If Texas is about to lose jobs, don’t they now have “standing” to sue cheater states?

Congratulations on your gay thread.

Please describe for me what makes it gay. I like descriptions of stuff like that.

[link to www.wdam.com (secure)]

“ JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT) - Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith is tweeting her frustration after construction on the Keystone XL pipeline was halted when President Joe Biden revoked its permit on his first day in office.
“In less than 24 hours the Biden administration has killed thousands of American jobs,” Hyde-Smith posted while linking to a Fox News article entitled Biden ending Keystone pipeline would kill thousands of American jobs.”

“ The 1,700-mile oil pipeline, which would span from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, was rejected by the Obama administration but was revived by Donald Trump.”

I friggen love pipelines and am very angry about this keystone!


[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

It isn't Gay the him/her/they that wrote it is a miserable cretin that is one finger pull away from darkness for eternity burning in agony

Gotta say I ride the fence on the pipeline. In theory it's wonderful. But in practice, there's the variables of shoddy work by pipefitters, geological shifting as well as other unforseen factors that could cause spills and disruptions. Honestly I feel railcar and trucking are the best bet for oil transport, utilizing smaller compartmentalized containers lowers the risk of losses and environmental damage.

Obviously you are correct because he couldn’t be bothered to elucidate his thesis.

I agree and am a big time environmentalist, but in defense of the pipeline, we now have the technology and skills to build it so that it has much less environmental impact than trains and trucks transporting equivalent amounts of oil. I’ve been there to help assess and remediate crashed trucks that spilled their petrol load and it’s awful.

I had a similar thought the other day. Anyone who has lost their job due to the regime change now has standing. Anyone who has been personally affected by anything Biden has ended, changed or instituted, also has standing.

All of these people should now file lawsuits. Every last one should do it individually. No class actions or combo cases. They need to inundate the entire countries courts with law suits.

Perhaps someone could investigate which courts/judges are the most likely to allow an evidentiary hearing, then flood it. And keep flooding the courts until one finally allows a hearing.

The establishment are not going to be watching the courts now that the election is over. They also wont be able to cover / blackmail / threaten / pay off every fucking judge in the country. there must be one out there who is untouched.

Exactly! Everyone was freaking out about getting this into the courts before Biden got sworn in, but that’s not how courts work! Judges want to see real damages! We couldn’t show that until Biden was in office! Now everyone has standing!

Spread the word, people! Anyone live in Texas? Tell that guy who brought the original suit to do it again!

I also remember Kayleigh McEnany talking about many courts denying the case because it was not yet “ripe” or was “too late”. That’s all just bullshit because they didn’t want to be the bad guy that opened the doors. Watch them do that now that there are real damages!

Ken Paxton is his name! Hey Ken! You have standing now!

[link to www.thecentersquare.com (secure)]

“39 states take sides in Texas Supreme Court case against four states' election results”

Unless they had some contract concerning the election which included a jobs clause the still have no standing.

YES!

The federal “doctrine” of denied standing is unconstitutional.

Article III clearly says: "The Judicial Power [right to petition] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [OR] the Laws of the United States... [between parties]."

Courts made up opinions about "standing" that say if your right was violated, or you challenge a usurper that is illegally in office – then you don't have standing until you have a damage – and a what if damage is not big enough.


But this opinion is illegal and violates the "Equity" clause: equity is “justice according to natural law or right; and freedom from bias or favoritism.”

What the judges are claiming is that one person's damage is greater than another's – which means they are Quantifying damages – which is "favoritism" – which is the opposite of “Equity” because it is unfair to treat people unequally (violate the 14th) – thus it is illegal.

Article III explains the right to petition and gives 2 conditions to access the federal courts: 1) it must be a constitutional or US law issue, and 2) between at least two parties.

The law also puts 2 conditions on the court, not the petitioners: A) the court must hear “all cases” that meet the 2 prior conditions, and B) the court must use their “Judicial Power” “in Law and Equity” - which means according to law (U.S. Constitution and natural law), and to treat the litigants fairly, without bias or favoritism.

