,,,AND YOU BELIEVE US
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887) is an oft repeated quote, from Lord John Dalberg-Acton; because its validity endures. Nowhere is this axiom more manifestly attested than the Supreme Court of the United States (scotus).
The constitutional convention was cognizant of the corruptible dynamic of human nature. In its Letter of Transmittal of the US Constitution to the President of congress, it wrote,
“The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the General Government of the Union; but the impropriety (emphasis added) of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a different organization.”
That organization was a separation of powers; three distinct, symbiotic but immutably separate powers. The notion that the supreme court has the power to usurp congress reflects the arrogance of the man who conceived it; and his disdain for the US Constitution itself; United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall.
In the case of MARBURY v. MADISON, (1803), Marshall wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Although Marshall’s philosophical argument, in support of his assertion, is arguably not without merit, it is moot as a Constitutional matter because it is inherently antithetical to the Constitution. “To say what the law is” is to in effect “make law”. The US Constitution states that,
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”.
This unequivocally establishes that it is “emphatically the province and duty” of congress, not the judiciary, to make law.
The US Constitution was not valid until it was ratified by the states; the states ratified the US Constitution with the stated dictum that “all” power to make law was vested in congress; their elected representatives.
Marshall had no authority to alter the US Constitution nor any federal laws which flowed therefrom. He was bound by oath to adjudicate within the provisions of the US Constitution and the laws of the United States, as they existed, notwithstanding any real or philosophical incongruence. Moreover, Marshal’s remedy is not one constitutionally at the court’s disposal. The court could simply have refused to issue the writ; which it did; and refer the matter to congress for resolution.Indeed that is probably what any other justice would have done.
Marshal, however, apparently intuited that the newness of the legislature and the nature of the dispute before the court offered perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity for a coup by the judiciary.
Inasmuch as Marshall, in support of his opinion, repeatedly referred to and relied upon the practices of monarchies and “other constitutions”, it can be assumed that he had an affinity for a monarchial form of government; particularly if he could be king. His bloodless coup succeeded because most Americans; including congress; did not know exactly what a federalist democracy looked like. The facade created by a congress and a president obscured the fact that the court was actually ruling the country.
There is an inherent injustice when the body empowered to adjudicate is also empowered to legislate which is why the US Constitutional Convention never created such an entity. Such a body, as the Roberts’ court has manifestly demonstrated, has no compunction about changing the law, at will, to effect a desired outcome.
The US Constitution imposes certain legislative prohibitions on the congress; as the only body empowered by it to make law, to protect the rights of the people and the sovereignty of the states. The court is not bound by these constraints because it is not empowered to legislate. Therefore the people are denied all constitutional protections when the court presumes to legislate; they enjoy only the rights the court chooses to recognize.
The Supreme Court of the United States has no power except as conferred by the United States Constitution. The US Constitution does not empower the court to legislate; nor amend, expand, repeal or otherwise invalidate any federal law or Act of Congress. The Constitution does not provide for precedent to establish a law or a right; which ironically is the premise upon which the court presumed to ignore precedent when it chose to redefine marriage. Therefore regardless of how long the court has unconstitutionally exercised this power, it is still unconstitutional. The latest actions by the Roberts’ court and its planned future exploits indicate the court is becoming more arrogant, aggressive and dismissive of the Constitutiion; which means the worst is yet to come.
Members of the court, particularly those of advanced age, seem compelled by a desire to leave a mark on society. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for instance, has intimated a view that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is obsolete.. She will no doubt be in the market for a case in which she can make such a declaration.
We do no need any more bills, or acts, or amendments, or any action by the president; we simply need congress to order the court to cease and desist. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to impeach and try any and all members of the judiciary who fail to comply; and if convicted remove them from office and terminate all rights, privileges and benefits predicated on honorable service.
Regardless of party, caucus or constituency; with every American having a vested interest in the restoration of the separation of powers; this is the opportunity for unanimous “bipartisan” effort to serve present and future Americans.
Every member of congress took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution vests “all: legislative power in the congress. Any member of congress who doubts that congress is empowered by the US Constitution to legislate unfettered by the judiciary; or, who supports the continued congressional ceding of legislative power to the court, either does not know or does not support the US Constitution and is therefore unfit to serve.
“The American People” are male and female; young and old; rich and poor; republican, democrat and other; black white, Asian, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, atheist and myriad other things. This is the one thing our elected representatives can do that truly serves “The American People”; not just the American people who think as they do.