Thin Black Line Essential for Limited Government
by Matt MillerAs the debt-ceiling debacle shows, Americans are genuinely frightened that our ever-expanding federal government will spend us into national collapse. But while Americans are delivering a message of limited government to Congress and the President, proponents of small government have actually been sending a completely different message to the judiciary for decades. That message—that any judge who strikes down a bad law is an “activist”—has been destructive to freedom and conducive to runaway growth in government.
Americans have always believed more in the power of individuals and the free market than in government power. For example, ABC News and The Washington Times have been asking people the same question since 1984: Do you favor smaller government and fewer services, or larger government and more services? The results show a consistent national preference for smaller government. In 1984, 49 percent of respondents favored smaller government while 40 percent favored larger government. Today it is 56 percent versus 40 percent.
The American commitment to limited government is embodied in our Constitution. The Founders were distrustful of government power and they wanted to limit government’s interference in our lives. Largely ignored in today’s debate over limited government, however, is the role that our courts should play in keeping the government in check.
Our courts are a constitutionally co-equal branch of government. The Founders spent considerable time debating the best way to ensure judicial independence so that the judiciary could temper overly ambitious presidents and legislatures.
A Constitution that says “no” to government requires judges who are willing to say “no” to government, too. Yet when judges actually strike down a law as unconstitutional, they are frequently derided as “activists” by people who ordinarily think of themselves as advocates for smaller government.
And so we have a seeming paradox: people want less government, but they bash judges who say “no” to government. This must change if our courts are going to fulfill their constitutional duty of restraining government power. A misguided adherence to the philosophy of judicial minimalism means that the Constitution is not being interpreted or enforced as the document itself demands.
Judges need not choose between judicial activism and judicial passivism. This paints a false dichotomy wherein judges can only invent results as they go, or else defer entirely to the “wisdom” of the legislature. If we want America to reflect the vision embodied in our Constitution, we need to demand that our judges actively engage the cases that come before them. Too often in cases that involve the government, judges ignore evidence, invent facts, and accept implausible explanations for government regulations.
If we expect judges to engage the Constitution, proponents of limited government need to stop accusing any judge who strikes down a law on constitutional grounds of “legislating from the bench.”
Courts enjoy the power of judicial review because the Founders were wise enough to recognize that the elected branches cannot be trusted to respect limits on their own power. The political elite demonize judges with labels like “activist” to delegitimize the very act that the Constitution entrusts to them: striking down laws that violate our basic freedoms. But what was true in the days of Washington and Jefferson remains true today. The courts are the thin black line necessary for liberty and we should applaud the courage of judges who stand on that line defending the Constitution.
Matt Miller is the executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, in Austin.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
88 Comments
"As the debt-ceiling debacle shows, Americans are genuinely frightened that our ever-expanding federal government will spend us into national collapse."
I love my country.
It is my government that I fear.
"Americans have always believed more in the power of individuals and the free market than in government power."
That's 100% correct and right now the Americans are under attack from the lower half known as Hope-n-Change.
Sadly our courts have been infested with liberal hacks, who legislate from the bench. My concern, is a judge is supposed to be dispassionate, and interpret the law, not make societal conditions on what is right and wrong. The liberal redefinition of terms, Judge Bork was a radical, but not Ginsburg, Kagen, Sotomayer, this also must change.
I think folks don't pay near as much attention as they should to the appointment of judges. In my opinion, it is one of the most important things to occur during term of a president.
George H.W. Bush got two appointments. He appointed one of the most conservative and one that ended up being liberal as hell. With Thomas we got a strict constructionist and with Souter we got a liberal. He blew that one.
Matt:
I live in the United States of America. What courts are you talking about?
You have the California courts saying that the will of the people passed twice don't know what they're doing.
You have courts creating the right to have an abortion and then stop efforts to restrict abortions.
Even the appeals court today said it was more important to have health care instead of acknowledging the non seperation clause in the bill to strike it down.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
You make good points, particularly "Too often in cases that involve the government, judges ignore evidence, invent facts, and accept implausible explanations for government regulations".
But with regards to your assertion, "proponents of small government have actually been sending a completely different message to the judiciary for decades. That message—that any judge who strikes down a bad law is an “activist”—has been destructive to freedom and conducive to runaway growth in government", I disagree.
It is entirely because of your first quote I noted that, for the most part, we have taken the actions noted in your second quote.
What are absent in your writings are the terms 'constructionists' and 'original intent', which if not followed basterdize our Constitution. It is only logical that the Supreme Court's bias should be to maintain the status quo, that it's effect should be, and was intended to be, a restraint on the other two brances of government overreaching in their authority.
As to – "If we want America to reflect the vision embodied in our Constitution, we need to demand that our judges actively engage the cases that come before them." – I wholeheartedly agree, which is why we need to demand our justices be constructionists and strive for 'original intent', and not "judicial activism and (or) judicial passivism".
