles from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

Article I. The World Trade Organization (hereafter referred to as "the WTO") is hereby established.

Article II, Paragraph 1. The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement.

Article II, Paragraph 2. The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "Multilateral Trade Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.

Article III, Paragraph 3. The WTO shall administer the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter referred to as the "Dispute Settlement Understanding" or "DSU") in Annex 2 to this Agreement.

Article XVI, Paragraph 4. Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements."

Article XVI, Paragraph 5. No reservations may be made in respect of any provision of this Agreement.

List #2. Articles from Annex 2 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade organization, "Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

Article 1, Paragraph 1. The rules and procedures of this Understanding shall also apply to consultations and the settlement of disputes between Members concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (referred to in this Understanding as the "WTO Agreement") and of this Understanding taken in isolation or in combination with any other covered agreement.

Article 2, Paragraph 1. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is hereby established to administer these rules and procedures.

Article 6, Paragraph 1. If the complaining party so requests, a panel shall be established at the DSB meeting following that at which the request first appears as an item on the DSB's agenda.

Article 7, Paragraph 7. Where the parties to the dispute have failed to develop a mutually satisfactory solution, the panel shall submit its findings in the form of a written report to the DSB.

Article 16, Paragraph 4. Within 60 days after the date of circulation of a panel report to the Members, the report shall be adopted at a DSB meeting unless a party to the dispute formally notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If a party has notified its decision to appeal, the report by the panel shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal.

Complaint #1. Wrongful Assignment of the Legislative Power of Congress

The Uruguay Round of GATT, according to the Articles in List #1, establish the WTO, establish that the Multilateral Trade Agreements, including those in Annexes 1, 2, & 3, are binding upon member nations, and establish that WTO member nations, will without reservation, ensure their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures conform to the obligations as agreed. The Articles in List #2, taken from Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, establish a procedure, whereby, if member nations are unable to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution to a dispute or controversy, then the (DSB) may adopt a solution as recommended by a Panel. This adopted ruling, as agreed without reservation, is legally binding upon the disputing parties and all other member nations of the WTO. Therefore, when a Panel ruling is adopted by the DSB, the DSB has performed a legislative act.

Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution states that the legislative powers of our Nation will be vested in Congress. If rulings adopted by the DSB are legislative acts legally binding upon member nations, then a part of the legislative power granted to Congress by the Constitution, is no longer vested in Congress, but instead, has been assigned to the WTO. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign any part of its legislative powers to a second party. The wording of Article I, Section 1, is clear, "All legislative powers shall be vested in Congress". If, as has been demonstrated, a portion of the legislative power of Congress is now vested in the WTO, then Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution has been violated. For this reason, GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #2. Wrongful Abridgment of the Voting Rights of Citizens

Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution provide that the people of each state shall directly elect those who represent them in Congress; our national Legislature. In Complaint #1, it has been established that under the Uruguay Round of GATT, Congress has wrongfully assigned part of its legislative power to the WTO. If the legislative power vested in Congress is divided between Congress and the WTO and, as is the case, United States citizens do not directly vote for WTO representatives, then it follows that the voters of this Nation do not vote for those who exercise the assigned portion of legislative power. If the voting citizens of this Nation no longer vote for those who establish "all" of our laws, then the voting rights of Americans have been abridged in violation of Article I, Sections 1 & 2 of our Constitution. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #3. Wrongful Assignment of the Power to Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.

The Uruguay Round of GATT, Article II, Paragraph 1, states that, "The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement". In contrast, Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution states that, "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power". Nowhere in our Constitution is Congress given authority to assign its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to a second party or to bestow authority upon that second party to make their own laws, legally binding upon Americans, to carry out execution of their assigned powers. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #4. Wrongful Assignment of the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court.

The Uruguay Round of GATT, through the Articles listed in Item #2, establish a procedure, whereby, if a member nation of the WTO is offended by an existing United States law, that nation can bring this issue or controversy before the DSB for resolution. If the DSB adopts a panel report in favor of the offended Nation, we have agreed, without reservation, to nullify the offending law. Therefore, DSB adopted rulings result in the repeal of United States law. Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution, provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall be vested in our Supreme Court or other inferior courts. Furthermore, Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall in all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, including the Laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party, and to Controversies between foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects. Under GATT, these provisions of Article III, Sections 1 & 2, no longer are effective. The Articles listed in Item #2, establish that the DSB of the WTO now retains some of the judicial power vested, by our Constitution, in our Supreme Court. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign the judicial power of the Supreme Court to a second party. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #5. Wrongful Change in Primary Governmental Functions by A Simple Legislative Act

A constitution is sacred to a Nation because of its three fundamental purposes; it establishes government, establishes how government will function, and protects the rights of citizens. All Constitutions include a procedure for amending its provisions. This amendment procedure is rigorous to preclude frivolous change and demands a higher level of passage than a simple legislative act. Therefore, changing any Constitution through a simple legislative act is unconstitutional because it bypasses the more demanding amendment process and the protections included therein.

If a fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to establish how our government functions and two prime functions of our government are to establish and review laws, then it follows that any significant change to our legislative or judicial review processes, must be made by amendment. This truth is fundamental and self-evident. Clearly, it is wrong to allow a lower level procedure established by the Constitution to change procedures provided for in the Constitution, when a higher level procedure is included for that expressed purpose. Therefore, any ordinary legislative act which results in a change to how our government functions is unconstitutional because it trivializes the amendment process and by extension, the Constitution itself.

When Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), thereby establishing this Nation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it did so through a simple majority vote on a trade bill. Unfortunately, WTO membership entails far more than just a trade agreement because the organization was constituted to govern world trade through a dispute settlement process. This dispute settlement process, supersedes and replaces the legislative and legislative review processes established by our Constitution and therefore as demonstrated in Complaints 1, 2, 3, & 4, constitutes a fundamental and significant change in how our government functions and operates. These fundamental and significant changes are as follows:

Before GATT:

· Subject to final approval by the President, Congress enacted all laws governing this Nation and its people.
· The people of this Nation voted directly for those who made our laws.
· Congress, alone, regulated commerce with foreign nations.
· The Supreme Court was the final and only authority over United States law.
· The criteria for the nullification of a law was the test of constitutionality.

After GATT:
· The power to enact laws has been divided between Congress and the WTO. Furthermore, The president does not have veto power over laws established by the WTO.
· The people of this Nation no longer vote directly for those who make our laws.
· Congress no longer regulates commerce with foreign nations and this authority now resides with the WTO.
· The judicial review authority of our Supreme Court has been divided between the Supreme Court and WTO. Furthermore, the situation is such that our Supreme Court cannot overrule a WTO ruling without violating our agreement with that organization.
· Our laws can now be voided because a group of foreign nationals view them as being unfair to trade.

It is self-evident that these changes wrought by the enactment of GATT, are significant and fundamental such that they constitute a significant change in the nature and form of our government. This being true, the Congressional vote for the Uruguay Round of GATT, a simple legislative act of Congress, is repugnant to our Constitution because such significant and fundamental change to governmental functions must be made by Constitutional Amendment. For these reasons, GATT and our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional.

PRECEDENT

The central issue to the complaints in this legal action is whether or not an act repugnant to the Constitution can become United States Law. This issue was addressed in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion written in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The words of Chief Justice Marshall that apply to this legal action are as follows:

The question whether an act, repugnant to the Constitution, can become law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as in their opinions shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on which they are imposed and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power, in its own nature, illimitable.

Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution and is, consequently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, not withstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow, in fact, what was established in theory and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules govern the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If then, the courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government is entirely void, is yet in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality ineffectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions, a written constitution would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises. This is too extravagant to be maintained.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that the courts, as well as other departments (Congress) are bound by that instrument. The (repugnant) rule must be discharged (repealed).

In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall clearly establishes that any act in contradiction to the provisions of our Constitution is repugnant to the Constitution. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall goes on to establish that any act repugnant to our Constitution is unconstitutional and must be repealed. So it is with GATT and our membership in the WTO, established as follows:

· GATT is an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress.
· GATT establishes the WTO, an organization constituted to govern world trade.
· The Agreements of the WTO provide that the decisions of its DSB are final and legally binding upon WTO members.
· The Constitution states that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress.
· The WTO provision that decisions of the DSB are legally binding upon members is in contradiction with the Constitutional provision that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress.
· The Constitution states that the judicial power of United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court.
· The WTO provision that decisions of the DSB are legally binding upon members is in contradiction with the Constitutional provision that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in our Supreme Court.

Therefore, GATT, being an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress, is repugnant to the Constitution. If GATT is repugnant to the Constitution, then GATT is not law, is void, is not binding upon the American people, and must be discharged (repealed).

Other Supporting Arguments

President George Washington, our first President and the father of our Nation, in his farewell address given on September 19, 1796, said:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the Guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.

If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

George Washington was very clear on his feelings about governmental agencies assuming powers not provided for in our Constitution or encroaching upon powers reserved for other governmental departments. He strongly believed that such changes in the distribution of powers should be made only by amendment. If they are not, then the precedent set results in the destruction of our government. GATT, established by an ordinary act of Congress, has resulted in the usurpation of the legislative power of Congress and the judicial power of our Supreme Court by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. For whatever good can possible be derived from this state of affairs, from George Washington's perspective, a permanent evil has been introduced into our body politic that will destroy our free government.

INJURY

Concrete and particular injury suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a class, are:
a. Our voting rights as citizens have been diminished as established in Complaint #2 of this civil action.

b. The nature and form of the government that the Plaintiffs live under and pledge allegiance to, has been improperly and wrongfully changed because of the Defendants' actions as established in Complaints #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5, of this civil action. Before GATT, this Nation was a Democratic Republic where the Plaintiffs voted for those who made all of our laws. In this Democratic Republic, it was incumbent for government to abide by our Constitution's Provisions. Subsequent to GATT, the Plaintiffs no longer vote for those who make all our laws and a precedent has been set such that the government is no longer bound by the provisions of our Constitution. Therefore, our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void for primary purpose for which it was written.

Because our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void, and because we now do not vote for the those who make some of our laws, the Plaintiffs hold that this Nation is no longer a Democratic Republic and that recitation of our Pledge of Allegiance is foolish because the Republic we pledge allegiance to no longer exists.

c. The laws of this Nation are made and passed by way of a lengthy and arduous legislative process. All laws so passed are subject to legis-lative review where the only criteria of nullification is constitutionality. Under GATT, the laws of this Nation are now subject to veto by a group of foreign nationals based solely upon what they consider to be fair in matters of trade. Furthermore, rulings of WTO, which are legally binding upon American citizens, are not subject to appeal and review by our Supreme Court. If our laws can be nullified, without due process, by a foreign organization and if laws not of our making can be imposed upon us by that same foreign organization, then the Plaintiffs hold that we are the victims of tyranny.

