U.S. District Courts were not established by the U.S. Constitution. They did not exist prior to 1948. They were created under martial law rule.
- Article 1, section 8 allows Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Superior Court. Whereas Article 3 courts are established, not constituted. Do not be fooled just because tribunals call themselves “courts.”
- The checks and balances between branches of government are established by the Constitution. Legislative powers cannot control judicial courts that were established by the Constitution.
- Real Judicial courts are NOT subject to a statute of limitations.
- U.S. District Courts are not established by the constitution.
- Judicial (Article 3) courts’ judges must have the constitutional security of tenure and salary.
- See my article Gold Fringed Flag Facts. – Do Not Be Fooled by Government (notfooledbygovernment.com)
“POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL THE FEDERAL COURTS …— Senate Document 112-9 at Page 841
Unlike its original jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to “exceptions and regulations” prescribed by Congress, and the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts is subject to congressional prescription. Additionally, Congress has power to regulate modes and practices of proceeding on the part of the inferior federal courts. Whether there are limitations to the exercise of these congressional powers, and what the limitations may be, are matters that have vexed scholarly and judicial interpretation over the years, inasmuch as congressional displeasure with judicial decisions has sometimes led to successful efforts to “curb” the courts and more frequently to proposed but unsuccessful curbs.1171 Supreme Court holdings establish clearly the breadth of congressional power, and numerous dicta assert an even broader power, but that Congress may through the exercise of its powers vitiate and overturn constitutional decisions and restrain the exercise of constitutional rights is an assertion often made but not sustained by any decision of the Court.”
According to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall:
“The appellate powers of this court are not given by the judicial act. They are given by the constitution. But they are limited and regulated by the judicial act, and by such other acts as have been passed on the subject.”— Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) 307, 313–314 (1810). “Courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction.” Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cr.) 75, 93 (1807) (Chief Justice Marshall). Marshall had earlier expressed his Durousseau thoughts in United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cr.) 159 (1805).
“The notion has frequently been entertained, that the federal courts derive their judicial power immediately from the constitution: but the political truth is, that the disposal of the judicial power (except in a few specified instances) belongs to Congress.— Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 10 (1799).
If Congress has given the power to this Court, we possess it, not otherwise: and if Congress has not given the power to us, or to any other Court, it still remains at the legislative disposal. Besides, Congress is not bound, and it would, perhaps, be inexpedient, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the federal courts, to every subject, in every form, which the constitution might warrant.”
Federal Regional Power
Federal regional power is authorized by Martial Law. Before martial law existed there were only United States Judicial Districts, which were superior to state courts, and only considered constitutional questions. A good discussion of this is the US Supreme Court decision in Ableman v. Booth 62 US 506 (1858) about the fugitive slave act. The reason they only considered constitutional questions is because there could be no federal laws that apply to state citizens, except for the three crimes mentioned in the Constitution. There is no other authority granted to the federal government that affects state citizens.
After martial law was imposed Federal District Courts (federal regional tribunals) were constituted which are inferior to state courts. Federal regional tribunals cannot possess the judicial power of the United States when hearing statutory regional proceedings. The only authority for the supremacy of federal regional power is under Article II Martial law. These Legislative (not judicial) Tribunals are constituted, not “established”, under Article I, Section 8, clause 9 of the US Constitution.
Do not be fooled that they are called courts.
There is no Act of Congress before 1948 naming any court “The United States District Court”, or “The United States Circuit Court of Appeals”. These two Courts did not exist before 1948. In 1948 Congress enacted Title 28 USC into Positive Law. This title creates courts that do not possess the judicial power of the United States. They can be delegated legislative authority only, because the Constitution did not establish them as judicial courts. They can only possess legislative authority, because the legislature created them. (such as Military jurisdiction — Again, a judicial court is established if the Constitution authorizes it under the Judicial Article). They can possess the Military jurisdiction that the martial law amendments (13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26) specifically say “shall be enforced by Congress”.
These two courts were created under Title 28 acts of Congress. Before 1948 it was impossible for these two Courts to exist.). Again: Article 1, section 8 authorizes Congress “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court”. Legislative tribunals are not judicial courts, but they call themselves courts.
“Military law is the law of public necessity. It is not a question of all or nothing. Where the civil courts have been dispossessed and are not able to function, such may be a reason for invoking martial law. That is quite a different thing from saying that martial law requires the closing of the civil courts. “— Ex parte Spurlock, 66 F.Supp 997
“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
If Article 1, section 8, clause 18 gives Congress the power to enforce the delegated authority mentioned in the Constitution, then why would the martial law amendments need an enforcement section?
“The second section of the (13th) amendment was added out of abundant caution. It authorizes congress to select, from time to time, the means that might be deemed appropriate to the end. It employs a phrase which had been enlightened by well-considered judicial application. Any exercise of legislative power within its limits involves a legislative, and not a judicial question.”— U.S. v. Rhodes, 1866, link
See my essay on the gold fringed flag.
Continue your study by reading my article How to Recognize Martial Law. Keep studying until you realize that we are still under Martial Law Rule from the Civil War.
Then study the 14th Amendment until you understand that only welfare recipients are “born or naturalized in the United States”.
Then study the Social Security Act until you realize that SS Cards are only available to socialists who apply for welfare. This changes their citizenship to a 14th Amendment citizen.
You can be dragged into marital law courts if you have applied for, or received, federal welfare. Such as getting a Social Security Number. Start studying by reading my essay on Things the government forgot to tell you about the Social Security System.