I would be interested in specifics – how often the judiciary is removing bad law, how often the judiciary is upholding bad law, and how often the judiciary is creating law out of thin air. My sense of things is that the former case is rare and the latter two are dismayingly common.
Yet when judges actually strike down a law as unconstitutional, they are frequently derided as “activists” by people who ordinarily think of themselves as advocates for smaller government.
This definition of activist has always been stupid and causes double-deference problems where the legislature defers to the courts and the courts defer to congress, letting anything slide.
In my experience mainly establishment type Republicans, not conservatives, use it.
With "We the People" coming this close to ObamaCommie takeover, I doubt that the Government will ever again be able to do a thing without US right there. The regular Constitutionalist Americans are spread over America now like a Security System on a house. We are the sentries that walk the beat. We are here now and forever.
On top of that Standard & Poors has SLAPPED the OBAMA Admin DOWN in front of the world for their sabotage of our economy. You can run to Martha's Vinyard but you can never hide from that SHAME in front of the entire world. You will forever be know as the "Downgrade President & Administration" Never forget it, because we certainly wont. Long live the American Freedoms that you tried to steal from US!
Getting Obama out of office is essential for limited government. Same goes for liberals and RINOs!
Matt, you and the rest of the lawyers at the Institute for Justice do an abolutely fantastic job. Love the quarterly newsletter speaking truth for small business in this country. Carry on with our support!
"We are the sentries that walk the beat. We are here now and" in Nov. 2012.
With the help of the Tea Party, we are turning that fear thing around a little bit.
Obama just gave a speech and said that the problem has been the last 2-1/2 years of Federal government. Yes, he did say it. I agree with him for the first time in my life.
It would not be "judicial activism" to smack down most of the stuff government does. In fact, one could argue it would be "judicial restraint."
Since most of the stuff government does tends to run counter to the Constitution, it is, by definition, activism to allow such distortions of the Founders' original intent.
what are you talking about? the limited government crowd cries foul when a law is over turned? you give no examples and at this point I am suspect of your statements. cite facts, and there may be agreement, but it is the commie left that has taken this posture all to frequently.
I have to agree with several people who have posted already: What are you talking about???
You say: "Yet when judges actually strike down a law as unconstitutional, they are frequently derided as “activists” by people who ordinarily think of themselves as advocates for smaller government."
You say: "Too often in cases that involve the government, judges ignore evidence, invent facts, and accept implausible explanations for government regulations."
You say: "If we expect judges to engage the Constitution, proponents of limited government need to stop accusing any judge who strikes down a law on constitutional grounds of 'legislating from the bench.' "
You have not offered a single piece of evidence for any of the claims or implied claims of these three statements. My impressions (on the first and third item) are that conservatives have called judges "activists" when they really are activists–putting their own ideas into the Constitution or ignoring it entirely. And then others, seeing that the term "activist" gets some traction, have picked it up and now use it to refer to any judge who doesn't let them get their way (taking all meaning from the word). I question whether the problem you are alleging (of conservatives misapplying the label) is really that common. Please write articles that provide evidence for what you claim.
Judicial review is necessary to prevent Congress from violating the Constitution. The problem is how to prevent the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, from violating the Constitution. Unless judges adhere to an originalist jurisprudence (judges are bound by the original meaning of the constitutional text until it is changed by amendment) then the Constitution means what the judges say it means, which is the very definition of the arbitrary rule of men rather than the written-text bound rule of law.
Obviously, there is a need for some judicial interpretation on the margins. No one pretends that every text is 1,000% clear or that facts will not arise which were not contemplated by the original authors. However, that view of the role of the courts is a wholly different species than the 20th century view of an evolutionary Constitution which can be deliberately stretched beyond any conceivable original understanding of the written text.
If there are ambiguities in the text of the Constitution (of which there are very few) or there is a need to adjust its coverage or allocation of powers, the proper vehicle is the Article V amendment process. Neither Congress or the Supreme Court have the right to unilaterally add to their powers or change the original meaning of the Constitution.
Our difficulty is that the Article V amendment process is the most difficult in the world to use. Therefore, we need an "amendment amendment" to facilitate a return to the Constitution's own means of effecting constitutional change. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
Rand Paul is taking the fight to the statists and rocking the Washington establishment. During a Senate Energy Committee hearing last Thursday, Senator Paul laid into an Energy Department bureaucrat over the federal government's seemingly insatiable appetite for controlling our lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0
"Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." George Washington
The line shouldn't be thin and black. It should be really wide and neon-red. With flashing yellow lights on both sides.
Matty, you're wet behind the ears, and yours appear to leave much room for moisture.
"If we expect judges to engage the Constitution, proponents of limited government need to stop accusing any judge who strikes down a law on constitutional grounds of “legislating from the bench.”