We, the Plaintiffs, hold that the harm and injury as identified above is real, concrete, and particular and that we have suffered this harm and as individuals and together as class. To those who would hold otherwise, we say: If the harm and injury identified in items a., b., & c., above, were forced upon us by a hostile foreign power, all Americans would hold these injuries to be real, concrete, and particular. The fact that they were imposed upon us by our own President and Legislature, does not change this.

CAUSATION

The Plaintiff's hold that it is self-evident that the harm and injuries, as identified under "INJURIES", was incurred as a direct result out of the passage of GATT and our participation as members of the WTO.

REDRESSABILITY
The Plaintiff's hold that it is self-evident that a if GATT is judged to be unconstitutional for the reasons enumerated in this complaint and injunctive relief is granted by this court as requested, this would terminate our participation in the WTO as members and thereby alleviate the harm and injury, as identified under "INJURIES", that is presently being suffered by the Plaintiffs.

DECLARATORY RELIEF

The plaintiffs request the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, rule that the Final Act Embodying The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the Final Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and our participation in the World Trade Organization as a member of that organization, is repugnant to the provisions of our Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The plaintiffs further request injunctive relief such that the defendants are ordered as follows:

a. To cease and desist participation of the United States in the World Trade Organization and to forgo adherence to its associated Annexes and Agreements.

b. To ensure that all duly constituted laws of this Nation modified or repealed by the action of the WTO's DSB, be restored.

c. To pay all costs and fees associated with this legal action.

******

As stated previously, the above filing was amended in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. A written response to that motion was also filed with the Court and this document follows:

******

PLAITIFFS' RESPONSE T0 THE DEFENDENTS
MOTION TO DISMISS AND INCORPORATED

We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully request that, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 23, Fed.R.Civ.P, the Court decline to dismiss this action on the basis of jurisdiction over the subject matter do to the Plaintiff's lack of standing and failure to satisfy the prerequisites to maintain a class action.

MEMORANDUM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLE

We the plaintiff's hold these truths to be self-evident and inviolate:

1. A constitution serves two primary purposes; it establishes government and more important, it establishes how that government will function and operate; the prime function of a constitution.

2. If the provisions of a constitution can be and/or are violated by the government it establishes in the course of conducting its affairs, then the constitution does not fulfill its prime function. A constitution that does not fulfill its prime function is dysfunctional and void. If a constitution dysfunctional and void, then the government it established is illegal and unlawful.

3. Items #1 & #2 above being true, it follows that a mechanism must exist, under a constitution, for citizens to hold their government accountable by challenging the actions of their government in a court of law. Furthermore, it also follows that it is incumbent and imperative for government to cease, desist, and refrain from all actions deemed to be unconstitutional by a court of law. If a government refuses to do so, then it is illegal and unlawful.

4. If no mechanism exists, under a constitution, for citizens to challenge the actions of government in a court of law or if any citizen, any group of citizens, or all citizens as a group, for any reason, are denied the right to challenge the constitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law, then the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed to control and restrain. If the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed control and constrain, then that constitution is dysfunctional and void. Therefore, as established in item #2, above, the government in question is illegal and unlawful.

5. Items #1, #2, #3, & #4, above, are true and inviolate for all constitutions and all nations including the United States of America. If items #1, #2, #3, & #4 are not true for any nation, including the United States of America, then the government of the nation in question has violated an inalienable right of the people; the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Any government that violates an inalienable right of the people, for any reason, is unlawful and illegal.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

This proceeding is a trial in a court of law. However, it is different than all other legal proceedings because the controversy is not one between two parties with opposing interests, but instead a controversy between a government and its citizens where the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are one and the same; that the Constitution is upheld and preserved through adherence to its provisions. To be sure, the defendants have sworn an oath of office affirming that this is the case.

The Plaintiffs have raised the issue of the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO. Not only do the Plaintiffs hold that GATT and our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional, we hold that it is self-evident that it is unconstitutional because it has change the nature and form of our government. Therefore, a determination of constitutionality is not only vital, but crucial to the interests of this Nation and its people. This being so, the plaintiffs hold that motions to dismiss this legal action by the Defendants due to questions of standing and issues concerning the maintenance of a class action are wrongful.

This is not to say or imply that the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not have an obligation and duty to satisfy the rules and procedural requirements of this court. The Plaintiffs have every intention of doing that and are sure the same is true for the Defendants. However, when a citizen raises an issue of constitutionality in a responsible and professional manner, a governmental official is bound by his oath of office to facilitate and seek a ruling in the matter. To do otherwise, presupposes that the government official in question prefers to continue a course of action that may be unconstitutional over a course of action that will determine the truth of the matter. It is not possible to reconcile an oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution with subscribing to a course of action that may result in the continuance of an unconstitutional act.

RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Re: RELEVANT PROCEDURAL GACKGROUND, 2., page 2. The Complaint states no facts relating to the District Court's jurisdiction over this action.

In this legal action the Plaintiffs offered an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison which establishes that the Federal Courts hold jurisdiction over the legislative acts of Congress.

On July 13, 1998, Alan R. Adaschik, the attorney Pro Se of this legal action, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, petitioned our Supreme Court to for a ruling in regard to the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under the Courts authority of "original jurisdiction" as established in Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution (petition included as Exhibit A) the United States of America, seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court under is Constitutionally provided authority of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ignored this request and as a result, on August 3, 1995, Mr. Adaschik called the office of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court to find out why the Supreme Court had not responded to his petition. This call was taken by Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant to the Clerk of the Supreme Court (see Exhibit B, Mr. Adaschik's August 4, 1995 letter to William K. Suter). In the course of his conversation with Mr. Lorson, Mr. Adaschik was told that the only way for a citizen or citizens to obtain a ruling on issues of constitutionality was through a District Court and the appellate process.

In consideration of the above, the facts relevant to the District's Court's jurisdiction over this action are that it is the responsibility of the federal court system to make determinations of constitutionality, the Supreme Court has declined to do so, an official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiff that the District Court has jurisdiction, and that the Plaintiff's hold that the GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is unconstitutional.

These facts as listed of above will be made part of an amended complaint.

2. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 2. Plaintiff would have this court address matters of foreign affairs which fall squarely within the purview of the political branches of government.

Not true - The Plaintiff's interest in this matter is to achieve a determination concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and our participation as a member of an international organization wrongfully given authority establish laws binding upon Americans and to veto the duly constituted laws of this Nation. The fact that the offending law concerns matters of foreign affairs does not mitigate or abrogate the Courts responsibilities in this regard.

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. Plaintiff complains that the political branches have ceded too much authority to international organizations.

Not true - The Plaintiff's hold that the Constitution precludes Congress and the President from ceding any legislative authority to any organization, international or otherwise, by legislative act, by the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or by the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations.

4. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. The arguments presented by the Plaintiff are very similar to those presented by the voter/citizen in Made in the USA Foundation, et al., v. U.S.

Not true - While the arguments made by the plaintiffs in this legal action may be similar to those in Made in the USA, they are not the same arguments. Furthermore, the two cases are entirely different in nature and scope such that and rulings made in one do not necessarily apply to the other. NAFTA is a trade agreement between nations and nothing more. GATT, on the other hand, is far more than a trade agreement. Instead, it establishes a fourth branch of our government that is made up of foreign nationals with no ties to this Nation or its people. The tragic reality of this state of affairs is that this external fourth branch of government is superior to and sits above the other three branches; our President, our Legislature, and our Supreme Court.

5. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, 1., Threshold Analysis, page 4, 5, & 6.

The Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to meet the three requirements necessary to establish standing as identified in this Section of the Defendants motion to dismiss.

6. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., a., page 6, 7, & 8. Plaintifs Claims of Injury Are Not Sufficiently Particularized to Confer Standing, and Amount Instead to a Generalized Grievance

The Plaintiffs hold that the Defendants claim that to establish standing in this complaint a plaintiff has to establish that he has suffered harm or injury separate and apart from all others. For example, provided by the defense, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that:

raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to this and every citizen's interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy

The Plaintiffs take no issue with this ruling of the Supreme Court. However, we object to the defendants using this ruling as justification for moving to dismiss this legal action because the Plaintiff has not alleged a unique injury as opposed to a generalized one. The Supreme Court has ruled that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when government has properly application the Constitution and laws. This should not and cannot be construed to mean that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when the government has improperly and wrongfully applied the constitutional provision such that Constitution has been grievously violated as maintained by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs do not claim harm and injury as a result of the proper application of the Constitution and laws but instead we claim we have been harmed as a result of a grievous violation of Constitutional provisions.

7. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., b. Causation, c. Redressability.

6. NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, page 10. Even if the Complaint is sufficient to supply Plaintiff with standing to maintain this action, it must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction over the President of Congress.

While it is true that the court lacks jurisdiction of the actions of the President and
Congress, it is also true, as established by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison that the court has jurisdiction over the laws passed in regard to judging them to be constitutional or not. Indeed this is one of their most important and sacred duties. It is this responsibility that the Plaintiffs are asking the court to fulfill and this responsibility resides solely with the court.

7. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, page 11. This Court cannot order the President to terminate and international agreement. Courts, however, generally do not have jurisdiction to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Even if GATT were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, that would not necessarily relieve the United States of its obligations under the agreement as a matter of international law. Etc. Etc.

Even granting that all of the above is true, the President has overstepped the authority of his position and acted far beyond any authority given to him by the Constitution and the laws of these United States. As has been established in our original complaints, GATT is not just an trade agreement subject. It is an agreement to establish a World government whose power and authority supersedes and is superior to the governments of its individual members, including the government of the United States of America. Such a change in governing and our government cannot be accomplished through our President's authority to enter into agreements with foreign states, cannot be made by Congress through their ordinary legislative power, and cannot be made by Congress though its authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations. A change of this nature can only be made by constitutional amendment.

8. CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE. Page 12. The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "Sphere of legitimate legislative activity".

It has been made clear in the previous item that changing the nature and form of our government by establishing a fourth branch superior to all others is does not fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity" of Congress.

9. POLITICAL QUESTION. Page 14 & 15.

It has been demonstrated in the item prior to the previous one that changing the nature and form of our government must be made by Constitutional amendment and such a far reaching and important change cannot be brought about through the President's power to enter into binding agreements with foreign nations or Congress's constitutionally provided authority to regulate trade with foreign nations. The Plaintiffs find it high ironic that the defendants would use the basis of their Complaint #3, the wrongful assignment of Congress's constitutionally provided authority to regulate trade with foreign nations, as an argument to justify dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaints.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Americans pride themselves upon the fact that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We hold these perceptions for two very important reasons, we vote for those who make the laws we live by and those we vote for to make our laws are morally and legally bound to abide by the provisions of our constitution. These truths are the essence of a Democratic Republic. We are a Democracy because we vote for those who lead us and we are a Republic because those who lead us are bound by our Constitution to lead us in a specific and predetermined way. A necessary principle inherent to a Republic is the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances; the most important and fundamental grievance being the departure of government from constitutional provision.

