This Guy Is Smarter Than Any Of Us Recognized!

[PoliticalChic]

4. This will come as a surprise to government school grads: The only document by which Americans have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'
It is written in English, so as to be able to be understood by all citizens.

Hence, it is more than a stretch to claim it need be ‘interpreted’ by some special individuals in black robes.

The Constitution has always required interpretation. The first Chief Justice of the United States was one of the founding fathers and the first case was decided in 1791, just 3 years after the Constitution was ratified.

So.....you don't read English???


What you are conflating with reading English is the theft of powers not authorized to the Court.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

 

[Crepitus]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

You gullible idiot, it's not his plan, it's McConnell's. Well his and the federalist society's.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

You gullible idiot, it's not his plan, it's McConnell's. Well his and the federalist society's.

Soooo.....it's President McConnell????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review the facts that explain the course of the Court and the country.



5. Focus your attention on the Left turn that the government made under Democrat/Progressive Woodrow Wilson. Rather than the people being governed by elected representatives, the three branches, “Woodrow Wilson gave the administrative state its rationale: he held that government by nonpartisan, public-spirited, Ivy League–trained experts making rules in such agencies as the Federal Trade Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission would be infinitely wiser, more efficient, and more responsive to changing conditions and the evolving spirit of the age than the Framers’ government of limited and separated powers, a clockwork relic in the electricity age.


….ever since the New Deal supersized Wilson’s system, administrative agencies have multiplied like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s brooms, so that federal regulations now spill out of 240 volumes—and not only overregulated businessmen, infrastructure planners, and a few law professors, but also Supreme Court justices, have begun to wonder by what legitimate authority unelected bureaucrats can make rules like a legislature, carry them out like an executive, and adjudicate and punish infractions of them like a judiciary, usurping powers that the Constitution places solely in the Congress, the president, and the courts, with no two powers concentrated in the same hands.” The Court Moves Right




The rationale is that the United States, the government itself, and the contemporary issues themselves, have become too big to be covered by the 18th century documents.
Where does the Constitution allow for governance by bureaucrats, and not be considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau?


Whether called bureaucrats, agencies....kings, czars, dictators or Justices......how did unelected individuals come to rule American citizens??????

 

[alang1216]

So.....you don't read English???

I read American!

What you are conflating with reading English is the theft of powers not authorized to the Court.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

The "theft of powers not authorized to the Court" has been going on from the beginning (give or take a few years):

Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.​

A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

I was under the impression you loved the Constitution and thought the Founding Fathers were geniuses, I stand corrected. You seem to want to remove the third branch of government, the judiciary, and do what with it, put it under the legislative or executive branches? That would leave us just 2 branches and a certain end to the US as we know it. Putin must be smiling at you right now.

 

[bodecea]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

Actually, trumpanzees are stupider than we thought they could possibly be.

 

[alang1216]

Let's review the facts that explain the course of the Court and the country.



5. Focus your attention on the Left turn that the government made under Democrat/Progressive Woodrow Wilson. Rather than the people being governed by elected representatives, the three branches, “Woodrow Wilson gave the administrative state its rationale: he held that government by nonpartisan, public-spirited, Ivy League–trained experts making rules in such agencies as the Federal Trade Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission would be infinitely wiser, more efficient, and more responsive to changing conditions and the evolving spirit of the age than the Framers’ government of limited and separated powers, a clockwork relic in the electricity age.


….ever since the New Deal supersized Wilson’s system, administrative agencies have multiplied like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s brooms, so that federal regulations now spill out of 240 volumes—and not only overregulated businessmen, infrastructure planners, and a few law professors, but also Supreme Court justices, have begun to wonder by what legitimate authority unelected bureaucrats can make rules like a legislature, carry them out like an executive, and adjudicate and punish infractions of them like a judiciary, usurping powers that the Constitution places solely in the Congress, the president, and the courts, with no two powers concentrated in the same hands.” The Court Moves Right




The rationale is that the United States, the government itself, and the contemporary issues themselves, have become too big to be covered by the 18th century documents.
Where does the Constitution allow for governance by bureaucrats, and not be considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau?


Whether called bureaucrats, agencies....kings, czars, dictators or Justices......how did unelected individuals come to rule American citizens??????

Those bureaucrats you rant about work for the executive branch and carry out the mandates of the President or Congress. Both of them are elected. The bureaucrats execute policy, they don't make it unless that authority is delegated to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....you don't read English???