Sorry Mr. Miller, I cant buy into that submissive school of thought. Judges must be called out whenever they cross the line, or yes as you say, when they legislate from the bench. Sorry again, but I can't seem to find the words or term "judicial independence" anywhere in Article III either.
The words "eternal vigilance" rings a bell for me, for ALL branches of government! add;
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
– Thomas Jefferson
You said it RL2! Landslide comes to mind. I can't wait for that day. All of them must go. It was a long painful 2 year learning curve, but we're here now to guard our Country from invasion from outside and from the enemy within.
He said that? I'll bet he was really meaning was ……."How dare you Congress people slow me down with your pesky American Laws" I am the reigning King! …..I don't know the context I'm just guessing. He hates our laws.They cramp his style.
"Judges need not choose between judicial activism and judicial passivism. This paints a false dichotomy wherein judges can only invent results as they go, or else defer entirely to the “wisdom” of the legislature."
Well said!
I agree with you 100%.
I don't find the words or term "legislative independence" anywhere in Article I.
Does that mean Congress should only pass laws the President requires of them?
I don't find the words or term "executive independence" anywhere in Article II.
Does that mean the President should act only as directed by Congress?
There is a very real difference between a Judge saying "This law you may not enforce" and a Judge saying "You must enforce this as if were a law that had been passed by Congress and signed by the President".
Conflating the two by reflex is playing into the "progressive" trap of denying the legitimacy of any courts that do not rule exclusively in accordance with the "will of the people".
This article fails to take into account leftists judges who DO legislate from the bench.
Leftists ANYWHERE in government are a threat to freedom. Period. Why? Because leftists seek to hurt people with the power of government.
You answered your own question in your first two paragraphs. The words or term "legislative, executive, nor judicial independence" are not to be found anywhere in Articles I, II, or III. That's exactly my point, and why there are three equal branches of government. None are suppose to have power over the other. This issue was vigorously questioned and argued in the Anti-Federalist Papers, of which turned out to be more true, than not.
The judiciary invented the term "judicial independence," and have the other two mesmerized or snowed that they're not suppose to be questioned, or interfered with, and that in my opine, have presented a serious problem. Why? Because through the years, the federal courts have slowly chipped away at mainly the Amendments to the Constitution, and until recently (standing) never a peep on the Articles. Meanwhile, a passive congress and president disgustingly suck their thumbs while we the public get screwed.
Right, wrong,or indifferent, once the Supreme makes a ruling, then even heaven or earth can't overturn their decision. A good example was Kelo vs. The City of New London. A bad decision against who: We The People. And dear say Bronx, where was the outrage from our elected officials? Answer: Hiding under their desks!
Again no, I can't buy into taking a hit from person wearing a silly black dress, and saying it's OK he screwed up, or screwed me….You can take it, but I won't. They have to be called out like the other two branches of government.
And judges need to choose between judicial tyranny and rule of law….which is it Bronx, because it appears hey have it both ways? Why?
Question, in the past twenty years, how many tyrannical, abusive, or poor decision making federal judges been been removed from the bench, and if not, why not? Oh forgot, that pesky little un-Constitutional, and invented hands off term called "judicial independence." Gee, if congressman Weenie screamed "INDEPENDENCE," he might still be there. Hypocritical comparison, you bettcha!
Actually, they are all supposed to have power over the others. Read the Federalis, which is significantly more relevant than the Anti-Federalist.
The Legislature does NOT have exclusive power to make laws – the Executive must approve them, and the Judiciary, if appealed to, must confirm them.
The Executive does NOT have exclusive power to make treaties or appoint officials – the Legislature must approve them.
The Judiciary does NOT have exclusive power of trials – they do not try impeachments, and they do not get to rule on anything until it is brought before them.
The Judiciary did not have to invent "judicial independence". Without it, the concept of a judiciary is meaningless.You would have to believe that the Founders deliberately and willfully created a completely irrelevant branch of government, with no purpose other than to rubber stamp acts of the Legislature and Executive, to asserts that the Judiciary is not meant to be completely independent in respect to its decisions.
And you are absolutely wrong, many things have overturned decisions, from Amendments and Laws that moot them, to direct decisions of the Court itself reversing prior decisions.
If you have an issue with Congress taking no action as a result of Kelo, then the problem is with Congress, NOT the Supreme Court. All Congress has to do is get their act together and amend the law, or Constitution if necessary, and make Kelo irrelevant. Instead, using their Legislative independence, they have chosen not to.
You can eagerly throw out one branch of the government if you want to, subjecting yourself to Legislative or Executive tyranny, or both, if you want to, but I see no reason to abandon a highly functional system of government just because of a few bad decisions. You casually overlook that just as the Court produced Kelo, it has also produced Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago. Indeed it seems you want the Court to merely rubber stamp YOUR personal choices. That is not how a federal republic works.
No, they do not.
Federal judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.