It appears from the points of law used by the defense in this legal action, that Americans, any American, and any group of Americans, that decisions made by the courts of this Nation have served to remove any possible way for citizens to raise question the unconstitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law. If this is indeed true, then the plaintiffs hold that the courts of this Nation have denied the citizens of this Nation their inalienable right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and by doing so, have given license to the government to violate the provisions of our Constitution with impunity. If the government can violate our Constitution with impunity, then our Constitution is dysfunctional and void. If our Constitution is dysfunctional and void, then our government is illegal and unlawful and can no longer hold claim to being a Republic.

For all of the above reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this court to deny the defendants motion for a dismissal.

******
In addition to the preceding response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the following statement of Constitutional principle was also filed with the Court.

******

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF BELIEF AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned Attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully inform the Court and the Defendants that we hold to the following beliefs and principles and ask the Court to give them due consideration in deciding this matter.

The Defendant's have asked this court to dismiss this civil action because the Attorney Pro Se for the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that he has suffered a personal and particular injury separate from the other Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' hold that, irrespective of previous rulings and precedents, dismissal of this complaint for the reason cited is unconstitutional because it serves to separate the Plaintiffs from their Constitution and renders that document dysfunctional and void for the primary purpose for which it was written.

The primary purpose of our Constitution is to establish the nature and form of our government. It is self-evident that nature and form of our government is common to all citizens. Therefore, changes to the nature and form of our government will not affect us separately as individuals, but instead, will only affect all citizens in common as a group.

For example, suppose that instead of enacting GATT, Congress voted to ensure that all our laws, rules, and procedure would conform to that of the British Empire. Further, Congress also voted that all laws passed by the British Parliament would be legally binding upon this Nation and that all Americans will swear allegiance to the British Crown. Beyond question, the effect of this act of Congress would be the reversal of the American Revolution. Is such an act of Congress constitutional? If the Defendant's have their way, this question is irrelevant, because the act in question injured Americans universally and no American will be able to demonstrate a unique injury apart from other citizens. Therefore, constitutional or not, the law in question would stand because no citizen would be able to challenge it in a court of law.

To be sure, if Congress voted that all Americans reaching the age of eighteen will be branded with their social security number, citizens would also have no recourse in a court of law concerning this matter because the injury sustained is common to all. Clearly, "unique and separate injury" is an absurd constitutional standard to be applied when citizens approach a court on issues of constitu-tionality because such issues, by their nature, are common to all citizens.

The constitutional standard proffered by the Defendants wrongfully denies citizens access to the courts, thereby rendering our Constitution dysfunctional and opening the door to a real tyranny. If citizens are not able to challenge the actions of government in a court of law due to the commonality of the injuries sustained, then our government holds the power to change its nature and form, at will, without amending the Constitution. Clearly, such a state of affairs is repugnant to our Constitution and it follows that any decision by a court that establishes or sustains this state of affairs, is also repugnant to our Constitution.

The Defendants have raised an issue concerning the procedural matters of this Court and ask the Court to dismiss this legal action on that basis. What is more vital to the interests of this Nation and its people. To have this Court sustain the Defendant's motion to dismiss and thereby possibly give license to a course of action that may be repugnant to our Constitution or to deny the Defendant's motion and thereby render a determination of the matter? The Judicial System of this Nation is tasked with the responsibility of ruling on issues of constitu-tionality. This responsibility cannot be fulfilled unless issues of constitutionality are brought before a Court. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is really a motion for the Court to shun an important and crucial constitutional responsibility.

******

The status of the above lawsuit is that it is in Limbo. It has been almost two years since the defense filed its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion. Upon having done this, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue a ruling in the matter, which is has failed to do. Unless a ruling is issued, the legal action cannot proceed. It is clear that by filing this legal action with the Court, as citizens, the plaintiffs have petitioned their government for redress of a very real and important grievance. Furthermore, no other avenue of approach is available for addressing the issues raised. Therefore, if this legal action is in permanent limbo and continues to be ignored by the Court, then the inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiffs unalienable right to petition government for the redress of grievances no longer exists.

 NEWSLETTER
 

 MAIN INDEX
 

 INDEX NWO

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!   
Jurisdiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that State (law) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
Conflict of Laws
Preliminary matters
Characterisation  · Incidental question
Renvoi  · Choice of law
Conflict of Laws in the U.S.
Public policy  · Hague Conference
Definitional elements
State  · Jurisdiction  · Procedure
Forum non conveniens  · Lex causae
Lex fori  · Forum shopping
Lis alibi pendens
Connecting factors
Domicile  · Lex domicilii
Habitual residence
Nationality  · Lex patriae
Lex loci arbitri  · Lex situs
Lex loci contractus
Lex loci delicti commissi
Lex loci solutionis  · Proper law
Lex loci celebrationis
Choice of law clause
Forum selection clause
Substantive legal areas
Status  · Capacity  · Contract  · Tort
Marriage  · Nullity  · Divorce
Get divorce  · Talaq divorce
Property  · Succession
Trusts
Enforcement
Enforcement of foreign judgments

In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or, or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

As a topic, jurisdiction draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.
Contents

    * 1 Jurisdiction in the international dimension
          o 1.1 Jurisdiction as a political issue
          o 1.2 International versus municipal jurisdiction
    * 2 The jurisdictional relationship between international and municipal laws
    * 3 The jurisdiction of courts between and within states
          o 3.1 Supranational
          o 3.2 Federal
          o 3.3 State level
    * 4 Jurisdiction in the United States
    * 5 Franchise Jurisdiction
    * 6 See also
    * 7 External links

[edit]

Jurisdiction in the international dimension

Public international law provides a framework within which nations and states (in the political sense of the words) can come into being and relate to each other.
[edit]

Jurisdiction as a political issue

A number of supranational organizations and bodies have been created which provide mechanisms whereby disputes between states may be avoided, discussed or resolved, e.g. through arbitration or mediation. When a country is recognised as de jure, this is an acknowledgement by the other de jure nations that the new country has sovereignty and the right to exist. This is a political system that moves slowly, gathering consensus wherever possible and the extent to which any state will co-operate or participate is always at the discretion of each sovereign state. By definition, if any state does agree to participate in any of the activities of the supranational bodies and to accept decisions that might be made in the ordinary course of their business, that state is giving up a little of its sovereign authority and thereby allocating a little power to these bodies. In so far as these bodies or nominated individuals may resolve disputes in a judicial or quasi-judicial fashion, or promote treaty obligations in the nature of laws, the power ceded to these bodies cumulatively represents each body's own jurisdiction. But no matter how powerful each body may appear to become, the extent to which any of the judgments may be enforced, or proposed treaties and conventions may become or remain effective within the territorial boundaries of each nation is a political matter under the sovereign control of the relevant representative government(s) which, in a democratic context, will have electorates to satisfy.
[edit]

International versus municipal jurisdiction

The fact that international organizations, courts and tribunals have been created raises the difficult question of how to co-ordinate their activities with those of national courts. If the two sets of bodies do not have concurrent jurisdiction but, as in the case of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the relationship is expressly based on the principle of complementarity, i.e. the international court is subsidiary or complementary to national courts, the difficulty is avoided. But if the jurisdiction claimed is concurrent, or as in the case of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the international tribunal is to prevail over national courts, the problems are more difficult to resolve politically.

The concept of universal jurisdiction is fundamental to the operation of global organizations such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which jointly assert the benefit of maintaining legal entities with jurisdiction over a wide range of matters of significance to states (the ICJ should not be confused with the ICC and this version of "universal jurisdiction" is not the same as that enacted in the War Crimes Law (Belgium) which is an assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction that will fail to gain implementation in any other state under the standard provisions of public policy). Under Article 34 Statute of the ICJ [1] only states may be parties in cases before the Court and, under Article 36, the jurisdiction comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. But, to invoke the jurisdiction in any given case, all the parties have to accept the prospective judgment as binding. This reduces the risk of wasting the Court's time.

Despite the safeguards built into the constitutions of most of these organizations, courts and tribunals, the concept of universal jurisdiction is controversial among those states which prefer unilateral to multilateral solutions through the use of executive or military authority, sometimes described as realpolitik-based diplomacy.

Within other international contexts, there are intergovernmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) that have socially and economically significant dispute resolution functions but, again, even though their jurisdiction may be invoked to hear the cases, the power to enforce their decisions is at the will of the states affected, save that the WTO is permitted to allow retaliatory action by successful states against those states found to be in breach of international trade law. At a regional level, groups of states can create political and legal bodies with sometimes complicated patchworks of overlapping provisions detailing the jurisdictional relationships between the member states and providing for some degree of harmonization between their national legislative and judicial functions, e.g. the European Union and African Union both have the potential to become federated states although the political barriers to such unification in the face of entrenched nationalism will be very difficult to overcome. Each such group may form transnational institutions with declared legislative or judicial powers. For example, in Europe, the European Court of Justice has been given jurisdiction as the ultimate appellate court to the Member States on issues of European law. This jurisdiction is entrenched and its authority could only be denied by a Member State if that Member State asserts its sovereignty and withdraws from the Union.
[edit]

The jurisdictional relationship between international and municipal laws

The standard treaties and conventions leave the issue of implementation to each state, i.e. there is no general rule in international law that treaties have direct effect in municipal law, but some states, by virtue of their membership of supranational bodies, allow the direct incorporation of rights or enact legislation to honor their international commitments. Hence, citizens in those states can invoke the jurisdiction of local courts to enforce rights granted under international law wherever there is incorporation. If there is no direct effect or legislation, there are two theories to justify the courts incorporating international into municipal law:

    * Monism

    This theory characterizes international and municipal law as a single legal system with municipal law subordinate to international law. Hence, in the Netherlands, all treaties and the orders of international organizations are effective without any action being required to convert international into municipal law. This has an interesting consequence because treaties that limit or extend the powers of the Dutch government are automatically considered a part of their constitutional law, e.g. the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In states adopting this theory, the local courts automatically accept jurisdiction to adjudicate on lawsuits relying on international law principles.

