Resolve to make intelligent choices

Selecting a candidate based on party affiliation and or purported position on a particular issue is an exercise in futility. The practice consistently yields an inert congress; primarily because the congressional members know more about winning elections than legislating. The paramount qualification any candidate must have is a working knowledge of the United States Constitution. Despite the numerous members of congress carrying concealed copies of the Constitution; and the oral floor  readings of the Constitution, none of the current members of congress has demonstrated apprehension.

The first statement of the first article of the United States Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…”. This statement is unequivocal, unambiguous and unqualified. It means that the Supreme Court of the United States has no Constitutional authority to make or invalidate Federal law.

The term supreme, as applied to the court, means supreme relative to the courts of the several states; not relative to the other branches of government. During the conventions to draft the Constitution, congress was envisioned as the supreme legislature and the president as the supreme governor; all intended to denote supremacy over state government, within the context of the Constitution,

The convention contemplated, at length, the notion of “judicial review”. It determined that having the judiciary involved in legislation on which it would later rule was clearly a corruption of the separation of powers which is the founding premise upon which our government is based. The convention opted instead for the presidential veto with a provision for congressional override. This method offered checks and balances on both the legislature and the executive without compromising the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Congress has customarily deferred  to the Supreme Court  on issues of constitutionality, however, the Supreme Court, with increasing regularity and without compunction, abuses the privilege, declaring laws unconstitutional using sources extraneous to the Constitution, and awarding remedies (dignity, for example) which clearly are not founded on the Constitution; and it is facilitated by a congress whose every move is predicated on how it will look in the next campaign.

The delegates who attended the convention to draft the Constitution were not capricious. Records of the convention indicate diversity of thought; honest, earnest debate, and profound contemplation resulted in the Constitution they eventually signed. Once ratified, no letters, papers, notes or speeches could be considered Constitutional except as prescribed in Article V of the Constitution.

Some may say that, as a Constitutional scholar, President Obama would know if the court did not have the power to invalidate an Act of Congress. The fact is President Obama does know and he tested congress to see if it knew; it did not. Virginia Phillips, a district court judge in California, issued a ruling ordering the armed forces of the United States to cease enforcement of the law known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).  However, she delayed execution of the order to give Obama time to bluff congress; which he did. He told congress it would be in its best interest to act rather than have the court act for it; and believing the court had that power, congress repealed DADT.

The fact is, had congress not repealed DADT it would still be the law today; because in addition to vesting all legislative power in the congress, Article I of the Constitution also vests sole authority to raise and regulate land and naval forces in the congress. The judiciary has no authority to regulate the armed forces. Similarly, unless and until congress repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it is still the law; and State laws which flow from it are in fact constitutional.

The judiciary has commandeered our country and we need congress to get it back.  We do not need liberals or conservatives or bipartisanship; we need Americans who are as willing to fight for us here as they are willing  to send our sons and daughters off to fight for others; Americans committed to restoring legislative power to its constitutionally  designated repose.

Every congressional candidate in 2014 and beyond should be asked to acknowledge that the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to invalidate (strike down) congressional legislation; or to show, in the Constitution,   where it does have that power. That is how we separate the statesmen from the professional campaigners. That is how we begin to take our country back.


6 thoughts on “LITMUS TEST FOR 2014

  1. Pingback: THE MAN WHO WON’T BE PRESIDENT | thepundit456

  2. While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly state that the Supreme Court has that power, it would be a hard pressed fight to change it. After Marbury vs. Mason in 1803, the Court affirmed that in order to uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution, they could only do so if a law could be declared unconstitutional under judicial review.

    Judicial review was also commonly practiced throughout the fledgling nation, where state courts would overturn laws that went against the state Constitutions.

    Since it appears to be common law for judges to be able to exercise this authority, the problem therein lies with the fact that activist judges are the real issue, not to mention a complacent Congress. There is a check to ensuring the Supreme Court doesn’t do what it has been (essentially legislating from the bench), and that is the impeachment process.

    All federally appointed offices can be impeached. So when an activist judge goes against the actual Constitution, the job of the Congress is to be the balance and impeach the judge. If Congress would have a spine, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    • I would very much appreciate it if you would direct me to that portion of the Constitution that provides for or recognizes “common law” as an adjunct to it.
      If the court found itself unable to perform its duties as prescribed in the Constitution that case would have to be made to congress which would take action in accordance with Article V if and as appropriate.
      To date the constitution has not been so amended; so like any contract not amended to reflect different intentions or understandings, the Constitution. as written, must prevail.

  3. Pingback: CONGRESS FAILS AMERICA YET AGAIN | thepundit456

  4. Pingback: PEOPLE FOR WHOM YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE | thepundit456


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s