If poor Federal judges are appointed the problem is not their subsequent independence as a consequence of being a separate and co-equal branch of government, but in a failure of the Executive and Legislative branches to perform their due diligence in nominating and confirming them.
Likewise with State judges who are appointed – the failure is of the Executives who appoint them. For state judges who are elected the problem is directly that of the people.
And no, Weiner could have screamed "independence" all he wanted and still been removed, as Congress can remove a member with a 2/3rds vote. Weiner resigned because of public pressure, not because the Executive or the Judiciary usurped the Legislative power to exclude him. And perhaps you have forgotten Michael Myers who was expelled by the House for Abscam, and Jim Traficant who was expelled by the House for wearing a dead varmint on his head (also for bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion), or William Jefferson who was convicted of bribery while serving.
Again though, you may choose to throw out one branch of the government established by the Constitution because it does not always perform as you desire. I prefer the complete system constructed by the Founders, all of whose parts are required for proper functioning, even when they do not completely agree with me.
"The Judiciary did not have to invent "judicial independence""
But they did invent it, didn't they, which kind of makes your whole argument moot.
As usual, the rest of your rant is nothing but gas-bag-hot-air.
"…proponents of small government have actually been sending a completely different message to the judiciary for decades. That message—that any judge who strikes down a bad law is an “activist”—has been destructive to freedom and conducive to runaway growth in government. "
I thought that to be an interesting statement. After reading through the rest of the article, I was disappointed to find nothing specific to back it up. I'm fairly sure there are a few examples out there, but as a few of my fellow commentators pointed out, there are a heck of a lot of examples where leftist judges struck down good law or just made up there own law.
More bloviating, windy and hot air. I know how they're selected and approve. That's not the question.
Wrong…Yes judges have to choose between either the rule of law or tyranny. They just can't make things up, but they still do. They're suppose to follow the federal rules of civil procedures, criminal procedures and rules of evidence…but through their little invented toy of judicial independence, they do as they please. In other words, make the rules up as they play the game.
Here's the question again gas-bag
"Question, in the past twenty years, how many tyrannical, abusive, or poor decision making federal judges been been removed from the bench, and if not, why not? Oh forgot, that pesky little un-Constitutional, and invented hands off term called "judicial independence."
No, the judiciary did NOT invent it.
Which leaves your whole argument as anti-Constitutional nonsense.
The principle of judicial independence is implicit in the Constitution, as is legislative and executive independence; and all are explicit in The Federalist.
Each branch exercises its powers according to its rules, its procedures, and its preferences.
The distinct quality of the Constitution is that the powers of each branch are not absolutely exclusive, and are in fact intertwined and interdependent on each others. Therefore even while each branch is supreme in its powers, none can challenge the independence of another branch, establishing supremacy over them.
Obviously this is a difficult concept for many people. "Progressives" certainly do not understand it, that is why they constantly blather about the "flaws" of the Constitution.
It does not serve to oppose them by copying their rhetoric.
Oh BTW…most if not all federal appellate courts are rubber stamp stamp factories. So much for justice being served. If corporations stole monies like the courts have, they'd be behind bars. It's called consumer fraud.
If they didn't invent it, then where did it come from…ah yes, implicit thin air. You're a joke!
Sorry Bronx…I don't believe a word you're saying. All your doing is bloviating, passing gas and making things up.
Yes, Progressives do have problems with the constitution…I'm conservative, now what?
More anti-Constitutional, "Progressive", talking points.
Either you like the Constitution and the government it creates or you do not.
That is the question.
You obviously do not because the courts will not act the trained seal and sit up and play their horns at your command.
As for why judges have not been removed willy-nilly because you demand it, the answer is in the Constitution:
Judges have a life tenure, predicated on good behavior, and (to date) must be formally impeached with a Senate trial to be removed. This is a deliberately high standard and complex procedure meant to immunize the Judiciary from the vagaries of political power shifts.
Obviously that disgusts you, and you would prefer the Judiciary to function on the "Spoils System", with all judges appointed and removed with each change of administration. The chaos that would cause, and in particular the disaster we would face if Obama had that power, should be self-evident.
It came from the Constitution.
Read The Federalist.
Read the commentaries.
A dependent judiciary is not a judiciary.
Just because you do not like an answer in no way means I am making anything up.
The only gas being passed is by you, parroting "Progressive" talking points, and thinking that transforms them into Constitutional "originalism" because you call yourself a conservative. If you want to destroy the Judiciary you will not be conserving anything.
Who empowered the SCOTUS to thieve and nullify the "grand jury" part of the Fifth Amendment, one of our Bill of Rights?
I thought the only way to change the constitution was through it's built in mechanism, but low and behold, try to get that guarantee enforced. The court simply thumb their nose and laugh.
To be fair with you, the court stole that clause to help form the federal rules of criminal procedures in 1946. Sort of like their own version of Cloward/Piven during a time of chaos.
