“…absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”; an axiom attributed to Lord John Dalberg-Acton; a sentiment which informed the United States Constitutional Convention; and the validity of which is empirically demonstrated by all levels of the US judiciary.
The lie that both democrats and republicans would have Americans believe is that the United States Supreme Court (scotus) is the “law of the land”; it is not. In fact Article VI of the US Constitution states:
This means that judges are not free to apply any standard of fairness, morality or propriety that is not codified in law; not case law or precedence, which are nothing more than prior court decisions and do not constitute law.
The basis for the lie was when John Marshall refused to be bound by a law he perceived to be a philosophical contradiction between the Constitution and The Judiciary Act of 1789 ,which not only; in his view, invalidated the law, but also warranted that the court be empowered to decide whether or not a law should be allowed to stand; the concept of “judicial review”.
The Constitution, however, has never been amended to so empower the court; because to do so would subjugate the legislature to the judiciary; and the alleged offending precept; Section 13 of The Judiciary Act; has never been modified except as it is affected by the 11th amendment to the Constitution, which in addition to not codifying the notion of judicial review, promulgates jurisdictional limitations on the power of the court; and effectively establishes that the court is not empowered to arbitrate every dispute.
Notwithstanding, the court has presumed to exercise so called judicial review; writing opinions to mimic legitimate legislation, alluding that it has the power to invalidate duly enacted legislation simply by declaring it unconstitutional; which of course it does not.
Article I of the Constitution empowers the states to regulate and conduct their own elections; under the 10th amendment states have the power to regulate marriage, abortion, moral turpitude, firearms, etc..
Section 34 of The Judiciary Act instructs courts to defer to the applicable state law unless the law is repugnant to the Constitution, in which case the court can disregard the offending law in deciding the case before the court; but the law remains intact unless and until repealed by the respective legislature.
Therefore the judicial branch exceeded its constitutional authority in Gore v Bush; Citizens United v FEC; Lawrence v Texas . It blatantly violated Article VI of the Constitution in Perry v Schwarzenegger and Windsor v US by refusing to be bound by United States law; to wit the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Marriage is clearly the purview of the state, but congress has a duty and responsibility to define what the federal government considers marriage for the purposes of access to federal benefits and resources that are predicated on marital status.
The corrupt practice of ignoring the law, deferring instead to a judge’s personal opinion is rapidly infecting the entire judicial branch. So called “hate crime” legislation violates the equal protection clause by more severely punishing some Americans because their thoughts or beliefs are deemed offensive.
Currently courts inferior to scotus are attempting to direct the operation of the executive branch in the enforcement of the law. The courts have no constitutional authority over the executive branch nor is directing the activities of any component of the executive branch a remedy available to the court in any case.
Every republican and democrat politician who says scotus is the law of the land; or defers to scotus to define the law; or thinks that Roe v Wade can be overturned is lying to you; and perhaps themselves, and should be voted out of office as soon as possible.