Let's look at 2 examples with the 4th Amendment: The court says: Joe you have standing to sue the government that violated your right, because you lost your job after the government illegally seized your car.

But Bob, you do not have standing to sue the government for violating your right to be free from unreasonable searches at night without a warrant sworn to a judge, even though your concern is that your wife will get shot by cops during an illegal entry because she's deaf and blind.

Then the the court is wrong for violating Bob's rights and the “Equity clause.” The court cannot measure which damage is greater, or that future damages do not count – because all rights count and are equal as the condition to sue the government.

The Constitution is not a list of what the government must fix AFTER violating. It is a list of what the government must not do, and all enforcers are required to protect those rights – so that the damage does not occur.

(I.e. if a right is violated on paper by the Legislative branch, then that is already too far of a violation, and the courts must immediately act to prevent the right from being violated in the physical - where it causes death, money loss, etc.)

Also note the absurdity of the court, to claim that what if future-damages do not count as a reason to petition the government to protect you (when it's their job to defend the Constitution no matter what).
(The Constitution does not say 'a duty to defend it, only if a citizen is injured.' The Const. requires a PROACTIVE defense. Likewise, a security guard would not say, 'anyone can come into the business at night, since they didn't steal yet.')

For Bob's example, if his wife is killed due to illegal entry – that is an extreme damage that the court can't repair afterwards. Thus common sense and natural rights rule that Bob has the right to prevent damages caused by rights violation as soon as the violation usurps the Constitution on paper (a new bill passed or illegal official gains office, who would allow a Communist state to invade).


See my post on what you and Texas can do today to save the Republic.
[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

No, it’s obvious and provable they would still have those jobs if those states had not cheated/broken their own election laws.

Fellow Texans'

If the Supreme Court says Texas has no standing in a Federal election then maybe they should ignore everything that comes out of Washington DC.

Very informative! Thank you for your post and that looks like a great thread! It would seem that the courts have lost their will to uphold the law.

I know I know. It’s infuriating! But let’s see what they have to say now that there are real damages.

The "judges" will rule against them.

As trigger would say.............get fucked.

Nobody has standing unless the Judge likes the case. That's the sad truth. "Standing" is just an excuse for 99% of the judiciary.
We don't have representation, we don't have votes and we don't even have a way to legally address our complaints.

I want them to have to put it on paper though so all of history can see that they pussed out

Very interesting. Two of my closest friends are lawyers. I'm going to ask them this.

Yes, please let us know what they say.

Your welcome. Now I'll be more specific on the right to vote, and the nuances of the Constitution.

“Constitutional rights are the protections and liberties guaranteed to the people” but they do not come from the government. Many rights are labeled in the Bill of Rights, but there are more rights not labeled – because our Forefathers said that rights were given by God and now inherent to us.

This means that the Constitution creators believed in natural rights, and labeled the most popular ones - but they did not label them all, and some have modifiers (extra protections/nuances) that are written elsewhere in the Constitution – while others were so apparent at the time, that the Founders didn't think to write it.

These wildcard rights are protected by the 9th, and called “unenumerated” rights (“legal rights inferred from other rights that are implied by existing laws, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the explicit writ of the law”).

Example: the right to petition the federal court. It's handled by Article III and the 14th Amendment (due process), but it is not labeled by name.
My prior post explained how the “doctrine of standing” is unconstitutional – when it violates the 2 conditions put on the court, while ignoring the only 2 conditions on the petitioner.

But lets look at what the “right to petition” means: the Founders knew that it meant: A) the right to the right to file – why? Because part B) includes the right to obtain a “remedy” to the constitutional issue! This is called the right to obtain “redress of grievances.”