Another question: If a district judge is elevated to the appellate, are they suppose to relinquish all of their lower court cases, or can they still do both? Why?…because that's a question I had before the SCOTUS!
As usual…you can't answer the question. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Hot aired, wasted band width.
BTW, they are not.
The Courts are not supposed to casually overturn laws.
Nor are they supposed to casually endorse laws.
They are meant to engage in due diligence, and assure the laws are properly executed, and when necessary in accord with the Constitution.
However I note that you now "conveniently" switch to expecting the Judiciary act independently to strike down laws when you want them to.
The Supreme Court has never nullified the "grand jury" part of the Fifth Amendment.
The Bill of Rights, as written, applied as limitations on the federal government, not the State goverments.
No state was obligated to have a grand jury present an indictment.
It was only with the frequently despised "incorporation" of the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights began being applied to the States, and the grand jury portion has not been so incorporated as those States without it have their own equitable procedures.
Because the answer is irrelevant to the greater factors at hand.
The first attempt at impeaching Supreme Court judges was because of purely political considerations, and was rejected by the Senate.
As I said, you would ignore that, and go with a Spoils System, changing the entire judiciary with each Presidential administration.
You may consider that both proper and Constitutional, I do not.
However, since you are so obsessed:
The answer is one and a half.
One full impeachment and removal.
One impeachment begun but mooted and ended by retirement.
Did you actually know that before?
The Antifederalist Papers
No. 78-79
The Power of the Judiciary (Part 1)
I have said that the judges under this system will be independent in the strict sense of the word. To prove this I will show that there is no power above them that can control their decisions, or correct their errors. There is no authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity, or lower their salaries, and in many cases their power is superior to that of the legislature.
1st. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions. The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no court above them to which appeals can lie, either in error or on the merits. In this respect it differs from the courts in England, for there the house of lords is the highest court, to whom appeals, in error, are carried from the highest of the courts of law.
2nd. They cannot be removed from office or suffer a diminution of their salaries, for any error in judgment [due] to want of capacity. It is expressly declared by the constitution, "That they shall at stated times receive a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."
Hence, JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
Irrelevant to the question at hand.
Now you are moving into full "Progressive" flame mode, bringing up unrelated side issues in an effort to distract from the actual question under discussion.
If you are incapable of rebutting my arguments regarding the reasons for an independent judiciary then admit it and move on. Throwing everything and the kitchen sink around hoping to conceal the lack of substance to your position merely demonstrates that it is completely indefensible.
It's only relevant if you want to be eh? We're talking about the the judiciary.
I could go on and on. but you'd stick to your full flame circular Progressive talking points.
Other than being a wordy bullsh*tter, you haven't convinced me of the time of day. Our courts have become tyrannical, with no support from our other elected officials to constitutionally correct them PERIOD.
You must love judicial pain?
Yes, IMO the whole federal judiciary need to be completely overhauled.
"The only clause in the constitution which provides for the removal of the judges from offices, is that which declares, that "the president, vice- president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." By this paragraph, civil officers, in which the judges are included, are removable only for crimes. Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. Errors in judgment, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors. A man may mistake a case in giving judgment, or manifest that he is incompetent to the discharge of the duties of a judge, and yet give no evidence of corruption or want of integrity. To support the charge, it will be necessary to give in evidence some facts that will show, that the judges committed the error from wicked and corrupt motives.
3d. The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have showed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution; they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial; for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs. Both are derived from the same source; both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country contrary to the sense of the parliament -though the parliament will not set aside the judgment of the court-yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain the former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the legislature. The judges are supreme and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them."
Hence…JUDICIAL TYRANNY
Which is WRONG.
There is an authority that can remove them from office for any errors or want of capacity.
It is called the impeachment process, and it is spelled out very clearly in the Constitution.
To claim no such authority exists is a LIE.
There is a power above them that can control their decisions.
It is called the Amendment Process, and it is also spelled out very clearly in the Constitution.
To claim no such power exists is a LIE.
To assert there is an inherent fatal flaw because there is no higher court to appeal to is ludicrous.
Yes, England has the House of Lords. And who did you appeal to if they were in error? No one. At some point there has to be a final court of appeal, the process can not continue on into infinity until you get the result you want.
To claim having a final court of appeal is excessive is NONSENSE.
The only factual statement in that is that their compensation may not be diminished during their service.
Of course the same also applies to the Executive, as per Article II, Section 1, paragraph 7, with the additional limitation that he may not even receive a raise!
Further, while the Constitution did not originally restrict the Legislators from having their salary altered during their terms of office, such was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights, and finally ratified in 1992, making the same immunity from a decrease in compensation apply to ALL the branches of government.
Thus that complaint is rendered irrelevant in context.
Hence, JUDICIAL EQUALITY.
Right.
No arguments, just misdirection and blather.
I don't want to convince you of anything.
You have made it clear that you despise the Constitution.
