Joe Miller filed an action in Federal Court contesting the decision of the Alaska Supreme Court regarding the election of Lisa Murkowski.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/29/federal-court-dismisses-miller-challenge-to-election/. In my article of the 28th, I made reference to this new suit in Federal Court as “frivolous” and asserted that it was a waste of tax payer money; both tax payers of Alaska and now federal taxpayers. http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/sarah-palins-true-colors-shown-by-miller-suit/. Lawyers often refer to an argument, or even a suit as “frivolous,” but rarely does a judge issue an opinion that a suit is “frivolous.” Even if that happens, the judge would typically wait for a brief to be filed by both sides before issuing any decision. In 12 years of practicing as a Trial Attorney in both State and Federal Courts in Texas, I NEVER saw a judge issue a ruling without the benefit of briefing from both sides of a case on ANY issue. For a Federal Judge to rule without waiting for a response from the defendant, that there was NO federal issue to be resolved is profound. Such a quick decision by the Judge, on his own initiative, sends a clear message that the judge is angered by the waste of judicial resources. This is the definition of a “frivolous” case. The judge wasn’t ruling on a particular point of law, he was saying that the entire case should never have been filed in the Federal Court. It was a State issue, and the Judge was telling Joe Miller that he should abide by and that he was bound by the Alaska Supreme Court’s decision. Hotair, Ibid. Miller had no basis for a suit in Federal Court.
For Miller and Palin to question the will of the people of Alaska by pursuit of proceedings in District, Appellate, and Supreme Courts in the State of Alaska was offensive, but Miller had the right to do so. However this summary dismissal by the Federal Judge after Miller exhausted his State Court remedies is a clear indication that Miller did not have the right to contest the results of the election through Federal Court proceedings. The offensive nature of this action is particularly loathsome given the position of both Miller and Palin regarding the assertion that the federal government should stay out of the business of the states. In particular Joe Miller has proclaimed in his own web site that:
“I will work to limit Washington to the constitutional powers anticipated by our Founders. The future of our nation is truly in the balance and the status quo of the last several years in Washington will drive us into further fiscal insanity.
The only answer is to return our federal government to the limits prescribed by our Constitution. Federal powers not specified in the Constitution are reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment.”
Sarah Palin has repeatedly made similar statements, advocating less intrusion of the Federal Government. She has said:
“History and common sense tells us that when government tries to take care of us, it ends up robbing us of our ability to help ourselves,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5878534-503544.html
In case that wasn’t clear enough, before she resigned as Governor Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to aTenth Amendment Center report. The resolution ”claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Alaska’s House passed H.J. Res. 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.
Alaska’s resolution states:
Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104524
Section Four of Article One of the US Constitution specifically gives the power to the STATE to determine the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution.
Thus both Sarah Palin and Joe Miller have publicly professed their abhorrence of the Federal Government intervening in matters that should be determined by the State. “Common Sense” would suggest that Empress Palin and Loser Miller would be the first to recognize that the power to determine the manner of election for Senators should be determined by the State of Alaska, and to the extent there was an issue regarding the construction or interpretation of those laws, it should be determined by Alaska’s Courts. However people with “common sense” must logically reach a different conclusion in the case of Joe Miller and Sarah Palin: the Federal Government should only defer to the State of Alaska, so long as the State of Alaska favors Palin and Miller.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Eric
The argument made was that since the courts didn’t accept Miller’s interpretation of the law, they must have been replacing the existing law (which he presumes must mean exactly what he says it does, with no possible legitimate difference of opinion) and thus usurping the right to define the election of Senators, which was granted to the legislatures.
Having read the state Supreme Court’s ruling, they clearly did NOT, as he would imply, say that they’re overriding the statute. Rather, they explained the meaning of the phrase in question (“as it appears on”) in terms of the meaning “to be present” for the verb “to appear”, explained that based on that meaning, the statute does not reference spelling. They also explained the long history of case law in Alaska for using voter intent as a standard for statutory interpretation (which history long predates the passing of the current statute). Based on that precedent the legislature, when they wrote that statute, if they wanted absolute spelling, would have needed to say so directly.
And after all of that, Miller’s next filing said that the state courts ignored and overrode what he asserts is the clear meaning of the statute. So, did he even *read* the ruling?
December 30, 2010 at 4:26 pm
malialitman
Eric,
And obviously, if he read it, he ignored it, because he didn’t like it. Malia
December 31, 2010 at 12:32 am
majii
What I found highly amusing and ironic about this fiasco was the fact that Miller had to appeal to a federal court when he and Palin have both professed their “disdain” for the federal government’s “overreaching” power. It just goes to show that they have a strong aversion to the federal government—-until they seek to use it to get what they want. So much for their “faith” in the superiority of state over federal sovereignty.
HJR27 is much ado about nothing. More posturing by very small-minded people who were looking to make themselves feel better about themselves. We’ve gone through all of this before. States have no power to nullify laws passed by the federal government. We really could use another Andrew Jackson right about now. Those who signed this resolution could have benefited from being in the civics and U.S. History classes I used to teach before I retired last year.
December 31, 2010 at 1:24 am
malialitman
majii,
Good to hear from you! As a history teacher, you can appreciate just how absurd it is for Miller and Palin to suggest the Federal Government should get out of our lives, and then file this lawsuit in Federal Court when they are unhappy with the results they get in State Court.
Check my post in the am…it will be about Van Flein who is representing Miller and Palin. Malia