OP-ED| Defending Our Constitutional Republic: The People’s Written Oral Arguments

Tomorrow, February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on one of the most momentous and transformative cases in our nation’s history.

The significance of this date cannot be overstated, as it marks a pivotal moment that should resonate with every citizen of these United States. In the limited time available, countless individuals rallied to articulate the profound importance of this case by submitting amicus briefs.

Amidst time constraints, palpable anticipation lingered that an adversary would contest our brief (HERE), compelling the need for oral arguments. This anticipation spoke to a deeply held conviction in fostering open discourse and vigorous debate to safeguard the bedrock principles of justice.

This anticipated challenge did not materialize. Consequently, we were compelled to rely solely on the court’s discretion when petitioning for time to present oral arguments. In the absence of opposition to our Amicus Brief, we discerned an unmistakable signal—an affirmation of its significance and an indication of the compelling need for oral arguments to be heard. (PETITION FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS HERE)

For the foregoing reasons, Amici Curiae respectfully submit that,
under our current historic circumstances, the Court benefits hearing oral argument from the very class of individuals whose constitutional rights this Court was largely established to protect – the American People, and respectfully request that their pending Motion be granted.

Motion of Terpsehore “Tore” Maras and Eligible Voters of All 50 States and 1 Territory for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted.

To underscore a fundamental principle that resonates deeply within our constitutional framework: “The Ninth Amendment Can Only Be Asserted By The People.” This declaration is not mere conjecture but firmly rooted in legal precedent and the essence of our nation’s founding principles. While perhaps a rule of construction as opposed to a declaration of substantive rights.

The Ninth Amendment, often called the “silent amendment,” holds profound significance in safeguarding rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. It serves as a shield against governmental overreach, ensuring that individuals retain rights beyond those specifically mentioned in the document. However, what sets the Ninth Amendment apart is its clear mandate: these unenumerated rights are reserved exclusively for assertion by the people.

This assertion finds solid footing in legal history. In the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court recognized unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. The Court famously declared that the Ninth Amendment “creates a zone of privacy,” safeguarding individual liberties from governmental intrusion. This ruling affirmed the people’s authority in asserting their unenumerated rights, reinforcing that they are inherent and cannot be usurped by governmental entities.

Furthermore, legal scholars have expounded upon the exclusive domain of the people in asserting Ninth Amendment rights. Noted constitutional scholar Randy E. Barnett, in his seminal work “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty,” emphasizes the Ninth Amendment’s role in preserving individual freedoms. Barnett argues that the Ninth Amendment grants individuals the power to claim rights beyond those expressly listed in the Constitution, affirming the people’s sovereignty in matters of personal liberty.

The Ninth Amendment is a beacon of individual empowerment, affirming that unenumerated rights belong solely to the people. It is not a tool wielded by governments or institutions but a shield wielded by individuals to protect their inherent freedoms. This OP-ED aims to shed light on this critical principle rooted in legal doctrine and the essence of democratic governance, how important OUR VOICE is most essential to be heard, and what our arguments are, which should be embraced no matter where you sit on the political spectrum.

Considering that the oral argument request may be denied, allow me to elaborate on the position of the people to ensure that their voices and perspectives are heard.

By reviewing all the briefs and amicus briefs filed in opposition to the petitioner, President Donald J. Trump, it is crucial to grasp the misapplication and misinterpretation of the Tenth Amendment by the Colorado State Supreme Court and Secretary of State of Colorado, Jenna Griswold. They argue a flawed interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, while we maintain that the people are entitled to assert it, supported by the constitutional construction provided by the Ninth Amendment.

MATHEMATICAL PROOF ARGUMENT

Just as in mathematics, where proofs are constructed to demonstrate the validity of a theorem, so too can we build a logical argument to demonstrate the misapplication of the Tenth Amendment by the Colorado State Supreme Court and Secretary of State Jenna Griswold while also asserting the people’s entitlement to assert the Tenth Amendment based on the principles outlined in the Ninth Amendment.

