No. 20-6345

Thomas Reid DeCarlo v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-19
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-rights congressional-power constitutional-interpretation constitutional-supremacy due-process federal-constitution judicial-review legislative-acts legislative-process separation-of-powers
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2022-06-23 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Congress can override the Federal Constitution

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : Auestioas Oeseoterd ee a mber of C. t ‘de ( Costitution eee A) cf they cannot Override. the Federal Orastitutran mold thet make anu at these Acts done bs Durercieliag tho Federal Coastitutina Laualid 2 a On a In . : Ee a — _ a I TT a np ee nF ° a Tihle of Coateals | ee To piiaes Balan pealeg ic auld L Table af 4 thocifies Actus Vi Dunn, £197 Led ad 296, 2017 (4s LE's V2 ] , Chambers \ Baltinnre 2O.RCay AD? US 142,50 Led 143 (Noi, /907) Yf DeBacker \k Brainard, 346 US 98.40 Sed 163, QU LE 2d V8 (Nov. Meo 4/ Hawaii V.Markichi, 140 Us 97,97 Led 1616 Crane |, 903) _ 4 . Maincano V. Bellmore 40.8.0, D8 Us 26,53 Léd 19.2 CAreil $1909) 4 Marbury Ww Madison, Coanch 137, 2 Led 6b¢1203) tS _ Doden ViSaunders, If urhead 2130 Led lola a — Rasta y Caldberg, YER Us 67,101 Sef 260664 LELA 475 al The Lloited States VFisher chal, 2 Cranch 358,21EI 20Y . Thump ViVlance ID Set. 20/3; 202 L.Ed Zl 907, Ze0 us LEMS 3550 4 United States Vi Ballin, 44 Us 1,36 (Ed 22) C1992) 3 United States Vi Ru tee ALT us 1,90 Led 4270 Jan.4, 1986) | Statutes and Rules AZUSCS Qld! Ce) ee (€) An opplicatin tr the Supreme ( a of b, aust of cert are nt ty revfew 2. Case ; Ct bed: sme behee Rule I of the Supreme Court : ( ectiorari toa lnited States Court of Appeals belore judgement ? Rule 29 Ca CA) ; Spe Cl el. Notiticatisns _ I eee Sup creme Count of the United States Lian fe: Thomas Reid De Tarlo : Atty Let, OLO-Se._* Bhition Loe ae LIME of Cortierack order _ ARUSCE 2ld1Ce). Rules Mand £9. 6)(A) ; Comes nour Thoonas Reid DeCacls potitiaacs, orsse and unuld ask this Honncable Searee oust tr rant: this Alitin hased. on the late cation ocesentes! iacik. . : Teciscliction Stadennent _ _ . This Honora le Supreme. out of the Uniled. States and/or any Justice Hoorotore Is yesteel waith the. a thority under AB USCS [G51Ce ta tesne ell weits ne CesSarY or approp ae) ke in the cud fll pespochive ; wisdicttan onal ageechl be the Lasoge. aol principles of ntchy Ll Luther subrait this Pb ban usder this Harorable Suiprerne Courk ules Lh and ef 1A), (ie, court of appeals pending Case hy 20-5733, ( donstitutional and Statudney frowsistons inublved. Constitution's Article ZE 8 cls [t wi al Vlajority af each Chousel hes l constihale aruostum ty cb Business: bute seller Number Mau adjourn fron day te da 4. Coast Hon’ Artic el § 5 cls k' a Eady House. ea determine. the. hules al its Leecceaings. _ a { ‘anstit tion This Constifuhirn sus shall be phedepreme. Lawes of th eo Land. and the Tudges in every Stale. shell bebo and there we» The Senadnrs and Reoveseakd ives wn shall be bound be Oath ar Aeicinatinn _. te suppact dis Lactihitinn, a Stat cnc frovision | AS USCS 2/01 Ce) _. ae Ce) ‘An applica.tian ty the Steposenre Csuct bra weitat certs rari to preview a case belrra. ——aisdganeat bas. heen trades! in the caouct of appeal may be mule. ot any tions beloce juch wets dament, ene _ batted Shales £ )SConacessta cal lear ad > const fy Hoaal lanites hon. ee é li hossecl by the Federal ond bution its enactment st ody lous KS : predicated ot | Ya ‘citly bo Gn | genoa that the laxy is consh Lut tonal ( @ fs 849 95pa d ical 9 estinnconshtett onal ity — 2. The Uailed. 6 States Su arene On d has be dy to Pevle uw) the coach Haveli ol eget rel enaclmnerts: the Aorican syste sf op coment Legus 2s that Ledbocal coucks an ace aston ja fecpset the Federal Const bichon in & Mmonner at reactance woth dhe tanabruellsn given Phe dlacunce att by another branch aod the. alleged cont ict thed such an adiud: catlan fay Cause can nol pach the coucts auniding thete constihdiene! reapensibi liby. : Couds$ 95~ invalidedina of unconstibiddineal Statute, 3 The pcin ciple’ thal the cour, evil strike dows o bow hen bags b6 has passec! it in soled fon ofa. Cacaotand ol the Feder Cras tad 100. Applies reqattlless of whether Lhe canstib ty acl afouiscon ta gusstinn exoressly dose cibes the ect that Prllous from ifs vidla bina. __ 4 The fact that a giuen lous ac prscecure. is elliesad Conue

Docket Entries

2022-06-27
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2022-06-07
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2021-06-01
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2021-01-11
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 21, 2020)

Attorneys

Thomas Reid DeCarlo
Thomas Reid DeCarlo — Petitioner
Thomas Reid DeCarlo — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallSullivan & Cromwell LLP, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallSullivan & Cromwell LLP, Respondent