I want to talk about the supreme court’s “Power” to rule that Obamacare OR ANY OTHER piece of legislation “IS” constitutional. We all learn in government schools growing up and through countless media injections into the culture, and thus into our minds, that we have a constitutional system where there is a separation of powers between the branches. And THEN we learn that under our system it is the job of the supreme court to decide whether something IS or is not constitutional. Some especially bright people may even remember some vague details about things called “judicial review” and a case called “Marbury v. Madison”.
Of course the people have been misled, but Lawyers may actually be WORSE off when it comes to the brainwashing in this area. They had to undergo courses in “constitutional law” and civil procedure where a nonstop propaganda machine poured information into them that they “had to learn” if they wanted to graduate so they could get a government issued license to practice law in the government courts. Get it?
Most peoples’ eyes glaze over at this point but people SHOULD pay VERY close attention. Because this entire subject is a lynchpin of how the system CONTROLS you.
In general, people today, have been convinced that you have to be an “expert” in order to have a valid opinion about much of anything. News flash, you don’t. You just have to be able to think and to KEEP your mind open. But think how convenient it is for that “expert” concept to be in the peoples’ heads. It is put there by those in power so you won’t ever feel entitled to QUESTION the experts they put in front of you. The self serving nature of the whole concept is both obvious and absurd, yet still people don’t see it.
First let me say that you don’t NEED to know much of anything in order to get the point I am going to make. In fact I assume people don’t know much of anything, lol. I am not going to discuss the details of Marbury v. Madision or the many PROBLEMS with that case. I am not going to discuss stare decisis, or any of the other myriad of somewhat more complex topics. I am going to make a much more fundamental point.
For purpose of this article I will ASSUME the standard TALE of what the constitution IS and the powers the court has. In other words, I am ASSUMING the generally accepted “read” of Marbury v. Madison and what we are told about what the framers intended is true. Got it?
While it is true that there was disagreement about what should be in the constitution when it was being drafted, there was agreement in many areas. The argument between federalist and anti-federalists was generally about HOW to accomplish the following goal.
THE FRAMERS AND THEIR OPPONENTS WERE SEEKING A CONSTRUCT THAT MADE THE COURT STRONG ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT NOT SO STRONG THAT THE COURT WOULD OVER REACH AND THEREBY THWART THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
These ideas are generally how the court, in Marbury v. Madison, justified its “right” to engage in “Art. III Judicial Review” and to THEREBY STRIKE DOWN acts by the other two branches. Of course it goes without saying that in any case where the court has a POWER to strike something down, they must also have the ABILITY to choose to uphold it, otherwise they would not be free to resolve the controversy. And here is where the mischief and confusion begin.
THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POWER EXERCISED BY THE COURT WHEN STRIKING DOWN ITEMS THAT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE OPINION ISSUED BY THE COURT WHEN IT UPHOLDS ITEMS ASSERTING THAT THEY CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION.
The distinction can not be emphasized ENOUGH.
The main POINT of making the court independent and for CREATING a “separation of powers” was to provide for a way to keep the other two branches IN CHECK. Here is Federalist 78, the “bible” of the strict constructionists, discussing how the judiciary will work.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
And here is just a bit more from the same Fed 78:
… the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority.
… the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.
Do you see? The court was given its power in order to protect the rights of the people by keeping the other branches within the EXPRESS limits of the constitution. The reason for this is simple and practical. When the people were forming the Feds they only gave the Feds LIMITED and EXPRESS powers.
What were the people to do if the Feds overstepped and started taking advantage of people? Well if there is no court from which to get justice, then the people are abused, and ultimately, when they have had enough, they will have no choice but to dissolve the union to avoid the tyranny. A dissolution, like the one they had JUST finished in the revolution and had gone through with the Articles of Confederation.
Dissolution is a messy process. It is inefficient. Better to have a system in place to protect the people from overreach as much as possible. Thus the court is there to SERVE the people, and it was given the POWER to strike down acts that OVER REACHED in order to protect the peoples’ rights.
The government’s education system, and the legal education system the government MANDATES everyone undergo before anyone can get a law license issued by the same government to practice law in the government courts, creates the illusion that the supreme court has A mirror image “POWER” to “DECLARE” something Constitutional to its POWER to DECLARE something unconstitutional and then STRIKE IT DOWN. They act like they are flip sides of the SAME POWER. But they are not.
The only time the COURT can EXERCISE any actual POWER in a constitutional sense, is by STRIKING down an act of one of the other two branches.