    * Dualism

    This theory regards international and municipal law as separate systems so that the municipal courts can only apply international law either when it has been incorporated into municipal law or when the courts incorporate international law on their own motion. In the United Kingdom, for example, a treaty is not effective until it has been incorporated at which time it becomes enforceable in the courts by any private citizen, where appropriate, even against the UK Government. Otherwise the courts have a discretion to apply international law where it does not conflict with statute or the common law. The constitutional principle of parliamentary supremacy permits the legislature to enact any law inconsistent with any international treaty obligations even though the government is a signatory to those treaties.

    In the United States, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of the United States and customary international law, …the "Supreme Law of the Land" (U.S. Const.art. VI Cl. 2) and, as such, the law of the land is binding on the federal government as well as on state and local governments. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the treaty power authorizes Congress to legislate under the Necessary and Proper Clause in areas beyond those specifically conferred on Congress (Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920)).

[edit]

The jurisdiction of courts between and within states

This now concerns states in the technical legal sense of the word and the relationships both between courts in different states, and between courts within the same state.
[edit]

Supranational

At a supranational level, countries have adopted a range of treaty and convention obligations to relate the right of individual litigants to invoke the jurisdiction of state courts and to enforce the judgments obtained. For example, the Member States of the EEC signed the Brussels Convention in 1968 and, subject to amendments as new states joined, it represents the default law for all twenty-five Member States of what is now termed the European Union on the relationships between the courts in the different countries. In addition, the Lugano Convention (1988) binds the European Union and the European Free Trade Area. With effect from 1 March, 2002, all the Member States of the EU except Denmark accepted Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001, which makes major changes to the Brussels Convention and is directly effective in the Member States. In some legal areas, at least, the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments is now more straightforward. At a state level, the traditional rules still determine jurisdiction over persons who are not domiciled or habitually resident in the European Union or the Lugano area.

There is a real and growing problem of forum shopping and in the reluctance of some states to adopt more positive Conflict of Laws rules. Although the Hague Conference and other international bodies have made consistently useful recommendations on jurisdictional matters, litigants with the encouragement of lawyers now more commonly operating on a contingent fee continue to exploit the system to their advantage, always seeking remedies in courts where the outcome is more likely to be favorable.
[edit]

Federal

Many nations are subdivided into states and provinces (i.e. a subnational "state") in a federation (as can be found in Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States) and these subunits will exercise jurisdiction through the court systems as defined by the executives and legislatures operating within the whole. Sometimes when the areas of separate governmental entities overlap one another—for example, between a state and the federation to which it belongs—their jurisdiction is shared or concurrent jurisdiction. Otherwise one governmental entity will have exclusive jurisdiction over the shared area. When jurisdiction is concurrent, one governmental entity may have supreme jurisdiction over the other entity if their laws conflict. If the executive or legislative powers within the jurisdiction are not restricted or restricted only by a number of limited restrictions, these government branches have plenary power such as a national policing power. Otherwise an enabling act grants only limited or enumerated powers. The problem of forum shopping also applies as between federal and state courts, and it is for each system to adjust jurisdictional matters to achieve the fairest possible results.
[edit]

State level

Within each state, it is for the government to determine the allocation of jurisdiction:

   1. There must be physical distribution of courts and tribunals throughout the territory which should be divided into convenient functional divisions to provide an effective service to the local communities. Hence, it may be convenient for there to be an extensive network of smaller local courts having a criminal law jurisdiction so that neighborhoods can have a disposition system administered by those familiar with their locality and its needs (see criminal jurisdiction). Whereas more specialized civil and commercial courts need only be located in larger towns and major cities where there is a demand for the particular specialisms consistent with the economic costs of providing the facilities and personnel to staff them. Each court system lays down detailed rules for determining who may invoke the jurisdiction in each of the various divisions. In addition to the possibility that the plaintiff has a local domicile, nationality or habitual residence, these conditions may vary from minimum residence requirements for those more transiently present, that business has been conducted within the territory or that there is some other real connection between the plaintiff and/or the cause of action and the state in which the lawsuit has been filed.
   2. The government may decide that individuals within the executive should have the power to make judicial or quasi-judicial decisions, and the extent to which the exercise of this jurisdiction should be subject to review by the courts. This has constitutional implications in that many states operate on the basis of the separation of powers which requires that each branch of government operates as a check on the potential abuse of power by the others. Within the formalized judicial structure, jurisdiction may also be granted to individuals for the provision of specialized functions (e.g. the role of special referees or those individuals of prestige commissioned to conduct inquiries into specific situations with the power to compel testimony). In parallel to the courts system, other tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies may also have a form of jurisdiction, e.g. for arbitration, mediation, etc within a broad framework of alternative dispute resolution. Under normal circumstances, the supervisory function of the courts will be built into the constitutive process for each tribunal or body, or the courts will allow their jurisdiction to be invoked, e.g. by way of remedies such as certiorari, to ensure that justice is seen to be done. However, some well-established bodies such as the Beth Din represent more interesting challenges. Such religious or culturally-based courts often have significant power within the relevant communities yet, in an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural world, the secular or culturally-different majority in each state cannot be seen to be too quick to interfere and impose its standards without appearing to engage in unequal treatment and discrimination (see the secular response to the get as an example).

[edit]

Jurisdiction in the United States
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Federal jurisdiction. (Discuss)

United States Federal
civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions
Standing  · Ripeness  · Mootness
Political questions
Jurisdiction
* Subject-matter jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction
Diversity jurisdiction
Removal jurisdiction
Amount in controversy
* Personal jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction in rem
Minimum contacts
Federalism
Erie doctrine  · Abstention
Sovereign immunity  · Abrogation
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
Adequate and
independent state ground
edit this template

The primary distinctions between areas of jurisdiction are codified at a national level. As a common law system, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.

A court whose subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to certain types of controversies (for example, suits in admiralty or suits where the monetary amount sought is less than a specified sum) is sometimes referred to as a court of special jurisdiction or court of limited jurisdiction.

A court whose subject-matter is not limited to certain types of controversy is referred to as a court of general jurisdiction. In the U.S. States, each state has courts of general jurisdiction; most states also have some courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts (those operated by the federal government) are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction is divided into federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. The United States District Courts may hear only cases arising under federal law and treaties, cases involving ambassadors, admiralty cases, controversies between states or between a state and citizens of another state, lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and against foreign states and citizens.

Certain courts, particularly the United States Supreme Court and most state supreme courts, have discretionary jurisdiction, meaning that they can choose which cases to hear from among all the cases presented on appeal. Such courts generally only choose to hear cases that would settle important and controversial points of law. Though these courts have discretion to deny cases they otherwise could adjudicate, no court has the discretion to hear a case that falls outside of its subject-matter jurisdiction.

It is also necessary to distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. A court of original jurisdiction has the power to hear cases as they are first initiated by a plaintiff, while a court of appellate jurisdiction may only hear an action after the court of original jurisdiction (or a lower appellate court) has heard the matter. For example, in the U.S. federal court system, the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over a number of different matters (as mentioned above), and the United States Courts of Appeals have appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from the district courts. The U.S. Supreme Court, in turn, has appellate jurisdiction (of a discretionary nature) over the Courts of Appeals, as well as the state supreme courts, by means of writ of certiorari.

However, in a special class of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to exercise original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, the Supreme court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states, and original (but non-exclusive) jurisdiction over cases involving officials of foreign states, controversies between the federal government and a state, actions by a state against the citizens of another state or foreign country.
[edit]

Franchise Jurisdiction

In the history of English common law, a jurisdiction could be held as a form of property (or more precisely an incorporeal hereditament) called a franchise. Traditional franchise jurisdictions of various powers were held by municipal corporations, ecclesiastical orders, early universities, and Counties Palatine. Types of franchise courts included Courts Baron, Courts Leet, merchant courts, and the Stannery Courts which dealt with disputes involving the tin miners of Cornwall. The original royal charters of the American colonies included broad grants of franchise jurisdiction along with other governmental powers to corporations or individuals, as did the charters for many other colonial companies such as the British East India Company and British South Africa Company. Analogous jurisdiction existed in mediaeval times on the European Continent. Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, franchise jurisdictions were largely eliminated.
[edit]

See also

    * Labor unions in the United States for a different usage of the word jurisdiction.
    * Guantánamo Bay
    * Rasul v. Bush

[edit]

External links

    * LII Law about... Jurisdiction
    * Supreme Court Decision on Guantánamo Bay jurisdiction
    * Jurisdiction As Property on franchise jurisdiction

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction"

Categories: Articles to be merged | International law | Law | Conflict of laws
Views

    * Article
    * Discussion
    * Edit this page
    * History

Personal tools

    * Sign in / create account

Navigation

    * Main Page
    * Community Portal
    * Featured articles
    * Current events
    * Recent changes
    * Random article
    * Help
    * Contact Wikipedia
    * Donations

Search
 
Toolbox

    * What links here
    * Related changes
    * Upload file
    * Special pages
    * Printable version
    * Permanent link
    * Cite this article

In other languages

    * Deutsch
    * Español
    * Bahasa Indonesia
    * Norsk (bokmål)
    * 中文

MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

    * This page was last modified 00:06, 1 July 2006.
    * All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
      Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
    * Privacy policy
    * About Wikipedia
    * Disclaimers

  The QandO Blog
Free Markets, Free People

Home  News  The New Libertarian  NN Blogs Chat  Advertise  Search  Privacy

Jon's Posts  McQ's Posts  Dales' Posts
 
Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks

BLOGROLL QandO
 
 
Recent Posts
Skepticism
Blogging: the price of political clout
Venezuela and North Korea: Arms for Oil
Coca Cola: Thanks Pepsi
Iraq: Using fire to fight fire
North Korea
Lieberman: From VP Candidate to Pariah in 6 short years
The NoKo missile tests
Are the rumors of the death of newspapers exaggerated?
July 4th Photoblogging
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications
 
 
Supreme Court, Judicial Activism and Foreign Precedent
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, October 13, 2004
 
In more news concerning the Supreme Court:

    The Supreme Court is considering whether the United States is out of step with the rest of the world, and with national and global standards of decency, by allowing teenage killers to be put to death.

    [...]

    The high court already has barred the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for people under age 16.

    At issue for the court is whether people under 18 should be treated as adults.

    Juvenile offenders are executed in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. International leaders contend the practice leaves the United States diplomatically isolated and vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy on human rights issues.

    The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion, and its four most liberal members have gone on record against a practice they said was "a relic of the past and is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency in a civilized society."

Full disclosure: I am against the death penalty, have been for years. Yes I know all the arguments for to include the emotional ones. I simply don't accept them as valid. My objection is based in man's right to life, and unlike Jon, I feel it is inherent (man qua man) and therefore inviolable by all, to include the state. In essence I believe the state does to the murderer precisely that for which it is punishing the murderer. But that's a topic for another time and not really relevant to what caught my eye here.

What caught my eye is this line: "The Supreme Court has looked increasingly at international opinion ...