In this scenario, let’s consider the Colorado State Supreme Court and Secretary Griswold’s argument as a flawed equation. They posit that the Tenth Amendment grants states broad authority in election matters, akin to an erroneous mathematical assumption. However, just as a mathematician scrutinizes each step of a proof for accuracy, we must scrutinize their interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.

First, the Tenth Amendment is analogous to a mathematical axiom. It states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. This establishes a clear boundary, akin to a mathematical theorem.
Now, consider the Ninth Amendment a mathematical analogy to the Tenth Amendment. It affirms that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is akin to a mathematical lemma that reinforces and expands upon the theorem established by the Tenth Amendment.

By applying these principles, we can construct proof demonstrating people’s entitlement to assert the Tenth Amendment. Just as in mathematics, where a result extends the reach of a theorem, the Ninth Amendment broadens the reach of the Tenth Amendment, affirming the people’s authority in matters not explicitly delegated to the federal government or the states.

By employing the principles of mathematical reasoning, we can deconstruct the flawed arguments presented by the Colorado State Supreme Court and Secretary Griswold and assert the people’s entitlement to assert the Tenth Amendment based on the constitutional construction provided by the Ninth Amendment. Just as in mathematics, where rigorous analysis ensures the accuracy of proof, so too must we rigorously analyze and challenge legal arguments to uphold the principles of constitutional governance.

Let’s Break this Down Even More

Let’s emphasize how the Ninth Amendment empowers individuals to argue that the Tenth Amendment restricts encroachments on the unalienable right to vote by federal and state governments.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, let’s delve into why this amendment serves as a safeguard against infringements on the right to vote, highlighting the pivotal role of the Ninth Amendment in empowering individuals in this context.

State Sovereignty and Election Authority

The Tenth Amendment champions the sovereignty of states, acknowledging their unique governance structures and authority. However, individuals empowered by the Ninth Amendment can argue that this sovereignty does not extend to trampling upon fundamental rights such as the right to vote. States, while administering elections, must respect the inherent rights of individuals to participate in the democratic process.

Preserving State Autonomy

While the Tenth Amendment is a barrier against federal overreach, individuals armed with the Ninth Amendment can assert that state autonomy in managing elections does not include the authority to disenfranchise voters. States retain the autonomy to regulate elections but must do so within the bounds of constitutional principles, including protecting the right to vote.

Federalism and Constitutional Limits

Our federal system delineates powers between the national and state governments, with the Tenth Amendment reinforcing the division. However, individuals can argue, supported by the Ninth Amendment, that this division does not grant states unchecked authority over elections. The Tenth Amendment restricts states from infringing upon individuals’ rights, including voting rights.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

In matters of subject matter jurisdiction, individuals can invoke the Ninth Amendment to challenge any overreach by state courts in restricting voting rights. The Tenth Amendment prohibits states from exceeding their authority concerning fundamental rights such as voting rights.

Balancing State and Federal Interests

While states regulate elections, individuals guided by the Ninth Amendment can assert that such regulation must be in harmony with federal constitutional rights. The Tenth Amendment underscores the importance of respecting the balance between state and federal interests, ensuring that neither government entity infringes upon individuals’ rights, including the right to vote.

In essence, the Ninth Amendment empowers individuals to argue that the Tenth Amendment serves as a check on both federal and state governments, preventing any encroachments on the fundamental right to vote. It reinforces the principle that state sovereignty and autonomy in election matters must be exercised within the confines of constitutional protections afforded to individuals.

Why This Is Very Important

The Tenth Amendment upholds the division of powers between the federal and state governments. It affirms that states maintain authority over issues not explicitly delegated to the federal government.