In no way do I want you on my side of anything.
Like Romney with the guy who tried to disrupt him, if you want someone who will destroy the independence of the judiciary, go vote for Barack Obama.
Wrong again Bronx…wrong again…
When great and extraordinary powers are vested in any man, or body of men, which in their exercise, may operate to the oppression of the people, it is of high importance that powerful checks should be formed to prevent the abuse of it.
Hence, if not, we have JUDICIAL TYRANNY
It came from your hot-gassy-air! That's all you've got.
The judiciary needs to be completely overhauled period
More nonsense.
You want judges removed for mere errors in judgement?
Legislators cannot be removed for the same, nor can the Executive.
Why must Judges be subject to this additional, excessive, standard?
To make them more submissive to the demands of the mob? So much for republicanism!
The Courts do not have the power to unilaterally declare laws unconstitutional.
They can only judge on matters brought before them.
This essential element creates an absolute limitation on their power to determine the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.
However, the very complaint begs another, greater question: If not them, who?
If the Courts are to have no authority to restrain legislation, what then inhibits the Legislature from violating the Constitution?
The answer of course is "nothing and no one", and we replace the faux "tyranny" of the Judiciary with the very real tyranny of the legislature.
We currently have ObamaCare winding its way through the Courts. If the Judiciary does not have the power to rule on its Constitutionality then in what possible way can it be stopped? Again, the answer is "none", and we would be forced to accept it, save for the partisan exemptions granted by an unrestrained Executive, with no first appeal never mind any final appeal.
Hence, JUDICIAL EQUALITY
Hence, NO LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE TYRANNY
Really. Not nullified…then pass that information over to the "American Grand Jury," and a few others that have been arrested for trying to uphold their so-called constitutional guarantees.
Judge Scalia ruled that independent grand juries are constitutional legal, but for some strange reason, they can't get their presents heard. Instead, one was severely beaten, and imprisoned. How come?
You mean checks like Executive nomination?
You mean checks like Legislative confirmation?
You mean checks like Legislative impeachment?
You mean checks like Legislative and State amendments?
You mean checks like Legislative exclusion?
(Article III, Section 2, second paragraph, second sentence:
"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.")
Hence, such checks existing, we have JUDICIAL EQUALITY
Sure it's nonsense, but only relevant if it serves you.
That's why people like you can't stand facts or the truth.
Hence, JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
Because you aren't in charge of it?
I fail to see how your judicial tyranny would in any way be superior to our existing system, and will continue to defer to and endorse the system created by the Founders through the Constitution.
Hence,
JUDICIAL EQUALITYJUDICIAL CORRUPTION.I love facts and the truth, just as I love the Constitution.
You are the one parroting nonsensical and deceptive rants against the Constitution and claiming they constitute proof of anything.
Case in point, you seem to think you have just demonstrated the existence of judicial corruption because you someone wrote something you like that denigrates the Constitution.
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
Oh so now you're saying a government of the people, by the people and for the people are not in charge anymore…great Progressive thinking there Bronx…tell me more nonsense!
If you never been there, than you'll never know. Because, our federal judiciary are disgracefully corrupt. They know it, and so does congress.
The courts have evolved exactly as predicted as outline in the anti-federalist papers.
It's Progressive dopes like you that accept judicial tyranny, than attempt to call people like myself that oppose it..Progressive. Spread your fat cheeks and take the tyranny idiot, I won't.
Just because some random group of people whine that they cannot force prosecutions because they got together and declared themselves a "grand jury" with no due process does not in any mean that the right of a person to have a lawfully constituted grand jury indict them before a trial has been infringed.
A grand jury that is "independent" of the DA/AG/Judge and a "grand jury" that is independent of the government and people are two completely different things.
And I would note that it is a common "Progressive" tactic for groups like Code Pink to run around claiming they have "indicted" various government officials, and demand that they be prosecuted.
Why you would endorse such nonsense is beyond me, but you go and do that and call yourself a "conservative".
Wrong as usual dopey. Despising the constitution are being invented by you, and not I.
Questioning a failed judiciary is my question on this thread. And so far, as usual, you're lost . You are a blathering fool aren't you? Here's a quick fix:
http://i56.tinypic.com/nch3ph.jpg
The antifederalist papers were counter arguments to the federalist papers. You're just twisted because much of what Brutus had to say, are true today.
Here's my opine of your Progressive hero Obama:
http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4082/joking.jpg
Now go in a corner and cry…
and, from me to U: http://i51.tinypic.com/30c6mab.jpg
You are the one citing the Anti-Federalist as if it were proven gospel, not me.
If you are ashamed that that your only arguments come from an openly anti-Constitutional source then that is how it should be.
You don't like the Constitution.
I understand.
I do and that outrages you.
I understand that too.
Irrelevant question. My opine of overhauling the courts does no way indicate I hate the constitution. Apparently, those are your warped thoughts, coming from a hollow head.