My question: Is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the laws of the United States as they pertain to the Constitution, or is it the job of the Supreme Court to consider popular judicial opinion in other areas of the world in order to have US law more closely conform with "evolving standards of decency in a civilized society?

It would appear, based on this article, that it has chosen the latter (or at least, as stated in the article, the Supreme Court's liberal members have). I see that as a very, very dangerous precedent if true. In my estimation this is judicial activism of the worst sort since it appears to aim at changing the very fabric of the law of the US by disregarding the Constitution for outside legal precedent.

Now, I'm not a lawyer nor am I a Constitutional scholar, but through the power of the internet I have the ability to read those who are one or the other. Thomas Sowell, in his article "Judicial Activism Reconsidered" does an excellent job of outlining the real concerns this case causes for me (all bold emphasis added is mine, all italics are original):

    At the heart of the concern over judicial activism is the fear that the judge will impose his own personal preferences in his decisions, to such an extent as to ultimately negate the very meaning of law as a body of known rules to guide individual and social conduct. Formally, at least, both supporters and opponents of judicial activism deplore any such result, the former denying that this happens and the latter asserting that it does.

    Supporters of judges and justices labelled as judicial activists often assert that these jurists are restrained by the Constitution and are therefore necessarily active against individuals, groups, institutions, and policies in violation of constitutional provisions or principles. The empirical validity of this assertion is not an issue, at this point. Such assertions provide an area of common ground between critics and supporters of particular judicial practices, thus aiding in the definition of judicial activism. It is not mere activity or passivity that is at issue, but the basis of that activity or passivity. In a constitutional government, a jurist is said to be activist in the sense objected to the extent that he settles cases on grounds extrinsic to the Constitution. It is ultimately the Constitution toward which the jurist is "activist" or "restrained," though similar principles apply to the construing of statutes. The controversies which rage over judicial activism are controversies as to the extent to which jurists decide cases on grounds extrinsic to the Constitution, and in particular on grounds counter to the Constitution. That such decisions may also violate the popular will in some of its various meanings, or in its various manifestations through different government agencies, is another issue important, but not necessary for the preliminary task of establishing definitions.

The precedent which the Supreme Court is now flirting with when it considers international opinion is that it will indeed use such opinion "extrinsic to the Constitution" in its decisions. In my opinion that would destroy the Constitutional basis of our system of laws by accepting the opinions of other legal systems as valid if they are perceived to conform with or agree with the arbitrary "evolving standards of decency in a civilized society?

Such a desire on the part of the Supreme Court in this land to consider such says that our Constitution may not, in fact, be a "decent standard" by which to judge our laws. It would also mean that if 9 justices so agree (well really 5) they may not only arbitrarily decide what "decent standards" are but may also arbitrarily change the law of the land to conform to their standards "extrinsic to the Constitution".

Dangerous, dangerous ground.

Your comments are welcome (and please, if you choose to comment, address the issue and not whether or not you're for the death penalty).
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
Comments For This Post
 

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments
Thanks for bringing this up. It is hard to see what the real issues are with selecting judicial appointments, thanks to all the political heat that is generated by both sides of the political spectrum. The idea of "international approval" in judicial decisions, however, is a fact-based item that we can all understand. It would be interesting to find out who of the justics voted for the opinion that specifically stated they considered "international law". As I remember, Scalia and Thomas directly confronted the other justices on this issue, but I could be wrong.
 
Written By: Clark Taylor
URL: http://
Justices are looking at international opinion as persuasive evidence of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" because the court has decided that this particular term should be interpreted with respect to "evolving standards of decency." Again, they are only looking to this as evidence of what constitutes "cruel and unusual"--NOT looking to foreign law to govern constitutional matters.
 
Written By: Alex Knapp
URL: http://www.hereticalideas.com

    Justices are looking at international opinion as persuasive evidence of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" because the court has decided that this particular term should be interpreted with respect to "evolving standards of decency." Again, they are only looking to this as evidence of what constitutes "cruel and unusual"--NOT looking to foreign law to govern constitutional matters.

And that`s their story and they`re sticking with it. I see it as more of a `camel`s nose under the tent` problem. If they`re satisifed that foreign law can better define "cruel and unusual punishiment` than can ours, why is it such a stretch to believe they may not also decide it does a better job in other areas?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: Unknown
Odd that we established so much basis in our Constitution (the right to a fair trial, the right to confront accusers, the right to prevent self incrimination, etc) precisely because we were reacting to the abuses of law by a foreign power.

Now we're consulting foreign powers for interpreting our laws?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I admit what I find most unsettling about all this is that I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. That is generally understood to be under the organization and direction of the government of the United States...but what if the government of the United States orders me to not protect it? Is that a valid order? At what point should military members resort to force for the preservation of the Constition? ...obviously, we are no where near that point now...but at what point should we consider it? Will it be one of those choices in which if you succeed you are considered a hero, but if you lose you are a traitor?
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Re Alex Knapp's comment above. Even if the judges are only looking to determine what is "cruel and unusual punishment" because it is interpreted with respect to "evolving standards of decency," why should we look to international bodies to determine what the evolving standards are. Shouldn't this be something that the people of the United States should decide, or at least their elected representatives? That's my thought process at least. Any reasons why this won't work?
 
Written By: Clark Taylor
URL: http://
Sorry to do 2 comments, but let me explain my reasoning. If we look at the international community, it ranges from brutal (Saudi Arabia) to very stand-offish (France, Germany). With such a large selection of what makes something "cruel and unusual," it seems like the classic case of something that we (the American people) should decide for ourselves.
 
Written By: Clark Taylor
URL: http://
Now you're removing the power of the activist judiciary, can't have that.

Written By: looker
URL: http://
Nice to see you finally on board with an issue that the left has been on for years.

Do you remember Seattle 1999? Do you know what that was about? It was about allowinng a bunch of foreigners, i.e., the WTO, dictate economic policy in the US. The WTO, for instance, has the power to strike down US law when it does not conform to trade accords. And it has the power to do it in secret. That was at the heart of the protest in Seattle and in subsequent protests.

Funny how on the one hand those on the right have no problem with the US literally handing over the power to strike down US law to a foreign, secretive body when it comes to consumer and labor laws that protect us, but then on the other hand being seemingly up in arms over the fact that the Supreme Court is merely looking for guidance from other countries when it comes to criminal law. Funny.

Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Well, since the laws of our land have to be approved of, and published, maybe someone could give me a link to a (reputable) site that covers this secret power of the WTO to strike down our laws?

Written By: looker
URL: http://

    Sorry to do 2 comments, but let me explain my reasoning. If we look at the international community, it ranges from brutal (Saudi Arabia) to very stand-offish (France, Germany). With such a large selection of what makes something "cruel and unusual," it seems like the classic case of something that we (the American people) should decide for ourselves.

Agreed. If the citizenry of the US deems capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment then it will (and should) move to have it stopped. It is that citizenry and not the mores of a foreign citizenry which should drive that determination ... and certainly not the Surpreme Court.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: Unknown
Right - the separation of powers, which the Supremes are supposed to uphold, not subvert.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://

    Nice to see you finally on board with an issue that the left has been on for years.

    Do you remember Seattle 1999? Do you know what that was about? It was about allowinng a bunch of foreigners, i.e., the WTO, dictate economic policy in the US. The WTO, for instance, has the power to strike down US law when it does not conform to trade accords. And it has the power to do it in secret. That was at the heart of the protest in Seattle and in subsequent protests.

        Wow ... I`ll tell you one thing, you are a master at warping the hell out of an issue to try and make it fit whatever agenda you have. You have, for instance, a profound misunderstanding of the power of the WTO. The WTO can no more dictate economic policy for the US than can you (thank goodness). When the WTO cites a nation in violation of trade laws, they are laws by which the nation has agreed, by contract, ratified by, in our case Congress, to abide. The WTO can not force compliance. There is no WTO police force. Instead it relies on member nations to live up to their agreement and for other members to help force conformance through voluntary sanctions. How`s that dictating US economic policy, MK?

            Funny how on the one hand those on the right have no problem with the US literally handing over the power to strike down US law to a foreign, secretive body when it comes to consumer and labor laws that protect us, but then on the other hand being seemingly up in arms over the fact that the Supreme Court is merely looking for guidance from other countries when it comes to criminal law. Funny.

        What`s even more hilarious is how poorly you understand the issue of the WTO. Probably even more amusing is your valiant but absurd attempt to somehow link it to this topic. Why is it you can`t just remark on the topic at hand instead of all this verbal twisting and turning in an attempt to play "gotchya?"

Written By: McQ
URL: Unknown

Add Your Comment
   NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
 
Name:
 
Email:
 
URL:
 
HTML Tools:
 Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
 
     Remember Me
 
 
 
Vicious Capitalism

Advertise with BlogAds

Divider

TEXT LINKS

Jewel Making
SUV Shopping
Cable Sales
Gifts For Infants
Discount Golfing

Divider

 
Letters to the editor

Polls and Comment

Library - an archive
of speeches

Economists write

Bibliography of EMU

The Euroland Economy

Links

A Constitutional Challenge To The WTO

 by Alan R. Adaschik

A constitution is written by citizens to establish the government they live under. The prime purpose of a constitution is to delineate how government will operate and function. Therefore, it is incumbent upon government to abide by the provisions of its Constitution and if it fails to do so, it is an affront to all citizens and by necessity, all citizens suffer equally when such offenses occur. To be sure, our government violates a provision of our Constitution, it is the unalienable right of any citizen or any group of citizens to petition our government for redress of this grievance. Unfortunately, in the United States of America, this unalienable right has been taken away from us.

Following are actions taken by one citizen in an attempt to address the constitutionality of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and our resulting participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO). This Nation joined the WTO through an act of Congress in 1994.

In the latter part of 1995, the following letter of appeal was filed with the United States Supreme Court.

On December 1, 1994, the Congress of the United States of America enacted GATT and by doing so our Nation became a member of the WTO. In my opinion, the vote for GATT was unconstitutional because WTO rules and regulations supersede those of Congress and are not subject to definitive review by the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution.

Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution stipulates the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be part; "State" referring to both the States of our Nation and Foreign States or Nations. Therefore, the subordination of Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States of America to a foreign trade organization is a matter where the Supreme Court retains original jurisdiction and may rule upon the actions of Congress without an appeal having been filed.

As a citizen of the United States of America, I do hereby respectfully request that the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution, review and rule upon the constitutionality of the Congressional vote for GATT and America's participation in the World Trade Organization.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The Supreme Court did not respond to the above appeal and as a result, a telephone call was made to Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant Clerk of the Court to the Supreme Court. Mr. Lorson advised that the Supreme Court only considers cases through the "appellate" process and if the issue raised in the above appeal were to be addressed, a case would have to be initiated in a District Court. However, this does not make sense because only the Supreme Court can make final decisions on issues of constitutionality and as pointed out in the original appeal, the Supreme Court should retain "original jurisdiction" in such matters. In any case, on March 2, 2000, the following petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The document presented is the filing amended in response to the defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss.

