Home Tournaments Calendar Weather Merchandise Sponsors

Go Back   Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum > The Spearboard Tavern > Politics/Religion Forum

Politics/Religion Forum This special place is for threads that are primarily on political or religious subjects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-28-2017, 02:04 PM   #1
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 61
Posts: 5,631
We're down to one branch of government

How did we reach the place where nobody knows what the "law of the land" is until the Supreme Court rules? How did the Supreme Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

The Founders crafted a Constitution that establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: a legislative branch to pass laws, an executive branch to enforce them, and a judicial branch to use those laws to settle disputes.

Although the standard mantra is that they were designed to be "co-equal" branches of government, that's not what the Founders intended. The legislative branch is intended to be the supreme branch of government, since it and it alone has the authority to make laws.

The very first words in the Constitution, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine):

"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."

The word "all" in the phrase "all legislative Powers" means all. As in every last little bit. According to the Founders' Constitution, then, how much legislative power does the executive branch have? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It's the job of the executive branch to implement laws, not to make them.

More to the point, how much legislative power does the judicial branch have, according to the Founders' Constitution? Zip. Zilch. Nada. It has been given absolutely zero authority to make law, to change law, or to rewrite law. It is thus impossible, if we are governed by the Founders' Constitution, for the Supreme Court ever to create "the law of the land" about anything whatsoever. A Supreme Court "opinion" (that's what the Supreme Court itself calls them – not "rulings" or "laws" but "opinions") cannot possibly under any faithful construction of the Constitution create law.

Is abortion "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. Is same-sex marriage "the law of the land?" Absolutely not. The Court was never, ever given that kind of power by the Founders' Constitution.

So how did we reach the place where nobody knows what the "law of the land" is until the Supreme Court rules? How did we get to the place where we all must hold our breath and cross our fingers and hope the Court stumbles into the truth? How did the Court acquire so much blatantly unconstitutional and immoral power? The answer is easy: the Court stole it.

And we let them do it. And we continue to let them get away with it.

The root of this pernicious state of affairs goes all the way back to 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall invented the concept of "judicial review" magically out of the ether. There is no place in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is given the authority to decide what the law is and to decide what laws are constitutional and which ones aren't.

Two recent and glaring overreaches of the federal judiciary exemplify this twisted state of affairs. One is the ruling by a low-level, bottom-rung district judge in San Francisco setting aside the president's completely lawful executive order suspending immigration from six jihadi-prone Muslim nations. This judge paralyzed the entire government of the United States with no constitutional warrant or justification and made us vulnerable to terrorism at the same time. And everybody let him do it. Then another federal judge in Hawaii did the same thing. And everybody let him get away with it, too.

Then a federal judge in Northern California, William Orrick, forbade the Department of Justice to withhold grants from jurisdictions which proudly and defiantly break federal law by harboring illegal alien criminals and refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement. And again we as a nation let this self-appointed dictator shut down the wheels of government and endanger our national security. (It's worthy of note that Judge Orrick uttered not a word of complaint when President Obama threatened to withhold federal grants from school districts which did not allow grown men to shower with young girls.)

These two cases make it clear that the federal judiciary, stacked and packed by President Obama, is no longer in the business of rendering impartial rulings. No, it is in the business of advancing the progressive agenda no matter how badly judges have to twist and contort and mangle the law and the Constitution to do it. It is not Donald Trump who is trampling the rule of law and the Constitution, it is these arrogant and out-of-control oligarchs in black robes.

The bottom line is that we no longer have even the pretense of three separate and co-equal branches of government. No, we have only one branch of government that counts, one branch of government that rules the other two branches with an iron fist. One branch of government which contemptuously allows the other two branches what limited freedom they see fit to grant. But when it comes to all-important decisions, federal judges have the unmitigated arrogance to think they get to decide every issue of significance for the rest of us – and we just have to lump it, no matter how outrageous their opinions are.

The only solution I see is for duly elected officials with constitutionally vested power to start ignoring these tyrannical judges. That's not civil disobedience, it's constitutional obedience. The judges are the ones engaging in civil disobedience by trashing the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution.

If President Trump were to direct immigration officials to refuse admission to Syrian refugees, what could anybody do about it? These judges could huff and puff and bloviate, but there is not a single thing they could do to stop it. They have no police force they can summon to enforce their opinions, by the design of the Founders as a limit on their power. If the federal judiciary can thumb its nose at the law and the Constitution, then it's perfectly permissible, in fact necessary, for President Trump to thumb his nose at them.