Subject matter jurisdiction should be expanded on concerning the Tenth Amendment. It is imperative to demonstrate further how flawed the arguments of those opposing the petitioner, President Donald J. Trump, are. The Tenth Amendment intersects with this concept, dictating that courts, including state courts, can only hear cases within their defined jurisdiction. If a state court oversteps its bounds, such as determining a candidate’s eligibility for federal office, it violates the Tenth Amendment by exceeding its authority.

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment facilitates the delicate balance between state and federal interests. While states possess the right to regulate elections, they must do so within the confines of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment ensures that states exercise their powers without infringing upon federal constitutional rights or violating the supremacy clause.

The Tenth Amendment does not grant states the authority to remove candidates from the ballot actively. Instead, it mandates that states adhere to their designated boundaries while engaging in the democratic process. It underscores the cooperative relationship between federal and state governments, highlighting the necessity for both entities to operate within their respective spheres of influence.

The Principle of Jurisdictional Boundaries: Safeguarding Legal Sovereignty and Fairness

The principle that a state court cannot adjudicate a matter that occurred outside of its jurisdiction, particularly in another geographical district, is grounded in fundamental legal principles and common sense.

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases. Each court is limited by its jurisdictional boundaries, typically defined by geographic location, subject matter, or other factors. When a court attempts to adjudicate a matter that falls outside its prescribed jurisdiction, it overstepped its authority.

This concept is rooted in the principle of legal sovereignty and the separation of powers between different levels of government. Just as a city police department cannot enforce laws in a neighboring town, a state court cannot assert jurisdiction over matters outside its designated geographical area.

Moreover, this understanding aligns with the basic tenets of fairness and due process. Allowing a court to adjudicate matters outside of its jurisdiction would undermine the integrity of the legal system and potentially deprive parties of their right to a fair trial.

The fact that no one supporting the petitioner even raised this issue is deeply troubling and shocking. It’s worth emphasizing that no laws or regulations in the United States authorize or condone such extraterritorial adjudication by state courts. This egregious oversight strikes at the core of our legal system’s foundational principles, which dictate that courts must operate within their jurisdictional limitations.

Therefore, the actions of the Colorado state courts and the Supreme Court of Colorado in enacting such a malign authoritarian manner are beyond comprehension. Given the apparent violation of legal norms and principles, it is brazen for them even to argue such a position in the United States Supreme Court. Such actions undermine the integrity of our legal system and threaten individuals’ rights and liberties.

This underscores the critical importance of citizens asserting their Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights. The Ninth Amendment affirms that individuals retain rights beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to due process and fair legal treatment. The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principle of federalism and limits the federal government’s powers, reserving certain powers to the states or the people.

By asserting these rights, citizens play a vital role in ensuring that no misapplication of authority or laws occurs in the country. They serve as guardians of constitutional principles and help uphold the integrity of the legal system, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and by the rule of law.

The people would argue the aforementioned if provided the opportunity for oral arguments.

Regardless of whether the people will argue orally or not – they have immortalized them in written form for all to reference, cite, and understand that this Amicus Brief filed was not posturing but the most critical Amicus Brief filed in the history of these United States where the citizens asserted their rights in the highest court of the land not for political reasons, not for the support of one and not another but for themselves.

This underscores the critical importance of citizens asserting their Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights. The Ninth Amendment affirms that individuals retain rights beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, including the right to due process and fair legal treatment. The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principle of federalism and limits the federal government’s powers, reserving certain powers to the states or the people.

By steadfastly asserting these rights, citizens assume a paramount role in safeguarding against any misapplication of authority or laws within our nation. They stand as stalwart guardians of our constitutional principles, wielding their influence to preserve the integrity of our legal system. In doing so, they secure the equitable administration of justice, ensuring that fairness prevails and that the rule of law remains inviolate.

Let this serve as a beacon of inspiration, reminding us of the unwavering spirit and determination of the American people to uphold the ideals of liberty, justice, and domestic tranquility. In asserting their Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights, the people uphold the framers’ vision, ensuring that our nation remains true to its foundational principles for future generations.

#IAmAnAmici