******

Alan R. Adaschik
and CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-6307
Registered Voters of the United States AS AMENDED
Of America, as a class.
(Plaintiffs) CIV-JORDAN
MAGISTRTE BANDSTRA
versus

William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States
and
The United States Congress
(Defendants)

UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION COMPLAINT

I, Alan R. Adaschik, who resides at 11484 SW 10 Court, Davie, Broward County, Florida 33325-4099, and the Citizens of the United States of America as a class, plaintiffs in the above styled cause, sues defendants; William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States and the United States Congress.

Addresses of defendants

William Jefferson Clinton Denny Hastert Strom Thurmond, Senator
President of the United States Speaker of the House President Pro Tempore
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. U.S. House of Representatives. United States Senate
Washington D. C. 20500 Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20510

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this civil action is conferred by Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution which establishes that the judicial Power of the U.S. shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as established by Congress. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is an inferior court established by Congress. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution establishes the judicial power of the Courts shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, including Laws of the United States and Treaties made. The Supreme Court has declined to address the issue of the constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under its authority of "original Jurisdiction". An official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiffs that the proper course of action is to file a complaint in a District Court. The Attorney Pro Se of the Plaintiffs resides in geographical area of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida. This legal action has been filed in said District Court

CLASS ACTION

In accordance with rule 23, (a)(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. the following is true:

a. The member of this class number in the millions.

b. It is self-evident that the questions of law raised in this action are common to
the class.

c. It is self-evident that the claims of the representative party to this class is
typical of the claims of the class.

d. The representative party of this class will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class for the following reasons.

1. The Attorney Pro Se is a citizen of the United States.

2. The Attorney Pro Se is a registered voter.

3. The Attorney Pro Se educated to the Masters Degree level.

4. The Attorney Pro Se is and honorably discharge Naval Officer and
Fighter Pilot.

5. The Attorney Pro Se is a Public servant and has been one for 19
years.

6. The Attorney Pro Se record of achieve as a public Servant is
exemplary and extraordinary.

7. The Attorney Pro Se is a member of the class, the question of law
raised in this action apply to him, and has experienced the same
harm and injury as other members of the class.

e. The Plaintiffs hold that it is self-evident that the Defendant's have acted on grounds applicable to all of the Plaintiffs, thus making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate to the class as a whole.

APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

This action is filed under the following Articles of our Constitution:

Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution this power.

Article III, Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in One Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

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 lads under grants of different states, and between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizen thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.

Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both house shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress.

Amendment XVII. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 1994, representatives from one-hundred thirteen nations of the world, including those from the United States, met in Marrakech, Morocco to sign the "Final Act Embodying The Results Of The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations commonly known as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). By signing the Final Act, our representatives agreed:

· To submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and

· To adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.

On December 1, 1994, Congress enacted the Final Act of the Uruguay round of GATT. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed this bill and GATT, with all its Agreements, including the one establishing the World Trade Organization, became United States Law.

This legal action is based upon the following Articles of "The Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization, presented in List #1, and upon the Articles of Annex 2, to that Agreement, "Understanding On Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement Of Disputes", presented in List #2.

List #1. Articles from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

Article I. The World Trade Organization (hereafter referred to as "the WTO") is hereby established.

Article II, Paragraph 1. The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement.

Article II, Paragraph 2. The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "Multilateral Trade Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.

Article III, Paragraph 3. The WTO shall administer the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter referred to as the "Dispute Settlement Understanding" or "DSU") in Annex 2 to this Agreement.

Article XVI, Paragraph 4. Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements."

Article XVI, Paragraph 5. No reservations may be made in respect of any provision of this Agreement.

List #2. Articles from Annex 2 of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade organization, "Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.

Article 1, Paragraph 1. The rules and procedures of this Understanding shall also apply to consultations and the settlement of disputes between Members concerning their rights and obligations under the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (referred to in this Understanding as the "WTO Agreement") and of this Understanding taken in isolation or in combination with any other covered agreement.

Article 2, Paragraph 1. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) is hereby established to administer these rules and procedures.

Article 6, Paragraph 1. If the complaining party so requests, a panel shall be established at the DSB meeting following that at which the request first appears as an item on the DSB's agenda.

Article 7, Paragraph 7. Where the parties to the dispute have failed to develop a mutually satisfactory solution, the panel shall submit its findings in the form of a written report to the DSB.

Article 16, Paragraph 4. Within 60 days after the date of circulation of a panel report to the Members, the report shall be adopted at a DSB meeting unless a party to the dispute formally notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If a party has notified its decision to appeal, the report by the panel shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after completion of the appeal.

Complaint #1. Wrongful Assignment of the Legislative Power of Congress

The Uruguay Round of GATT, according to the Articles in List #1, establish the WTO, establish that the Multilateral Trade Agreements, including those in Annexes 1, 2, & 3, are binding upon member nations, and establish that WTO member nations, will without reservation, ensure their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures conform to the obligations as agreed. The Articles in List #2, taken from Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, establish a procedure, whereby, if member nations are unable to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution to a dispute or controversy, then the (DSB) may adopt a solution as recommended by a Panel. This adopted ruling, as agreed without reservation, is legally binding upon the disputing parties and all other member nations of the WTO. Therefore, when a Panel ruling is adopted by the DSB, the DSB has performed a legislative act.

Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution states that the legislative powers of our Nation will be vested in Congress. If rulings adopted by the DSB are legislative acts legally binding upon member nations, then a part of the legislative power granted to Congress by the Constitution, is no longer vested in Congress, but instead, has been assigned to the WTO. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign any part of its legislative powers to a second party. The wording of Article I, Section 1, is clear, "All legislative powers shall be vested in Congress". If, as has been demonstrated, a portion of the legislative power of Congress is now vested in the WTO, then Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution has been violated. For this reason, GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #2. Wrongful Abridgment of the Voting Rights of Citizens

Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution provide that the people of each state shall directly elect those who represent them in Congress; our national Legislature. In Complaint #1, it has been established that under the Uruguay Round of GATT, Congress has wrongfully assigned part of its legislative power to the WTO. If the legislative power vested in Congress is divided between Congress and the WTO and, as is the case, United States citizens do not directly vote for WTO representatives, then it follows that the voters of this Nation do not vote for those who exercise the assigned portion of legislative power. If the voting citizens of this Nation no longer vote for those who establish "all" of our laws, then the voting rights of Americans have been abridged in violation of Article I, Sections 1 & 2 of our Constitution. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #3. Wrongful Assignment of the Power to Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations.

The Uruguay Round of GATT, Article II, Paragraph 1, states that, "The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement". In contrast, Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution states that, "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power". Nowhere in our Constitution is Congress given authority to assign its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to a second party or to bestow authority upon that second party to make their own laws, legally binding upon Americans, to carry out execution of their assigned powers. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #4. Wrongful Assignment of the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court.

The Uruguay Round of GATT, through the Articles listed in Item #2, establish a procedure, whereby, if a member nation of the WTO is offended by an existing United States law, that nation can bring this issue or controversy before the DSB for resolution. If the DSB adopts a panel report in favor of the offended Nation, we have agreed, without reservation, to nullify the offending law. Therefore, DSB adopted rulings result in the repeal of United States law. Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution, provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall be vested in our Supreme Court or other inferior courts. Furthermore, Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall in all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, including the Laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party, and to Controversies between foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects. Under GATT, these provisions of Article III, Sections 1 & 2, no longer are effective. The Articles listed in Item #2, establish that the DSB of the WTO now retains some of the judicial power vested, by our Constitution, in our Supreme Court. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign the judicial power of the Supreme Court to a second party. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.

Complaint #5. Wrongful Change in Primary Governmental Functions by A Simple Legislative Act

A constitution is sacred to a Nation because of its three fundamental purposes; it establishes government, establishes how government will function, and protects the rights of citizens. All Constitutions include a procedure for amending its provisions. This amendment procedure is rigorous to preclude frivolous change and demands a higher level of passage than a simple legislative act. Therefore, changing any Constitution through a simple legislative act is unconstitutional because it bypasses the more demanding amendment process and the protections included therein.

If a fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to establish how our government functions and two prime functions of our government are to establish and review laws, then it follows that any significant change to our legislative or judicial review processes, must be made by amendment. This truth is fundamental and self-evident. Clearly, it is wrong to allow a lower level procedure established by the Constitution to change procedures provided for in the Constitution, when a higher level procedure is included for that expressed purpose. Therefore, any ordinary legislative act which results in a change to how our government functions is unconstitutional because it trivializes the amendment process and by extension, the Constitution itself.

When Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), thereby establishing this Nation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it did so through a simple majority vote on a trade bill. Unfortunately, WTO membership entails far more than just a trade agreement because the organization was constituted to govern world trade through a dispute settlement process. This dispute settlement process, supersedes and replaces the legislative and legislative review processes established by our Constitution and therefore as demonstrated in Complaints 1, 2, 3, & 4, constitutes a fundamental and significant change in how our government functions and operates. These fundamental and significant changes are as follows:

Before GATT:

· Subject to final approval by the President, Congress enacted all laws governing this Nation and its people.
· The people of this Nation voted directly for those who made our laws.
· Congress, alone, regulated commerce with foreign nations.
· The Supreme Court was the final and only authority over United States law.
· The criteria for the nullification of a law was the test of constitutionality.

After GATT:
· The power to enact laws has been divided between Congress and the WTO. Furthermore, The president does not have veto power over laws established by the WTO.
· The people of this Nation no longer vote directly for those who make our laws.
· Congress no longer regulates commerce with foreign nations and this authority now resides with the WTO.
· The judicial review authority of our Supreme Court has been divided between the Supreme Court and WTO. Furthermore, the situation is such that our Supreme Court cannot overrule a WTO ruling without violating our agreement with that organization.
· Our laws can now be voided because a group of foreign nationals view them as being unfair to trade.

It is self-evident that these changes wrought by the enactment of GATT, are significant and fundamental such that they constitute a significant change in the nature and form of our government. This being true, the Congressional vote for the Uruguay Round of GATT, a simple legislative act of Congress, is repugnant to our Constitution because such significant and fundamental change to governmental functions must be made by Constitutional Amendment. For these reasons, GATT and our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional.

