John H. Page v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States

The Question: Can a federal court dismiss a case based on lack of jurisdiction over relief that wasn’t re­ quested, despite it being empowered to order POTUS to correct a ministerial error that blocks the guarantee of representation which is the foundation of United States government? For context, this court already affirmed in Adams u. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) that it is im­ possible for the Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 District of Columbia to be Columbia’s State for the purposes of representation in Congress1 and the constitutionally guaranteed State representation rights of Columbia persons survived its cession in 1801.2 Petitioner asked for the correction of the list of States, he has not asked for apportionment. 1 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) affirmed (emphasis added): “As originally provided under Article I, section 3, the Senate was to be “composed of two Senators from each State,” chosen not “by the People of the several States,” as in the case of the House, but rather “by the Legislature thereof.” U.S. CONST, art. I, § 3, cl. 1 (emphasis added). The impossibility of treating Congress as the legislature under that clause is manifest, as doing so would mean that Congress would itself choose the District’s senators.” 2 Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) affirmed, section B, emphasis added: “From the foregoing, it is apparent that the cession transaction could not lawfully terminate or effec­ tively waive the right of “persons” ceded, particularly the 1790-1800 voters, to voting representation in the House of Representatives. Nor could the cession preclude voting representation of the “persons to be” in the ceded area.”