Arnold Law (Eugene, Oregon)
Ammon Bundy and the other protesters seek to overturn case law on Property and Enclave Clauses.
“Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.”
— Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
A little hint of the Oregon protesters’ joint motion regarding lack of jurisdiction was filed in court Friday. Ammon Bundy’s position has always been to engage in this peaceful protest to expose certain constitutional issues important to him and the other protesters. The issues highlighted have been land use and the Constitution’s involvement in that (in addition to mandatory minimum sentences, the right to self-defense, and now inmate abuses and criminal justice reform). Many of you don’t know that Ryan Bundy was involved in civil disobedience and a protest involving Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 (the Enclave Clause) nearly twenty years ago. This is not a new or novel issue. It just hasn’t been litigated fully for decades.
There is a series of cases that are adverse to this interpretation of the Enclave Clause vs. the Property Clause. It is the protesters’ position that these cases were wrongly decided for several reasons that will be more fully explored in the final motion. However, the right of a defendant, or any citizen for that matter, to challenge case law and seek to have it overruled is one of the fundamental bases of our judicial system. That’s what the left calls judicial activism and what the right calls an originalist interpretation of the constitution and righting past judicial mistakes.
We filed this motion with the declaration from Lissa attached. It outlines the protester’s intended argument about federal jurisdiction. Ammon understands that the trial court will likely rule against him on this, as he is challenging the previous case law surrounding the Enclave and Property Clauses in the Constitution. However, as he said from Day 1, he intends to run to this fight, not from it. He intends to take this issue all the way up to the Supreme Court, although that might be unlikely since there are strong factual and legal defenses to the charges.
Ammon respects the authority of the federal government and the power of an Article III court and Article III judge. He also knows they can be restrained by precedent, which is why the Founders set up a system to appeal and overrule previous decisions. He intends to make the courts do exactly that, short of getting a favorable ruling from the trial court, getting a dismissal or obtaining a not-guilty verdict.
It's well settled that parties can assert that cases have been wrongly decided and ask the court to overturn previous decisions. This is just one more step in taking this fight over the constitutionality of federal land ownership to the courts so they can finally address this issue with accurate and well-briefed information and a complete factual record.
This is actually a very intellectually stimulating argument that has law review articles going back and forth on it, as well as other relatively recently discovered historical Founders’ documents cited in one law review article supporting the Enclave Clause as interpreted by the protesters.
Motion to Extend Time: http://snip.ly/motion-extend
Declaration that briefly outlines the protesters’ position on enclave clause: http://snip.ly/enclave-declaration
“Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.”
— Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).[27]
“Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.”
— Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
A little hint of the Oregon protesters’ joint motion regarding lack of jurisdiction was filed in court Friday. Ammon Bundy’s position has always been to engage in this peaceful protest to expose certain constitutional issues important to him and the other protesters. The issues highlighted have been land use and the Constitution’s involvement in that (in addition to mandatory minimum sentences, the right to self-defense, and now inmate abuses and criminal justice reform). Many of you don’t know that Ryan Bundy was involved in civil disobedience and a protest involving Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl. 17 (the Enclave Clause) nearly twenty years ago. This is not a new or novel issue. It just hasn’t been litigated fully for decades.
There is a series of cases that are adverse to this interpretation of the Enclave Clause vs. the Property Clause. It is the protesters’ position that these cases were wrongly decided for several reasons that will be more fully explored in the final motion. However, the right of a defendant, or any citizen for that matter, to challenge case law and seek to have it overruled is one of the fundamental bases of our judicial system. That’s what the left calls judicial activism and what the right calls an originalist interpretation of the constitution and righting past judicial mistakes.
We filed this motion with the declaration from Lissa attached. It outlines the protester’s intended argument about federal jurisdiction. Ammon understands that the trial court will likely rule against him on this, as he is challenging the previous case law surrounding the Enclave and Property Clauses in the Constitution. However, as he said from Day 1, he intends to run to this fight, not from it. He intends to take this issue all the way up to the Supreme Court, although that might be unlikely since there are strong factual and legal defenses to the charges.
Ammon respects the authority of the federal government and the power of an Article III court and Article III judge. He also knows they can be restrained by precedent, which is why the Founders set up a system to appeal and overrule previous decisions. He intends to make the courts do exactly that, short of getting a favorable ruling from the trial court, getting a dismissal or obtaining a not-guilty verdict.
It's well settled that parties can assert that cases have been wrongly decided and ask the court to overturn previous decisions. This is just one more step in taking this fight over the constitutionality of federal land ownership to the courts so they can finally address this issue with accurate and well-briefed information and a complete factual record.
This is actually a very intellectually stimulating argument that has law review articles going back and forth on it, as well as other relatively recently discovered historical Founders’ documents cited in one law review article supporting the Enclave Clause as interpreted by the protesters.
Motion to Extend Time: http://snip.ly/motion-extend
Declaration that briefly outlines the protesters’ position on enclave clause: http://snip.ly/enclave-declaration
“Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. ... But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. ... This is strikingly true of cases under the due process clause.”
— Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406–407, 410 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).[27]
arnoldlawfirm.com
No comments:
Post a Comment