PRECEDENT

The central issue to the complaints in this legal action is whether or not an act repugnant to the Constitution can become United States Law. This issue was addressed in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall in his opinion written in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The words of Chief Justice Marshall that apply to this legal action are as follows:

The question whether an act, repugnant to the Constitution, can become law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as in their opinions shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on which they are imposed and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power, in its own nature, illimitable.

Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation and consequently, the theory of every such government must be that an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution and is, consequently, to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, not withstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow, in fact, what was established in theory and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the court must determine which of these conflicting rules govern the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If then, the courts are to regard the Constitution and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government is entirely void, is yet in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality ineffectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions, a written constitution would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises. This is too extravagant to be maintained.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that the courts, as well as other departments (Congress) are bound by that instrument. The (repugnant) rule must be discharged (repealed).

In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall clearly establishes that any act in contradiction to the provisions of our Constitution is repugnant to the Constitution. Furthermore, Chief Justice Marshall goes on to establish that any act repugnant to our Constitution is unconstitutional and must be repealed. So it is with GATT and our membership in the WTO, established as follows:

· GATT is an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress.
· GATT establishes the WTO, an organization constituted to govern world trade.
· The Agreements of the WTO provide that the decisions of its DSB are final and legally binding upon WTO members.
· The Constitution states that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress.
· The WTO provision that decisions of the DSB are legally binding upon members is in contradiction with the Constitutional provision that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress.
· The Constitution states that the judicial power of United States shall be vested in the Supreme Court.
· The WTO provision that decisions of the DSB are legally binding upon members is in contradiction with the Constitutional provision that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in our Supreme Court.

Therefore, GATT, being an ordinary legislative act passed by Congress, is repugnant to the Constitution. If GATT is repugnant to the Constitution, then GATT is not law, is void, is not binding upon the American people, and must be discharged (repealed).

Other Supporting Arguments

President George Washington, our first President and the father of our Nation, in his farewell address given on September 19, 1796, said:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us the truth of this position.

The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the Guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.

If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

George Washington was very clear on his feelings about governmental agencies assuming powers not provided for in our Constitution or encroaching upon powers reserved for other governmental departments. He strongly believed that such changes in the distribution of powers should be made only by amendment. If they are not, then the precedent set results in the destruction of our government. GATT, established by an ordinary act of Congress, has resulted in the usurpation of the legislative power of Congress and the judicial power of our Supreme Court by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. For whatever good can possible be derived from this state of affairs, from George Washington's perspective, a permanent evil has been introduced into our body politic that will destroy our free government.

INJURY

Concrete and particular injury suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a class, are:
a. Our voting rights as citizens have been diminished as established in Complaint #2 of this civil action.

b. The nature and form of the government that the Plaintiffs live under and pledge allegiance to, has been improperly and wrongfully changed because of the Defendants' actions as established in Complaints #1, #2, #3, #4, & #5, of this civil action. Before GATT, this Nation was a Democratic Republic where the Plaintiffs voted for those who made all of our laws. In this Democratic Republic, it was incumbent for government to abide by our Constitution's Provisions. Subsequent to GATT, the Plaintiffs no longer vote for those who make all our laws and a precedent has been set such that the government is no longer bound by the provisions of our Constitution. Therefore, our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void for primary purpose for which it was written.

Because our Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional and void, and because we now do not vote for the those who make some of our laws, the Plaintiffs hold that this Nation is no longer a Democratic Republic and that recitation of our Pledge of Allegiance is foolish because the Republic we pledge allegiance to no longer exists.

c. The laws of this Nation are made and passed by way of a lengthy and arduous legislative process. All laws so passed are subject to legis-lative review where the only criteria of nullification is constitutionality. Under GATT, the laws of this Nation are now subject to veto by a group of foreign nationals based solely upon what they consider to be fair in matters of trade. Furthermore, rulings of WTO, which are legally binding upon American citizens, are not subject to appeal and review by our Supreme Court. If our laws can be nullified, without due process, by a foreign organization and if laws not of our making can be imposed upon us by that same foreign organization, then the Plaintiffs hold that we are the victims of tyranny.

We, the Plaintiffs, hold that the harm and injury as identified above is real, concrete, and particular and that we have suffered this harm and as individuals and together as class. To those who would hold otherwise, we say: If the harm and injury identified in items a., b., & c., above, were forced upon us by a hostile foreign power, all Americans would hold these injuries to be real, concrete, and particular. The fact that they were imposed upon us by our own President and Legislature, does not change this.

CAUSATION

The Plaintiff's hold that it is self-evident that the harm and injuries, as identified under "INJURIES", was incurred as a direct result out of the passage of GATT and our participation as members of the WTO.

REDRESSABILITY
The Plaintiff's hold that it is self-evident that a if GATT is judged to be unconstitutional for the reasons enumerated in this complaint and injunctive relief is granted by this court as requested, this would terminate our participation in the WTO as members and thereby alleviate the harm and injury, as identified under "INJURIES", that is presently being suffered by the Plaintiffs.

DECLARATORY RELIEF

The plaintiffs request the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, rule that the Final Act Embodying The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the Final Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, and our participation in the World Trade Organization as a member of that organization, is repugnant to the provisions of our Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The plaintiffs further request injunctive relief such that the defendants are ordered as follows:

a. To cease and desist participation of the United States in the World Trade Organization and to forgo adherence to its associated Annexes and Agreements.

b. To ensure that all duly constituted laws of this Nation modified or repealed by the action of the WTO's DSB, be restored.

c. To pay all costs and fees associated with this legal action.

******

As stated previously, the above filing was amended in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. A written response to that motion was also filed with the Court and this document follows:

******

PLAITIFFS' RESPONSE T0 THE DEFENDENTS
MOTION TO DISMISS AND INCORPORATED

We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully request that, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 23, Fed.R.Civ.P, the Court decline to dismiss this action on the basis of jurisdiction over the subject matter do to the Plaintiff's lack of standing and failure to satisfy the prerequisites to maintain a class action.

MEMORANDUM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLE

We the plaintiff's hold these truths to be self-evident and inviolate:

1. A constitution serves two primary purposes; it establishes government and more important, it establishes how that government will function and operate; the prime function of a constitution.

2. If the provisions of a constitution can be and/or are violated by the government it establishes in the course of conducting its affairs, then the constitution does not fulfill its prime function. A constitution that does not fulfill its prime function is dysfunctional and void. If a constitution dysfunctional and void, then the government it established is illegal and unlawful.

3. Items #1 & #2 above being true, it follows that a mechanism must exist, under a constitution, for citizens to hold their government accountable by challenging the actions of their government in a court of law. Furthermore, it also follows that it is incumbent and imperative for government to cease, desist, and refrain from all actions deemed to be unconstitutional by a court of law. If a government refuses to do so, then it is illegal and unlawful.

4. If no mechanism exists, under a constitution, for citizens to challenge the actions of government in a court of law or if any citizen, any group of citizens, or all citizens as a group, for any reason, are denied the right to challenge the constitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law, then the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed to control and restrain. If the constitution in question can be violated with impunity by the government it is supposed control and constrain, then that constitution is dysfunctional and void. Therefore, as established in item #2, above, the government in question is illegal and unlawful.

5. Items #1, #2, #3, & #4, above, are true and inviolate for all constitutions and all nations including the United States of America. If items #1, #2, #3, & #4 are not true for any nation, including the United States of America, then the government of the nation in question has violated an inalienable right of the people; the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Any government that violates an inalienable right of the people, for any reason, is unlawful and illegal.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFENDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

This proceeding is a trial in a court of law. However, it is different than all other legal proceedings because the controversy is not one between two parties with opposing interests, but instead a controversy between a government and its citizens where the interests of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are one and the same; that the Constitution is upheld and preserved through adherence to its provisions. To be sure, the defendants have sworn an oath of office affirming that this is the case.

The Plaintiffs have raised the issue of the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO. Not only do the Plaintiffs hold that GATT and our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional, we hold that it is self-evident that it is unconstitutional because it has change the nature and form of our government. Therefore, a determination of constitutionality is not only vital, but crucial to the interests of this Nation and its people. This being so, the plaintiffs hold that motions to dismiss this legal action by the Defendants due to questions of standing and issues concerning the maintenance of a class action are wrongful.

This is not to say or imply that the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not have an obligation and duty to satisfy the rules and procedural requirements of this court. The Plaintiffs have every intention of doing that and are sure the same is true for the Defendants. However, when a citizen raises an issue of constitutionality in a responsible and professional manner, a governmental official is bound by his oath of office to facilitate and seek a ruling in the matter. To do otherwise, presupposes that the government official in question prefers to continue a course of action that may be unconstitutional over a course of action that will determine the truth of the matter. It is not possible to reconcile an oath to uphold and preserve the Constitution with subscribing to a course of action that may result in the continuance of an unconstitutional act.

RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Re: RELEVANT PROCEDURAL GACKGROUND, 2., page 2. The Complaint states no facts relating to the District Court's jurisdiction over this action.

In this legal action the Plaintiffs offered an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison which establishes that the Federal Courts hold jurisdiction over the legislative acts of Congress.

On July 13, 1998, Alan R. Adaschik, the attorney Pro Se of this legal action, on behalf of the people of the United States of America, petitioned our Supreme Court to for a ruling in regard to the Constitutionality of GATT and our participation in the WTO as members under the Courts authority of "original jurisdiction" as established in Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution (petition included as Exhibit A) the United States of America, seeking a ruling from the Supreme Court under is Constitutionally provided authority of original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ignored this request and as a result, on August 3, 1995, Mr. Adaschik called the office of William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court to find out why the Supreme Court had not responded to his petition. This call was taken by Mr. Francis Lorson, Assistant to the Clerk of the Supreme Court (see Exhibit B, Mr. Adaschik's August 4, 1995 letter to William K. Suter). In the course of his conversation with Mr. Lorson, Mr. Adaschik was told that the only way for a citizen or citizens to obtain a ruling on issues of constitutionality was through a District Court and the appellate process.

In consideration of the above, the facts relevant to the District's Court's jurisdiction over this action are that it is the responsibility of the federal court system to make determinations of constitutionality, the Supreme Court has declined to do so, an official of the Supreme Court has instructed the Plaintiff that the District Court has jurisdiction, and that the Plaintiff's hold that the GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is unconstitutional.

These facts as listed of above will be made part of an amended complaint.

2. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 2. Plaintiff would have this court address matters of foreign affairs which fall squarely within the purview of the political branches of government.

Not true - The Plaintiff's interest in this matter is to achieve a determination concerning the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and our participation as a member of an international organization wrongfully given authority establish laws binding upon Americans and to veto the duly constituted laws of this Nation. The fact that the offending law concerns matters of foreign affairs does not mitigate or abrogate the Courts responsibilities in this regard.

3. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. Plaintiff complains that the political branches have ceded too much authority to international organizations.