Why do you oppose fixing something that's dysfunctional and broken, like the federal court system? And when are we going to get back ALL of the stolen Amendments? When are the courts going to start refunding rubber stamped dismissals? e.g., the SCOTUS in itself is horrendously wasteful. The dirty little secret of only hearing 80 out 10,000 appeals, and then trash's tens of thousands of wasted briefs…in bound, booklet format? But then, court waste is OK with you, and complaining about judicial waste is hating the constitution in your little mind, is not OK?
Which is why you base your entire opposition on the anti-Constitutional Anti-Federalist.
Right.
Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
"Irrelevant question. My opine of overhauling the courts does no way indicate I hate the constitution. Apparently, those are your warped thoughts, coming from a hollow head.
Why do you oppose fixing something that's dysfunctional and broken, like the federal court system? And when are we going to get back ALL of the stolen Amendments? When are the courts going to start refunding rubber stamped dismissals? e.g., the SCOTUS in itself is horrendously wasteful. The dirty little secret of only hearing 80 out 10,000 appeals, and then trash's tens of thousands of wasted briefs…in bound, booklet format? But then, court waste is OK with you, and complaining about judicial waste is hating the constitution in your little mind, is not OK?
Here's more on your Progressive hero:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2rr2ous.jpg
Now get back in your little corner and keep crying.
You continue to demonstrate the depth of your "logic" and the substance of your "arguments":
You can post links
therefore,
I must . . . cry?
And still you evade the question:
Why do you hate the Constitution?
I know you have a comprehension problem. So I'll cut and past this again…for the third and last time…in italics.
"Irrelevant question. My opine of overhauling the courts does no way indicate I hate the constitution."
So look Sunshine, it's a OK if you lick the windows and ride the special bus, because you're special.
Once more, for the mentally challenged:
Here's more on your Progressive hero:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2rr2ous.jpg
Yes, yes, I get it:
You hate the Constitution.
You do not like how it sets up the powers of the Judiciary, as demonstrated by your quoting of the anti-Constitutional Anti-Federalist to support your position.
I just do not understand how and why anyone other than a "Progressive" could hate the Constitution so much.
No you don't get it sunshine.
The antifederalist papers were counter arguments to the federalist papers. You're just twisted because much of what Brutus had to say, are true today. My position is based on fact. While yours are based on Progressive garbage.
Once more MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"IRRELEVANT QUESTION. MY OPINE OF OVERHAULING THE COURTS DOES NO WAY INDICATE I HATE THE CONSTITUTION."
Comprendo pendejo?
Once more, for the mentally challenged:
Here's more on your Progressive hero: http://i56.tinypic.com/2rr2ous.jpg
Now go into your corner and keep crying!
No, I do not get it doom and gloom.
The Anti-Federalist were arguments AGAINST the Constitution.
The anti-Federalists did NOT want the Constitution ratified.
You can try and deny that simple historical fact all you like but it will not change it.
I twisted nothing of what "Brutus" said. He LIED, plain and simple. Where he did not LIE, he presented a nonsense argument. Where he did not present a nonsense argument, he presented a completely irrelevant point.
Your position is based on LIES, nonsense, and irrelevance that were rejected 235 years ago.
Your position is merely a feeble rephrasing of the same garbage arguments used by "Progressives" to try and reinterpret the Constitution to produce the kind of dictatorship they want.
As for raw stupidity:
"does no way indicate"
No puto, I do not comprendo that ungrammatical ramble. Perhaps it means something in Spanglish, but in English it does not.
It does however change the question of whether you have actually read the Constitution, to if you are simply capable of comprehending the language it is written in. It would seem not.
Once more MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"IRRELEVANT QUESTION. MY OPINE OF OVERHAULING THE COURTS DOES NO WAY INDICATE I HATE THE CONSTITUTION."
"Much has been said and written upon the subject of this new system on both sides, but I have not met with any writer who has discussed the judicial powers with any degree of accuracy. And yet it is obvious, that we can gain but very imperfect ideas of the manner in which this government will work, or the effect it will have in changing the internal police and mode of distributing justice at present subsisting in the respective states, without a thorough investigation of the powers of the judiciary and of the manner in which they will operate. This government is a complete system, not only for making, but for executing laws. And the courts of law, which will be constituted by it, are not only to decide upon the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, but by officers subordinate to them to execute all their decisions. The real effect of this system of government, will therefore be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power. It is, moreover, of great importance, to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it, are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.
The only causes for which they can be displaced, is, conviction of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.
Hence: JUDICIAL TYRANNY
Once more MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"I_R_R_E_L_E_V_A_N_T Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N. M_Y O-P-I-N-E O_F O-V-E-R-H-A-U-L-I-N-G T_H_E C-O-U-R-T-S D_O_E_S N-O W_A_Y I-N-D-I-C-A-T-E I H-A-T-E T_H_E C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N."