I read American!

What you are conflating with reading English is the theft of powers not authorized to the Court.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

The "theft of powers not authorized to the Court" has been going on from the beginning (give or take a few years):

Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.​

A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

I was under the impression you loved the Constitution and thought the Founding Fathers were geniuses, I stand corrected. You seem to want to remove the third branch of government, the judiciary, and do what with it, put it under the legislative or executive branches? That would leave us just 2 branches and a certain end to the US as we know it. Putin must be smiling at you right now.

"I read American!"


And that statement is explained by your former statement:

So…you’re a government school grad?

“Yes I am (and my wife and kids are too) and I'm not ashamed of it. “

Easy To Convince The Uneducated

 

[PoliticalChic]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

Actually, trumpanzees are stupider than we thought they could possibly be.

I couldn't have stereotyped Democrats/Leftists/Liberals better than this quote from a poster of that cult.

Not a word about the OP to which it linked, and was clearly irked.



This may explain the post....

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"
Coulter

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review the facts that explain the course of the Court and the country.



5. Focus your attention on the Left turn that the government made under Democrat/Progressive Woodrow Wilson. Rather than the people being governed by elected representatives, the three branches, “Woodrow Wilson gave the administrative state its rationale: he held that government by nonpartisan, public-spirited, Ivy League–trained experts making rules in such agencies as the Federal Trade Commission or the Interstate Commerce Commission would be infinitely wiser, more efficient, and more responsive to changing conditions and the evolving spirit of the age than the Framers’ government of limited and separated powers, a clockwork relic in the electricity age.


….ever since the New Deal supersized Wilson’s system, administrative agencies have multiplied like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice’s brooms, so that federal regulations now spill out of 240 volumes—and not only overregulated businessmen, infrastructure planners, and a few law professors, but also Supreme Court justices, have begun to wonder by what legitimate authority unelected bureaucrats can make rules like a legislature, carry them out like an executive, and adjudicate and punish infractions of them like a judiciary, usurping powers that the Constitution places solely in the Congress, the president, and the courts, with no two powers concentrated in the same hands.” The Court Moves Right




The rationale is that the United States, the government itself, and the contemporary issues themselves, have become too big to be covered by the 18th century documents.
Where does the Constitution allow for governance by bureaucrats, and not be considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau?


Whether called bureaucrats, agencies....kings, czars, dictators or Justices......how did unelected individuals come to rule American citizens??????

Those bureaucrats you rant about work for the executive branch and carry out the mandates of the President or Congress. Both of them are elected. The bureaucrats execute policy, they don't make it unless that authority is delegated to them.

"Those bureaucrats you rant about work for the executive branch and carry out the mandates of the President or Congress."

No they don't.

They have become law and government unto themselves.


"...the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions."
James Buckley

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. As for the argument that things have gotten too darn big for the sort of government authorized by the Founders and the Constitution….. Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect.

And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

And, in the very same way, the requirement should be that all elected officials, in the Congress and the Executive avow that every bill they agree to is authorized by the words and principles of the Constitution.


It is only the Constitution that is the law of the land....not judicial opinion, not caselaw, not good intentions.

 

[Flash]

That guy, Trump.
Or, maybe he’s inspired.

Seems he answered this question: how to leave an indelible trajectory for America?


Well, not just by winning the presidency, or reforming the economy....but by reforming the judiciary!
Tweets notwithstanding, Trump didn’t brag that this was his plan….maybe is most important secret plan.


1."By the numbers overall (including Phipps), Trump has nominated and had confirmed:

Supreme Court: 2

Courts of Appeals: 43

District/Specialty Courts: 85


Trump is running out of Court of Appeals vacancies to fill, in part a result of his focus on filling those critical slots:

Current and known future vacancies: 141

Courts of Appeals: 6

District/Specialty Courts*: 135

Pending nominees for current and known future vacancies: 58

Courts of Appeals: 2

District/Specialty Courts*: 56"
Liberal nightmare: Takeover of federal judiciary by "larval Scalias is devastatingly close to completion"



2.“…the advent of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has reshaped the Supreme Court enough to stop such despondent talk. While the decisions announced at the end of the Court’s term in June, marking the first year with both new justices on the bench, don’t amount to a stampede toward the Right, they display a wholesome focus on what the Constitution and statutes actually say.
The Nine are “redirecting the judge’s interpretive task back to its roots, away from open-ended policy appeals and speculation about legislative intentions and toward the traditional tools of interpretation that judges have employed for centuries to elucidate the law’s original public meaning,” Gorsuch explained in a June opinion. “Today, it is even said that we judges are, to one degree or another, ‘all textualists now.’ ” And that’s already a quiet revolution.” The Court Moves Right


This would be the greatest gift any President could provide.


