Three legs of the current Constitutional Crises

The steady drumbeat of Constitutional Crisis can now be heard across the country. A narrative pushed by the Democrat Party and their media cohorts. The drumbeat has now been picked up by many of our fellow citizens.

Let’s start with Article 3 of the Constitution:

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The only court truly under sole protection of the Constitution is the Supreme Court. All other courts are inferior and serve at the pleasure of Congress and can be limited in their jurisdiction by Congress.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/establishment-of-inferior-federal-courts

By vesting judicial power in “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish,” the Framers allowed Congress to decide whether to establish lower federal courts.1 Because Congress has the authority to decide whether the lower federal courts should exist, the legislature is also understood to enjoy broad power to structure the lower courts, make procedural rules for them, and regulate their jurisdiction.2

So now we can see these District Court Judges are creatures of Congress and Congress can regulate their jurisdiction. Congress has authorized 677 District Court Judges. Congress can determine their jurisdiction. They are local judges and should stick to local cases, they have absolutely no business determining the power of Article 1 ( Congress ) or Article 2 ( President) elected representatives. Only SCOTUS has that poer and their are legitimate arguments against SCOTUS being the kingpin since they are unelected.

Thus, I whole heartedly agree we have a Consitutional Crisis! We have small time judges stomping all over the Constitution and Congressional and Presidential powers. They have far exceded their authority and MUST be put in their place in the pecking order which is small time legal questions at the local level. Only SCOTUS should be ruling on these issues not thes esmall time judges as they are inferior judges authorized by Congress. They have no place in the three co equal fight. Its Congress, the President and SCOTUS, that’s it.

We have been in a Constitutional crisis since the “progressives” came into power in 1912 and the election of the racist - progressive - eugenisist Democrat Woodrow Wilson ( things 112 years later and we still have this same racist / progressive - eugenisist party in our midst). Progressive have squashed freedom throughout history with their superiority complex and human onwership - we know better than any of you attitude. They are at their core authoritarians that have just like these judges stomped all over our rights with their we are superior ideology.

This schism of authoritarianism has so infected the psyche of the USA that it is considered normal to want the government doing things it was never authorized to do in the rule book our founders wrote. It is normal to use government as a proxy to steal from others to fund pet projects and people. People have enlisted government to threaten and commit violence to steal money - something they do not have the brass to do themselves.

No we have a President that wants to just stop the fraud and abuse not stop the massive illegal and immoral stealing just the fraud and abuse of government programs. Yet we have people demonstrating and committing acts of violence ( progressivism being a schism of authoritarianism is based on the idea of violence). Their are no cuts to medicare, medicaid or “legitimate” government programs these people are protesting. I use the word legitimate in the sense that these illegal ( unconstitutional) federal programs are so ingrained their is no economical way to stop them at this point. They will stopped some day soon as national default / bankruptcy is un avoidable, it will be literally overnight. . Trump is the last ditch effort to stave this off and overall unfortunatly it will fail because much like a teenager being told their allowance is going to be reduced people getting this money are throwing a temper tantrum and committing violence.

This brings us to the enforcers and their minions:

• Law schools where this idea that courts can be used to legitimize illegal acts is taught

• Judges the main enforcer

• Lawyers the minions / worker bees for this movement

Law schools are the most important leg of this stool for the progressives. They wreak their havoc on common sense and the language inflicting for the most part un noticed damage to the Constitution and society at large, one small opinion at a time. This idea that the black robes have the ultimate say, are the only ones that understand the Constitution is so ludicrous it defies comprehension.

Law schools and schools in general are teaching that the un elected judicial branch reigns supreme. Able to over ride Article 1 and Article 2 elected officials and the PEOPLES wishes, and even the simple words of the Constitution. With their ideology, yes judges like the rest of us have an ideology. If they ruled on the simple words of the Constitution which they swear to uphold, this would not be happening. Not one of these programs or agencies is Constitutional and should be wiped from the face of the earth.

Law schools are teaching that the Constitution is a positive document when it is actually a negative document.

A postive document allows anything not specifically prohibited.

A negative document only allows those things specifically mentioned.

In Federalist No. 45 James Madison stated the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

The Federalist Papers : No. 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?

It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.

On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side.

It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS.

So the author of the Constitution stated very clearly the power of the federal government were FEW AND DEFINED. Not one of these agencies Trump is shuttering or attempting to shutter has any Constitutional basis to exist. So why are law schools teaching lawyers the opposite? Why are judges allowing these agencies to even exist? Why are lawyers arguing minutia instead of going straight to the heart of the matter? To argue this minutia is to accept this premise that everything is Constitutional if Congress passes a law or a judge rules as such. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It seems to me the first question should be: is this power authorized by the Consitution. Instead we have lawyers arguing minutia - small points within a law instead of the big picture - where is this authorized. This goes to the heart of a negative vs positive Constitution. Its obvious it is a negative document per the writer of the document.

I’m old enough to remember when SCOTUS stated their opinion in a case it was called an opinion - THAT is exactly what it is - an opinion. They are NOT the final arbiter.

SCOTUS throughout history has gotten things wrong. Dred Scott in which they declared slaves were not citizens and had no rights even AFTER they were freed.

The idea put forward by former justice Scalia that rights are granted by the Consitution is easily debunked by reading the 9th Amendment,

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Let’s look at this. Its pretty simple. The 9th clearly states just because a right was not enumerated in the previous 8 amendments does not mean the right does not exist, in fact it means you have all sorts of rights.

Then we have Kavanaugh and Barrett with their absolutely crazy common use idea. What they are stating is the government can ban something before its commonly available. So using their insane idea since prior to 1982 PC’s were not common the government could have banned or limited computers, banned the interenet, fax machines, cell phones you name the modern technology.

Simply reading the Federalist papers or the Constitution debunks these ideas. Judges have granted themselves more power than they were ever meant to have. They have either lied or through omission kept our rights away from us. They are now doig the same with Article 1 and 2 elected representatives.

The Constitution is not hard to read and comprehend. Let’s just look at a couple of amendments that tell governmetn HANDS OFF.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does it get any clearer than “…shall make no law”.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it get any clearer than “… shall not be infringed.” or “…right of the people”? People is the citizenry at large, the idea of only a militia formed by the state is a complete misreading. Regulated at the time of the writing meant trained.

Then we have these judges running their court room as their own little feifdoms telling jurors how to rule and rule on the law. As a jury member you have not only the right but the duty to determine not only guilt or innocence but you also have the DUTY to determine if the law is a legal law.

It is past time the judiciary have the keys taken away from them. We now have what our founder fought against. A crown - a group of people stomping on our rights, our elected representatives that are not accountable in any way. They think they are untouchable. They are not - Congress must limit the jurisdiction of these circuit court judges if the republic is going to be saved. Their are no have measures, wrap their knuckles and hard. If they continue to step out of line throw them out of their job. They are not kings nor the sole brain trust on the Consitution and Articel 1 and 2 powers.