This part of the plan is so modelled, as to authorize the courts, not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions.
That we may be enabled to form a just opinion on this subject, I shall, in considering it, lst. Examine the nature and extent of the judicial powers, and 2nd. Inquire, whether the courts who are to exercise them, are so constituted as to afford reasonable ground of confidence, that they will exercise them for the general good.
With a regard to the nature and extent of the judicial powers, I have to regret my want of capacity to give that full and minute explanation of them that the subject merits. To be able to do this, a man should be possessed of a degree of law knowledge far beyond what I pretend to. A number of hard words and technical phrases are used in this part of the system, about the meaning of which gentlemen learned in the law differ. Its advocates know how to avail themselves of these phrases. In a number of instances, where objections are made to the powers given to the judicial, they give such an explanation to the technical terms as to avoid them.
Hence: JUDICIAL TYRANNY
Right.
You would prefer they be displaced by political partisanship and mob action.
Thus: JUDICIAL IMPOTENCE
Thus: PARTY TYRANNY
Thus: MOB RULE
That you so clearly prefer such a system, not merely in the context of the current state of the judiciary, but in complete opposition to the Constitution, demonstrates that you do, as a simple statement of the facts of your expressed position, hate the Constitution.
And, as a simple statement of the facts of my oppressed position, people who hate the Constitution are at best misguided, at worst "Progressive" imbeciles. You make it clear that you are the latter.
Psst!
PSST!!!
Writing it with dashes and underscores does not change it from being ungrammatical babble into a coherent statement in English.
Also, I acknowledge that you understand and can engage in the process of Shouting the Big Lie.
I still like the Constitution.
Once more MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"IRRELEVANT QUESTION. MY OPINE OF OVERHAULING THE COURTS DOES NO WAY INDICATE I HATE THE CONSTITUTION."
Though I am not competent to give a perfect explanation of the powers granted to this department of the government, I shall yet attempt to trace some of the leading features of it, from which I presume it will appear, that they will operate to a total subversion of the state judiciaries, if not to the legislative authority of the states.
In article 3d, sect. 2d, it is said, "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, etc." The first article to which this power extends is, all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution.
What latitude of construction this clause should receive, it is not easy to say. At first view, one would suppose, that it meant no more than this, that the courts under the general government should exercise, not only the powers of courts of law, but also that of courts of equity, in the manner in which those powers are usually exercised in the different states. But this cannot be the meaning, because the next clause authorises the courts to take cognizance of all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States; this last article, I conceive, conveys as much power to the general judicial as any of the state courts possess.
Hence: JUDICIAL TYRANNY
"I still like the Constitution."
You're a: http://i55.tinypic.com/15mjtp3.gif
Now you are being deliberately deceitful.
Article III, Section 2 also clearly reads:
"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."
Deliberately failing to note that Congress gets to set the Exceptions and Regulations is blatant deceit.
Hence: PERSONAL TYRANNY
How intriguing that you mock the concept of someone like the Constitution.
How else do you like to demonstrate your loathing of it?
I Mock you…because you're liar http://i55.tinypic.com/15mjtp3.gif
Once more MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"IRRELEVANT QUESTION. MY OPINE OF OVERHAULING THE COURTS DOES NO WAY INDICATE I HATE THE CONSTITUTION."
"When great and extraordinary powers are vested in any man, or body of men, which in their exercise, may operate to the oppression of the people, it is of high importance that powerful checks should be formed to prevent the abuse of it."
Scotus have NO checks or balances,
Hence: JUDICIAL TYRANNY
Now go in your corner and BOO-HOO cry!
No, you mock me because you are illiterate and a liar and have no way to defend your anti-Constitutional position other than appealing to other anti-Constitutional positions.
The Supreme Court has multiple checks, balances, and interdependent power.
Hence: JUDICIAL EQUALITY
Now go in your corner and BOO HOO photoshop and BOO HOO link and BOO HOO cry!
http://i55.tinypic.com/15mjtp3.gif
Once more you mumbling MORON, and yes you're a MORON:
"IRRELEVANT QUESTION. MY OPINE OF OVERHAULING THE COURTS DOES NO WAY INDICATE I HATE THE CONSTITUTION."
From me to U: http://i51.tinypic.com/30c6mab.jpg
Once more you ILLITERATE FOOL:
Relevant question. You opine of anti-Constitutional Anti-Federalist does yes way indicate you hate the Constitution.
(I wrote that in your illiterate babble so you could understand it easier.)
Your results came back, and it wasn't a ……: http://i51.tinypic.com/20pcvic.jpg
Americans have always believed more in the power of individuals and the free market than in government power.
The American free enterprise system emphasizes private ownership. Private businesses produce most goods and services, and almost two-thirds of the nation's total economic output goes to individuals for personal use. The consumer role is so great, in fact, that the nation is sometimes characterized as having a consumer economy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.