Not true - The Plaintiff's hold that the Constitution precludes Congress and the President from ceding any legislative authority to any organization, international or otherwise, by legislative act, by the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or by the power to enter into agreements with foreign nations.

4. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, page 3. The arguments presented by the Plaintiff are very similar to those presented by the voter/citizen in Made in the USA Foundation, et al., v. U.S.

Not true - While the arguments made by the plaintiffs in this legal action may be similar to those in Made in the USA, they are not the same arguments. Furthermore, the two cases are entirely different in nature and scope such that and rulings made in one do not necessarily apply to the other. NAFTA is a trade agreement between nations and nothing more. GATT, on the other hand, is far more than a trade agreement. Instead, it establishes a fourth branch of our government that is made up of foreign nationals with no ties to this Nation or its people. The tragic reality of this state of affairs is that this external fourth branch of government is superior to and sits above the other three branches; our President, our Legislature, and our Supreme Court.

5. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, 1., Threshold Analysis, page 4, 5, & 6.

The Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to meet the three requirements necessary to establish standing as identified in this Section of the Defendants motion to dismiss.

6. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., a., page 6, 7, & 8. Plaintifs Claims of Injury Are Not Sufficiently Particularized to Confer Standing, and Amount Instead to a Generalized Grievance

The Plaintiffs hold that the Defendants claim that to establish standing in this complaint a plaintiff has to establish that he has suffered harm or injury separate and apart from all others. For example, provided by the defense, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that:

raising only a generally available grievance about government - claiming only harm to this and every citizen's interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large - does not state an Article III case or controversy

The Plaintiffs take no issue with this ruling of the Supreme Court. However, we object to the defendants using this ruling as justification for moving to dismiss this legal action because the Plaintiff has not alleged a unique injury as opposed to a generalized one. The Supreme Court has ruled that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when government has properly application the Constitution and laws. This should not and cannot be construed to mean that generalized injuries do not rise to an Article III controversy when the government has improperly and wrongfully applied the constitutional provision such that Constitution has been grievously violated as maintained by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs do not claim harm and injury as a result of the proper application of the Constitution and laws but instead we claim we have been harmed as a result of a grievous violation of Constitutional provisions.

7. MEMORANDUM OF LAW, Threshold Analysis, 1., b. Causation, c. Redressability.

6. NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, page 10. Even if the Complaint is sufficient to supply Plaintiff with standing to maintain this action, it must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction over the President of Congress.

While it is true that the court lacks jurisdiction of the actions of the President and
Congress, it is also true, as established by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury versus Madison that the court has jurisdiction over the laws passed in regard to judging them to be constitutional or not. Indeed this is one of their most important and sacred duties. It is this responsibility that the Plaintiffs are asking the court to fulfill and this responsibility resides solely with the court.

7. PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, page 11. This Court cannot order the President to terminate and international agreement. Courts, however, generally do not have jurisdiction to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. Even if GATT were declared unconstitutional by a federal court, that would not necessarily relieve the United States of its obligations under the agreement as a matter of international law. Etc. Etc.

Even granting that all of the above is true, the President has overstepped the authority of his position and acted far beyond any authority given to him by the Constitution and the laws of these United States. As has been established in our original complaints, GATT is not just an trade agreement subject. It is an agreement to establish a World government whose power and authority supersedes and is superior to the governments of its individual members, including the government of the United States of America. Such a change in governing and our government cannot be accomplished through our President's authority to enter into agreements with foreign states, cannot be made by Congress through their ordinary legislative power, and cannot be made by Congress though its authority to enter into treaties with foreign nations. A change of this nature can only be made by constitutional amendment.

8. CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE. Page 12. The question to be resolved is whether the actions of the petitioners fall within the "Sphere of legitimate legislative activity".

It has been made clear in the previous item that changing the nature and form of our government by establishing a fourth branch superior to all others is does not fall within the "sphere of legitimate legislative activity" of Congress.

9. POLITICAL QUESTION. Page 14 & 15.

It has been demonstrated in the item prior to the previous one that changing the nature and form of our government must be made by Constitutional amendment and such a far reaching and important change cannot be brought about through the President's power to enter into binding agreements with foreign nations or Congress's constitutionally provided authority to regulate trade with foreign nations. The Plaintiffs find it high ironic that the defendants would use the basis of their Complaint #3, the wrongful assignment of Congress's constitutionally provided authority to regulate trade with foreign nations, as an argument to justify dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaints.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

Americans pride themselves upon the fact that our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We hold these perceptions for two very important reasons, we vote for those who make the laws we live by and those we vote for to make our laws are morally and legally bound to abide by the provisions of our constitution. These truths are the essence of a Democratic Republic. We are a Democracy because we vote for those who lead us and we are a Republic because those who lead us are bound by our Constitution to lead us in a specific and predetermined way. A necessary principle inherent to a Republic is the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances; the most important and fundamental grievance being the departure of government from constitutional provision.

It appears from the points of law used by the defense in this legal action, that Americans, any American, and any group of Americans, that decisions made by the courts of this Nation have served to remove any possible way for citizens to raise question the unconstitutionality of governmental actions in a court of law. If this is indeed true, then the plaintiffs hold that the courts of this Nation have denied the citizens of this Nation their inalienable right to petition the government for the redress of grievances and by doing so, have given license to the government to violate the provisions of our Constitution with impunity. If the government can violate our Constitution with impunity, then our Constitution is dysfunctional and void. If our Constitution is dysfunctional and void, then our government is illegal and unlawful and can no longer hold claim to being a Republic.

For all of the above reasons, the Plaintiffs ask this court to deny the defendants motion for a dismissal.

******
In addition to the preceding response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the following statement of Constitutional principle was also filed with the Court.

******

PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF BELIEF AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
We, Alan R. Adaschik and other Plaintiffs as a class, by and through the undersigned Attorney Pro Se, hereby respectfully inform the Court and the Defendants that we hold to the following beliefs and principles and ask the Court to give them due consideration in deciding this matter.

The Defendant's have asked this court to dismiss this civil action because the Attorney Pro Se for the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that he has suffered a personal and particular injury separate from the other Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' hold that, irrespective of previous rulings and precedents, dismissal of this complaint for the reason cited is unconstitutional because it serves to separate the Plaintiffs from their Constitution and renders that document dysfunctional and void for the primary purpose for which it was written.

The primary purpose of our Constitution is to establish the nature and form of our government. It is self-evident that nature and form of our government is common to all citizens. Therefore, changes to the nature and form of our government will not affect us separately as individuals, but instead, will only affect all citizens in common as a group.

For example, suppose that instead of enacting GATT, Congress voted to ensure that all our laws, rules, and procedure would conform to that of the British Empire. Further, Congress also voted that all laws passed by the British Parliament would be legally binding upon this Nation and that all Americans will swear allegiance to the British Crown. Beyond question, the effect of this act of Congress would be the reversal of the American Revolution. Is such an act of Congress constitutional? If the Defendant's have their way, this question is irrelevant, because the act in question injured Americans universally and no American will be able to demonstrate a unique injury apart from other citizens. Therefore, constitutional or not, the law in question would stand because no citizen would be able to challenge it in a court of law.

To be sure, if Congress voted that all Americans reaching the age of eighteen will be branded with their social security number, citizens would also have no recourse in a court of law concerning this matter because the injury sustained is common to all. Clearly, "unique and separate injury" is an absurd constitutional standard to be applied when citizens approach a court on issues of constitu-tionality because such issues, by their nature, are common to all citizens.

The constitutional standard proffered by the Defendants wrongfully denies citizens access to the courts, thereby rendering our Constitution dysfunctional and opening the door to a real tyranny. If citizens are not able to challenge the actions of government in a court of law due to the commonality of the injuries sustained, then our government holds the power to change its nature and form, at will, without amending the Constitution. Clearly, such a state of affairs is repugnant to our Constitution and it follows that any decision by a court that establishes or sustains this state of affairs, is also repugnant to our Constitution.

The Defendants have raised an issue concerning the procedural matters of this Court and ask the Court to dismiss this legal action on that basis. What is more vital to the interests of this Nation and its people. To have this Court sustain the Defendant's motion to dismiss and thereby possibly give license to a course of action that may be repugnant to our Constitution or to deny the Defendant's motion and thereby render a determination of the matter? The Judicial System of this Nation is tasked with the responsibility of ruling on issues of constitu-tionality. This responsibility cannot be fulfilled unless issues of constitutionality are brought before a Court. Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss, for all intents and purposes, is really a motion for the Court to shun an important and crucial constitutional responsibility.

******

The status of the above lawsuit is that it is in Limbo. It has been almost two years since the defense filed its motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion. Upon having done this, it is incumbent upon the Court to issue a ruling in the matter, which is has failed to do. Unless a ruling is issued, the legal action cannot proceed. It is clear that by filing this legal action with the Court, as citizens, the plaintiffs have petitioned their government for redress of a very real and important grievance. Furthermore, no other avenue of approach is available for addressing the issues raised. Therefore, if this legal action is in permanent limbo and continues to be ignored by the Court, then the inescapable conclusion is that the plaintiffs unalienable right to petition government for the redress of grievances no longer exists.

 NEWSLETTER
 

 MAIN INDEX
 

 INDEX NWO

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!   
Jurisdiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that State (law) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
Conflict of Laws
Preliminary matters
Characterisation  · Incidental question
Renvoi  · Choice of law
Conflict of Laws in the U.S.
Public policy  · Hague Conference
Definitional elements
State  · Jurisdiction  · Procedure
Forum non conveniens  · Lex causae
Lex fori  · Forum shopping
Lis alibi pendens
Connecting factors
Domicile  · Lex domicilii
Habitual residence
Nationality  · Lex patriae
Lex loci arbitri  · Lex situs
Lex loci contractus
Lex loci delicti commissi
Lex loci solutionis  · Proper law
Lex loci celebrationis
Choice of law clause
Forum selection clause
Substantive legal areas
Status  · Capacity  · Contract  · Tort
Marriage  · Nullity  · Divorce
Get divorce  · Talaq divorce
Property  · Succession
Trusts
Enforcement
Enforcement of foreign judgments

In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin jus, juris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or, or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

As a topic, jurisdiction draws its substance from Public International Law, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.
Contents

    * 1 Jurisdiction in the international dimension
          o 1.1 Jurisdiction as a political issue
          o 1.2 International versus municipal jurisdiction
    * 2 The jurisdictional relationship between international and municipal laws
    * 3 The jurisdiction of courts between and within states
          o 3.1 Supranational
          o 3.2 Federal
          o 3.3 State level
    * 4 Jurisdiction in the United States
    * 5 Franchise Jurisdiction
    * 6 See also
    * 7 External links