And if Attorney General Sessions simply refuses to issue Department of Justice grants to cities that harbor illegal alien felons, what could Judge Orrick do about it? Precisely nothing. He could huff and puff and threaten to blow Trump's White House down, but it would be nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.

The best thing the president could do to restore our constitutional republic would be to issue orders to immigration officials to stop the flow of Syrian refugees and immigrants from jihadi-prone Muslim nations, and direct Attorney General Sessions to withhold DOJ grants from civilly disobedient sanctuary cities starting today. As in right now.

If President Trump has the courage to do it, we just might begin to get our Constitution and our country back.

https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspecti...campaign=29264
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 02:14 PM   #2
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 61
Posts: 5,631
Re: We're down to one branch of government

I might also add, that the legislature let them steal this power by not impeaching federal judges that usurped power that did not belong to them, either out of laziness, or a desire to pass the buck of responsibility to the courts for bad policies that they secretly favored, but knew that if they passed them, they would be crucified in the next election.

The courts have been the biggest usurpers of the will of the people that this country has ever known.

It is reported that when The Supreme Court made a decision in Worcester vs Georgia, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 02:18 PM   #3
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 61
Posts: 5,631
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Please do not start a debate here about the ruling of Worcester v. Georgia and the issue of Indian rights. That is another thread.

I want to discuss the over accumulation of power the judicial branch of government has acquired.
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 02:30 PM   #4
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 41
Posts: 5,911
Re: We're down to one branch of government

If only the problem rested solely or mostly with one branch.

What we really have is three branches acting mutually to enhance the power, wealth, and reach of The Regime.

But to be fair, that was essentially what the Constitution was designed to do, was it not? Elsewise, why replace The Articles?
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 02:54 PM   #5
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 41
Posts: 5,911
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Well worth the time;

http://www.heritage.org/political-pr...orse-you-think
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2017, 07:11 PM   #6
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 35,689
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Quote:
Originally Posted by mepps1 View Post
If only the problem rested solely or mostly with one branch.

What we really have is three branches acting mutually to enhance the power, wealth, and reach of The Regime.

But to be fair, that was essentially what the Constitution was designed to do, was it not? Elsewise, why replace The Articles?
Amen.
__________________
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~Jefferson
Marcus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 12:19 PM   #7
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 41
Posts: 5,911
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Trump's Futile Faith in His Market-Based Negotiating Skills

Gary North - April 29, 2017
Printer-Friendly Format
This was a bad week for anybody who believed for five nanoseconds that Donald Trump was going to get anything through Congress.

The vote on ObamaCare was postponed again. ObamaCare is now permanent. Trump is never going to get enough votes to replace it with something else, which would have been worse anyway. The monstrosity should be repealed. It should not be replaced by anything. But once the Democrats ram some welfare state policy down the throats of the Republicans, the Republicans never repeal it. Their constituents get their hands on money from Uncle Sugar, and they will not tolerate a repeal of the law which gives them access to the money. In other words, the voters like the welfare state as long as it benefits them. There is no philosophical opposition among the American people to the expansion of government wealth redistribution.

Then there is NAFTA. Trump campaigned on a promise to get this country out of bondage to NAFTA. This week, Trump said that he is going to stick with NAFTA. He is simply going to renegotiate parts of it. Big deal. Fat chance.

That law was a monstrosity from day one. Surrendering American sovereignty to some international organization is always a bad idea. From a philosophical standpoint, getting a better deal out of NAFTA is a bad idea. It means surrendering to the idea of the transfer of any national sovereignty to an unelected agency of the New World Order. A better deal can always be renegotiated later by another President to turn it into a worse deal. There is only one deal worth considering: getting out now. That deal is now off the table.

So, those conservatives who naïvely thought that Trump was going to get ObamaCare repealed now know that he isn't going to be able to do this. He doesn't have the votes in Congress. Congressional Republicans never have the stomach for repealing anything that the Democrats get passed into law. Other conservatives, who recognize that NAFTA has been a disaster philosophically, now know that they are not going to see the USA pull out of NAFTA.

