Justin Paul Dreiling v. United States

Can the People rely upon the plain language of the law to exercise their Constitutional Rights? Or must the People succumb to egregious precedents of this Court in error? This question is the true issue before this petition. No inferior court has disproven the fact that Dreiling has done nothing but follow the plain language of the law. He has been denied justice as the inferior courts were unwilling to follow the plain lan­ guage of the law over Supreme Court error. “If the Constitution ever perishes, it will be, when the Judi­ ciary shall have become feeble and inert, and either unwilling or unable to perform the solemn duties im­ posed upon it by the original structure of the Govern­ ment.” Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Consti­ tution of the United States, §305 (1840). The questions presented are:

1. Do individual judges have the Constitutional authority and judicial power to follow the plain lan­ guage of the law, or is vertical stare decisis absolute regardless of egregious precedents?

2. Did this Court exercise its will in United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 (1889) instead of the plain lan­ guage of the law — the clear intent of Congress?

3. Do Dreiling’s original claims satisfy the plain language of the Tucker Act, and if so, is he entitled to rely upon that plain language?