3.Consider the opposite view, in the words of Chief Justice Hughes:
“The Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Correct? Or hubris?

Unfortunately in politics we never get what we want, we only get what we deserve.

Trump was elected to disrupt and he is doing it. Just like Dubya's invasion of Iraq, we'll have to live with Trump's legacy for a generation and I don't think history will be kind to us.

Trump's real legacy will be to overturn a lot of the damage done by that Obama asshole and he is doing a good job.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....you don't read English???

I read American!

What you are conflating with reading English is the theft of powers not authorized to the Court.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

The "theft of powers not authorized to the Court" has been going on from the beginning (give or take a few years):

Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.​

A series of essays, written under the name ‘Brutus,’ warned of exactly the situation we find ourselves in today:

“…they have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them,to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
Brutus, March 20, 1788
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

I was under the impression you loved the Constitution and thought the Founding Fathers were geniuses, I stand corrected. You seem to want to remove the third branch of government, the judiciary, and do what with it, put it under the legislative or executive branches? That would leave us just 2 branches and a certain end to the US as we know it. Putin must be smiling at you right now.

"Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

The authority for same does not exist.


The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

 

[alang1216]

"Those bureaucrats you rant about work for the executive branch and carry out the mandates of the President or Congress."

No they don't.

They have become law and government unto themselves.

If that is true, and I don't believe it is, it would be a failure of the President since he fills the top spot in just about every executive branch office.

Trump didn't care for his first AG but it was HIS appointment. Truman accepted the buck, does Trump?

 

[alang1216]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

Did you miss this revelation???


"the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law."


It's made up......yet you wrote this:

"Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, ..."


Pretty much an admission of your ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

"Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution."


I can't believe how stupid you are.

The Court doesn't enforce anything.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded when the court disagreed with him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ..

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Originalist, textualist Justices, the sort we hope Trump continues to install, will rebel against, or at least, impede, and reject bureaucrats making and enforcing their own rules, regulations, laws.



A Justice speaking up for governance by those we elect:

“…precisely the tyranny that the Founders fought a revolution to repel, since they wanted not to be ruled but to govern themselves by laws that their own representatives had made in their name. It’s the suspicion that rule by experts, however enlightened, embodies precisely this arbitrary government that makes constitutional conservatives so wary of the administrative state.


In this spirit, writes Gorsuch, the Court can’t allow “other branches to usurp [its] power to interpret and apply the law to the circumstance before it,” as Auer deference [to bureaucrats and agencies] requires.

To give executive-branch agencies the power not only to make rules—that is, to legislate—but also to adjudicate transgressions of them, Gorsuch notes, is exactly what Hamilton warned against in Federalist 78: “there is no liberty if the power of judgment be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”
The Court Moves Right



Trump has declared a silent war against the Progressive bureaucracy….for America.

 

[alang1216]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

"Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution."


I can't believe how stupid you are.

The Court doesn't enforce anything.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded when the court disagreed with him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ..

I didn't realize you were an anarchist too. So if New York decides to outlaw ALL guns, you wouldn't want anything to stop them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.

Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution. The legislature can pass any law, e.g., outlawing ALL guns, and the president can pretty much do whatever he or she wishes, e.g., shut down Congress. The US would cease to exist as a democracy, much to the glee of many.

"Without the Judicial Branch there is nothing to protect or enforce the Constitution."


I can't believe how stupid you are.

The Court doesn't enforce anything.

President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded when the court disagreed with him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it! ..

I didn't realize you were an anarchist too. So if New York decides to outlaw ALL guns, you wouldn't want anything to stop them?

Did you want to point out where the Constitution provides for.....judicial review, or enforcement by the judiciary of their decisions???

Both were your claims......or are you ready to admit that you are simply one more government school dunce?



The judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

So saith the Constitution.


See the disadvantage you live under, never having read a book???