ObamaCare is now going to go the way of all flesh. It is an economic disaster, and it is going to become a much worse economic disaster. The Democrats will get blamed, but not entirely. Because the Republicans have twice refused to overturn it, they now are up to their eyeballs in responsibility for it. The good news is this: when the Democrats come back into power during the next recession, they will probably not repeal it. Their fingerprints are all over it. Nancy Pelosi rammed it through the House of Representatives. The Democrats' Left wing wants a single-payer system where the government funds the whole thing, but the Left didn't get that through in 2010, and I don't think it's going to get it in the future. They may. Democrats may figure they have the votes, and they might as well replace ObamaCare with something much worse. But I think it is going to stay on the books. It is not full-scale socialized medicine.

I had thought that Trump might get us out of NAFTA. That was the only thing he promoted in his campaign that I thought he might pull off. Now, he has waffled. He is pretending that he has the ability to renegotiate bits and pieces of the law. I doubt that he has ever read the law. He thinks of himself as a negotiator. In politics, negotiations are not the same as they are in business. The criteria of success are different. Negotiations in business mean that people on both sides are trying to get money. Negotiations in politics mean that people on both sides are trying to get power. NAFTA already provides power to non-politicians. It was the transfer of power from politicians to faceless bureaucrats who are not elected. This is what the New World Order always wants. It is what it usually gets.

As long as the bureaucrats remain in control of policy, which is forever unless NAFTA is abandoned by the US government, they don't care if Trump gets this or that point renegotiated. Enforcement will always be in the hands of the bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats ignore the politicians except on rare occasions. The politicians are not in charge. The bureaucrats are in charge. That's why NAFTA is a disaster. It is going to remain a disaster.

The Trump Presidency is demonstrating clearly to anybody who bothers to pay attention that nothing is going to change in Washington, except possibly to get worse if he gets us into a war. Any hope that a Trump supporter has that anything fundamental is going to change in Washington is simply another example of people believing that the Punch and Judy show in Washington has anything to do with the real power in Washington, which is the power of unelected bureaucracy.

There are two ways to reduce the power bureaucracy. One is to cut their budgets. This is never done. Second, politicians can repeal the law that created the agency. This is also never done. The power of administrative law continues to expand. Congress is peripheral once it passes a law.

ObamaCcare is going to be funded. The Republicans are not going to repeal it. NAFTA is going to be funded. The Republicans are not going to repeal it.

Congressional Republicans are part of the system. There is no way that Trump or anybody else is going to get these people to vote against the welfare state. Once a law is on the books, Republicans are not going to repeal it. They have too many constituents in their districts with their arms into the loot up to their elbows or shoulders.

Trump is not philosophically committed to limited government. It would take a philosophically steadfast President to repeal ObamaCare and pull out of NAFTA. Trump is not a philosophically steadfast President.

So, sit back and watch the show. The liberal media hate Trump, despite the fact that he is impotent. They love Obama, despite the fact that he is visibly on the take of Wall Street, as his $400,000 speech indicates.

Anybody who believes that national politics will change anything significant will spend his whole life dreaming of victory, and then holding his nose when victory supposedly is achieved.

Printer-Friendly Format
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM   #8
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 61
Posts: 5,631
Re: We're down to one branch of government

So, it is hopeless.
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2017, 07:42 PM   #9
Marcus
Naval gazer extraordinair
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 35,689
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Pretty much. I think Styx sang it best, "You're fooling yourself and you don't believe it".
__________________
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~Jefferson
Marcus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 03:42 PM   #10
mepps1
Registered User
 
mepps1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gillette, WY
Age: 41
Posts: 5,911
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Star View Post
So, it is hopeless.
Politically, it certainly would seem so. Fortunately, all possible solutions are not political.
mepps1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 09:51 PM   #11
techwiz44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 508
Re: We're down to one branch of government

I'll just leave this link here...
Bat$hit crazy...

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/bar...-practice-law/
techwiz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2017, 11:51 PM   #12
North Star
Max
 
North Star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Oregon
Age: 61
Posts: 5,631
Re: We're down to one branch of government

Quote:
Originally Posted by techwiz44 View Post
I'll just leave this link here...
Bat$hit crazy...

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/bar...-practice-law/
Insanity. The courts are a laughingstock. They just make it up as they go along...
__________________
nec timor nec temeritas (neither fear nor foolhardiness.)
North Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:57 PM.


The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Social Media Forum Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2014 Spearboard.com