The Republicans have been controlling the Supreme Court for almost fifty years. One strategy to regain control of the White House is described. A most recent instance(s) of what took place during the late seventies with the enactment of California’s P. L. No 148, or Indiana Code 35-50-6-1 a.k.a. P. L. No 148 is the case of Smith v McDonough, 1:2019-cv-04096. An administrative proceeding that provides a background in this case includes Smith v Shinseki¹.  A brief explanation of my position and analysis of the case is described from a lay viewpoint.

     This case was not appealed case because there is a high probability the higher court would have upheld the decision. Public Law No 148 or IC 35-50-6-1 remained the law until it was brought to the attention of the legislature and the courts that it was a violation of Indiana Constitution Article 3 Section 1, Distribution of Powers. The decision would likely have been upheld because there is no “Due Process” without a “Separation of Powers”. Usually an unconstitutional law or policy is created at the legislative level(s) see Creation of Law… , in this case it is created at the district court level. Who is to represent or to be more accurate misrepresent me, was already decided. This would have been another instance of me doing the labor and someone else getting the reward or forcing me to represent myself and accusing me of UPL. Additionally, the “Statute of Frauds” must be specially pleaded with the court not having to reach this issue in this case because misrepresentation translating to Due Process is the entire case.

     Appealing the decision would have given it more force than it was qualified for because there are policy violations with Rudin v. Lincoln (2005)² being the case on point. This case noted that “Due Process” includes discrimination. The difference in this circumstance and 1976 – 77 is the consequences, ramifications, or negative forces put into play by these actions and decisions cannot be escaped by those who committed them, like in 1976 with the enactment of Indiana’s and California’s, P. L. 148. See Mind, Body… , It is not that they could not enact these policies, these policies were already enforced, and the republicans were asked to cover their tracks.

     This is not the first time Republicans have helped self-serving Democrats. The only difference between the present day and 1976 – 77 is the dynamics of these acts are described, and prove themselves. An act not legal when committed cannot later in a civil proceeding be made legal by the legislative, executive, or judiciary branch. A court can legislate; however, the decision must be within Constitutional boundaries. An issue of attorney/client exists where a person is not represented in policy violations. Some of the pleadings in this proceeding will be referred to in this post or they can be seen in the docket sheet of the above-mentioned case. They won the battle, but lost the war. Who or what can afford to put the constitution before the constitutional is obvious. It seems that their strategy worked. Will the republicans maintain control of the presidency in the next almost 50 years like they have controlled the U. S. Supreme Court?

1. https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_files/decisions/0120130700.txt
2. Rudin v. Lincoln Land Cmty. Coll., 420 F.3d 712

– One cannot escape the Constitution –

Disclaimer:

This blog is not intended to be an endorsement of a candidate for president of the United States or legal advice.