These exact words are not in the U.S. Constitution – how can we prove that this right exists and the Founders believed in it? Look at the PA Constitution at their “Declaration Of Rights,” Article 1, section 20:

“The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner [a peaceful way to settle issues] … to assemble together for their common good, and to apply to those [to appeal to officials] invested with the powers of government [judicial branch] for redress of grievances [for a remedy to the complaint/damage] or other proper purposes, … [how to do this?:] by petition [an appeal to the court], address OR remonstrance.”

Remonstrance is a key word that means: “A petition to a court, or deliberative or legislative body, in which those who have signed it request that something which it is in contemplation to perform shall not be done.”

This means that the PA Constitution defined, and thus the U.S. Constitution Founders implied – that the right to petition includes A) the right to file, why: B) to obtain remedy, when: C) even BEFORE a damage occurs and thus DURING “contemplation” of an illegal act that would (future tense) violate a right.


This means that back then, the Founders believed in the right to petition against Congress if they were debating passing a law that violated the Constitution. But now, officials have betrayed so far, that courts say you don't even have the right to petition AFTER Congress or an official did violate the Constitution.

In summary, this right to petition and the 3 modifiers as part of that right – are an example of guaranteed liberties that our Founders believed in, but forgot to be as specific as other writers, but they are still “inalienable rights” or “unenumerated” rights.


Now let's apply that to the “right to vote,” which is first defined in the 14th Amendment (and later Amendments added the people who could vote). But modifiers to the right were also written in Article II, section 1, clauses 2 – 4. These modifiers explain law showing that the right to vote actually means the “right to vote in a legal and fair election regarding the Presidency, and the right for your vote to count by not getting diluted with an illegal vote counted before or after election day.”

Clause 2 says that “State” “Legislature” makes election law or decides how presidential “Electors” are chosen. (Which means any branch not named, cannot make election law = the PA Supreme Court and Governor cannot make election law.)

Clause 4 says that the U.S. Congress can make the law setting the election “day” which “shall be the same throughout the United States.” (This means that individual States cannot change it to election week (mail in votes), nor allow votes to be counted after election “day.”)


We can prove by court and public records, that Courts or Governors of swing States changed election law and day. This means that their acts violated the “right to vote in a legal and fair election regarding the Presidency, and the right for your vote to count by not getting diluted with an illegal vote.” (I.e. we don't need pictures or videos of voter fraud by counters – to prove that voter fraud occurred – because it was the Courts and Executive branch who performed the first widespread voter fraud – by allowing illegal votes to be collected for weeks or months prior to the established day, and even count after election day.)


So we have established that the right to vote includes the right to a legal vote not manipulated by election “law” or acts that violate the Constitution. Thus does this grievance meet the Article III conditions for the right to appeal and the right to obtain remedy? Yes: it is a constitutional issue.

Does this warrant original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court? Yes: it is a dispute between at least 2 States. (PA allowed illegal changes to a Federal election, while TX and others objected. The issue was not that Texas was telling PA how to run elections; It was that the Constitution tells PA how to, and PA violated that contract agreement with Texas. Thus Texas has the constitutional “right” (defined in Art. 2, sec. 1, clauses 2 & 4) to hold PA to the contract by getting the issue settled in court.)

Can the courts say that TX doesn't have standing because they don't have a damage? No: I've explained that the “right to petition (and obtain remedy)” treats the “right to vote (in a legal election)” – as equal to the “4th Amendment right” (protection from illegal thief). Both rights “aris[e] under this Constitution” and are between parties – thus they both meet the only conditions to petition.


The damage is that the contract has been violated (damages to trust, fairness, due process, and taxation without representation); the damage type (physical vs intangible) and the damage amount – is irrelevant because the court is required to show “equity” to all petitioners, and equally enforce all rights pursuant to the 14th and the oath of office (defend all rights against all enemies).

Spread this knowledge of law so that the courts never again illegally claim that intangible rights or damages – lack standing for the “right to petition or remonstrance” (the equal and equitable right to correct a damage and prevent a damage).

One of my favorite political videos.
IMO all of them are crooks.