Thursday, August 04, 2016

If the Congress Is Enacting Unconstitutional Laws, Is There Not a Political Remedy?

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Early in the life of our nation, the Supreme Court abused its power to grant itself unconstitutional powers to legislate from the bench Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall authored the opinion of the Court, which abrogated the power of the people to amend the Constitution and make use of their representative government to legislate the law of the land, and took over these powers granting them to the Supreme Court itself.

Mashall wrote, inter alia,

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. [***] Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

President Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, later wrote,

"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim 'boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,' and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Justice Scalia, recently deceased, would not surrender the abusive assumption of this power by the Court. Nevertheless, Scalia sought to limit the Supreme Court to an originalist interpretation of the US Constitution whereby the Court had to interpret the Constitution based on the original wording and intent of the Framers. The jews on the Court reject Originalism, and assert that the Court has the right and duty to amend the Constitution by their decisions to reflect their individual bias and publicly claim that their bias is automatically and arbitrarily reflective of the Zeitgeist of the American People, without ever holding an election to determine the will of the American People, effectively using voo doo and telepathy to determine that their opinions are automatically reflective of the will of the People simply because they say so. In other words, the Supreme Court under the jews mandates the law to the American People, thereby declaring that the will of the American People does not matter and does not have a voice because the Supreme Court declares for itself and on its own behalf the supreme law of the land, tossing both the Constitution and Congressional legislation into the trash bin, and replacing them with their individual opinions.

A better solution to a Congress that has violated the letter of the US Constitution is for the electorate to remedy the abuse by electing officials, who will correct the abuse, through the ballot box. If the courts determine that the rights of citizens under the Constitution have been violated by legislation which contradicts the letter of the Constitution, then the courts must determine on a case by case basis that relief be granted to those petitioning the courts for relief. It then becomes incumbent upon the Congress to adjust or eliminate their legislation to comply with the Constitution, or face the wrath of the voters, if such exists. In this way, the courts apply the laws, including the Constitution as the supreme law, without legislating for the bench, and without presuming to be the voice of the People without ever polling the People at the election booth.

The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to presume to be the evolving spirit of the American People. This is why it is important to ensure that a republican Senate is in place to balance Hillary Clinton's Constitutional authority to nominate Supreme Court Justices, should she be elected President, with the Senate's Constitutional authority to consent to, or refuse consent to Clinton's nominations should they bear an un-American or anti-American bias.

We should also look for Justices who bear a Scalian bias at a minimum, if not outright opposing the ruling of Marbury vs. Madison, in which the Court assumed powers unto itself which the Constitution expressly prohibits.