"It might be time the judiciary is either reigned in or eliminated completely. They are way outside their lane right now, and have become a defacto politburo. Truthfully - I can't stand them any longer. Most we don't vote for. They are appointed by idiots with an agenda."
Many of us have learned way back when, our system of government has three equal parts to it. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial. As we got older, and maybe had the chance to hear a Constitutional speaker or two, we found out what we learned in school was dead wrong. We do not have three equal parts to our government. Far from it, as a matter of fact.
The real action should be taking place in the legislative branch. That is the way the Constitution framed it. Article One is very clear about the power of the legislature. It is huge. The framers (under the guidance of General Washington) did not want a king. If they did, Washington would have never taken the job as President. The powers of the President are substantial, but are shallow compared to the legislature. Way, way down in distant third place is the judiciary. A necessary evil. Its job was to ensure the laws passed are in harmony with the Constitution. Period.
Today however, we live in a upside-down world. President Obama did not want to be President. He wanted to be a king, and governed like it. For reasons which are obvious to many, he got away with it. Most people would not have gotten away with what he did, but he was "historic". He ended up almost ruining the government. If Hillary has succeeded him, many feel the government would have indeed been lost.
But the judicial branch right now is what is worrying many. We have three jurists on the Supreme Court who don't really care for America. In fact, one goes overseas and implores foreigners not to use our Constitution as a guide. SMH.
Then this past week, a judge ruled that President Trump could not enforce our amnesty laws they way they are written. Huh? Trump does not want mobs of people storming our border to DEMAND amnesty. Instead, he wants them to apply for amnesty at points of entry, as they are suppose to do. However, some slack jawed judge just overruled the President. Obviously, that liberal judge prefers mayhem and mob rule instead of law and order.
Also this week, a judge in Detroit ruled that FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is Constitutional. WTH? In which land judge? I know there are a lot of recent immigrants now living in Detroit, but have we switched to Sharia Law already? FGM is torturous and cruel. It is mid-evil. It is the lowest of the low in how a woman should be treated. That is, in civilized countries. This ruling made me sick.
It might be time the judiciary is either reigned in or eliminated completely. They are way outside their lane right now, and have become a defacto politburo. Truthfully - I can't stand them any longer. Most we don't vote for. They are appointed by idiots with an agenda.
Some day in my lifetime, I hope we can start governing once again the way the Constitution intended us to. Right now, we are way off base. Better than the Obama years, but still way off base.
If you read the FGM decision, it is EXACTLY what you would want of it. It proclaims that there is no basis in the commerce clause of our federal constitution for a federal law on this; it belongs to the States. I find it amazing that, for all the stretches the Commerce Clause has undergone so the Feds can usurp State and Individual Rights, this one outrageous practice is NOT the one that seems a stretch too far. I mean, Obamacare was covered. What can you NOT cover with that clause?
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke, in his _Second Treatise_, gave primacy to the legislative branch.
ReplyDeleteAs for the judiciary--I'm reminded of a famous idea which seems to have appeared in several famous quotes through US history. Here's a relevant version:
In the 1949 case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.
Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
--en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact
A judge who insists otherwise should be removed.
The problem we have is with the definition of "liberty with order." Liberals believe in liberty for each to define their own moral code, and find they need a heavy dose of government-enforced "order" to impose morality (theirs) on everybody else. Conservatives believe there is a higher moral order to which everyone should ascribe freely, and that government "order" is only needed for those who will not govern themselves by it.
ReplyDelete"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
When we have Supreme Court justices who don't revere the Constitution, much less uphold it, it's a sure sign that our government is off the rails.
ReplyDeleteExample, please?
Delete