Sunday, February 6, 2022
Monday, November 8, 2021
Saturday, December 12, 2020
Contrary to the reporting and other popular belief, the Supreme Court did NOT NOT take the Texas election case.
The court took jurisdiction, and then denied Texas’ request to “file a bill of complaint.”
Because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
In other words, Texas suffered a “lack of standing [to sue] under Article III of the Constitution,” as I and other constitutional law specialists predicted.
Lastly, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas dissented because in their view the Supreme Court does “not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
I, and others, agree with the dissent – properly pleaded original jurisdiction complaints must be taken by the Court, and once taken can be dealt with pursuant to Constitutional and statutory procedural and substantive principles – but as I have said above, the Court did take jurisdiction because I can’t see how they could otherwise have denied Texas’ motion by making a substantive decision on standing to sue, also an Article III provision with a long history of resolving whether a “case or controversy” has been presented.
Monday, December 7, 2020
Remember, some people suffer capital punishment, and others very, very long prison terms, based on circumstantial evidence. You may have to paste it into your address box. If that doesn’t work, go to: YouTube Patrick Basham Mark Levin. The interview is only 12 minutes long.
Monday, September 21, 2020
After many years of research and writing, I have completed a book—not The Paladin Curse, a novel written with Erika Holzer, which I announced earlier this week—but one which will not be of interest to most readers in general, nor most of those who receive this occasional blog.
The book’s title is UNJUST BLAME? The Korean War, the Chinese Intervention, and Douglas MacArthur.
I am pleased to reproduce the Table of Contents, and several of the Introduction’s opening paragraphs:
Part I: The North Korean Invasion
1. World War II
2. From the end of one war, to the eve of another
3. Writing off Korea
4. Stalin, Mao, Kim—and Korea
5. Republic of Korea Army vs. North Korea People’s Army
6. The North Korean invasion
Part II: The Chinese Intervention
7. MacArthur’s Rubicon: The 38th Parallel
8. Eighth Army, X Corps, and the Chinese “First Phase Offensive”
9. The Chinese “Second Phase Offensive”: Part I
10. The Chinese “Second Phase Offensive”: Part II
11. Attacking in another direction
12. Assessing the blame
This book is about the blame that for over a three-quarters century has been heaped on General of the Army Douglas MacArthur for the Chinese Communist intervention in the Korean War during October-November 1950, resulting in X Corps and Eighth Army being driven south from the vicinity of the Yalu River to the line of the 38th Parallel.
The argument of this book is that blaming MacArthur is unjust because
American civilian and military authorities—organizations—had failed to: (1) Learn, that from the Chinese perspective, the Communists had compelling reasons to intervene; (2) Anticipate, that because of those reasons, and the way the Chinese would have to fight, their intervention needed to be on a massive scale, and (3) Adapt, American forces’ response to the Chinese strategy and tactics.
If any of the recipients of today’s blog are acquainted with a veteran who served in Korea between June 1950 and July 1953, or with some military history buffs, I would appreciate your sending them this announcement.
The entire book is on my website—www.henrymarkholzer.com—and this link should take an interested reader to it: click here
The book is 167 pages, and offered at no charge.