Think about it. Whenever the COURT approves conduct by the other branches, the Court is not actually exercising any POWER at all. It is just issuing an OPINION. The OPINION doesn’t actually DO anything. Really it is more accurate to say that it saw no need to USE ITS POWER over something that was done by one of the other branches. The law is already passed. Nothing happens after the court “rules”. The court just steps aside. Get it? Here is how to think about it.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO STRIKE DOWN ACTIONS BY THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES WHEN THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT;
THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO “POWER” TO MAKE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT CONSTITUTIONAL BY ISSUING AN OPINION OR BY DOING ANYTHING ELSE.
READ those statements again. That is the whole shebang my fellow inmate that they have screwed you and me with. Understanding the distinction and the IMPORT of those statements exposes the great con they have run regarding the court’s “power”.
There is no FLIP side to the SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE. because there is no POWER being exercised on the flip side. The money power has done one hell of a job confusing people and conflating those two distinct ideas. But they are not a mirror image of each other. They are totally different.
One is a POWER that operates AGAINST the other branches of the government on BEHALF of the people to STOP them from DOING SOMETHING to the people. The other is merely an OPINION that sets up a consensus or Union with the acts of the OTHER BRANCHES of the government AGAINST the PEOPLE. It doesn’t DO anything. Do you see the difference yet?
There is NO evidence, and there never could be, and there is NO line of rational thought, and there never could be to to SHOW that the people GAVE the COURT THE POWER to make unconstitutional acts Constitutional by simply issuing its OPINION. That turns the entire system ON ITS HEAD. It makes NO SENSE. The people would have put themselves at the mercy of the the unelected untouchable branch of the government. The court would be the OPPOSITE of what it was intended to be.
There is no flip side to the “Art III” Marbury v. Madison POWER to strike down acts. None. If the branches work together to take the freedoms of the people and grow the power of the FEDS outside its constitutional limits all of that conduct is lawless. The framers were well aware of this danger. Again, Federalist 78:
“…. liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;
Do you see? There was no “arguing about that issue” between the Federalist and the Anti-federalist because IT was self evident that there was a problem if the court got into bed with the other branches, i.e. started “approving” and “finding” powers the government didn’t have.
And of course that is what we have had now for many many decades. The court has been doing nothing more than running cover, providing “plausible deniability” and the APPEARANCE of a check to DUPE the people. It has been rubber stamping the EXPANSION of the government by expanding and explaining made up “constitutional powers” that IT CREATED ITSELF, lol. When it does that it is NOT exercising ANY constitutionally based “power” derived from the “separation of powers” or its authority to engage in “judicial review”, it is simply conspiring to violate the constitution. Nothing more and It is not entitled to any shred of support by the people. It is entitled to the CONTEMPT of the people.
I want to ask you a very simple question.
When is the last time the supreme court struck down any piece of legislation that was even ARGUABLY CONSTITUTIONAL? Has it EVER happened? I means Jesus H. just look at Art. 1 Sect. 8, the Feds don’t have the power to DO JACK, yet they do EVERYTHING. Limited government is a complete sham BECAUSE of the court. Yes the court has struck a few items down, but the items WERE LAUGHABLY unconstitutional to begin with. BUT let me let you in on a secret my fellow inmate. The only reason they even do that is because if they NEVER struck anything down, the people might have seen the fraud a long time ago.
You have to throw a few hands if you want to reel in the MARK! lol
A HUGE portion of the problems we experience are because the COURT HAS EITHER APPROVED OBVIOUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION OR IT HAS LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH AND CREATED NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PEOPLE.
Neither of those issues are addressed IN the Constitution. They can’t be. Those are problems with CORRUPTION, not the form of the government!! AND Neither of those issues are an “outgrowth” of the court “exercising ANY power under the separation of powers doctrine.”
The government has been ever so careful in its schools to condition the People to ACCEPT whatever the court says as, “the final answer”, be it Obamacare or anything else. The people now clearly believe that the court has the power to in effect make an unconstitutional act Constitutional by simply issuing its opinion no matter how absurd the reasoning. No matter how much it bootstraps on bootstraps some made up standard that the court itself CREATED.
And the legal minds in this country, after being intentionally misled for years in “law schools” running controlled “curriculums” and prepping students for “the bar” , now actually believe that this power is “part of the structure of our government” and is derived from the separation of powers and judicial review. But now you can see the great sleight of hand with which the PEOPLE have been fooled.
“Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson
The court’s power comes FROM THE PEOPLE. So does the legislatures. If the court is approving unconstitutional nonsense put in front of it by the legislature and the Prez then they are all just conspiring to grow the government. If the people then go along with it, who is really to blame? THE PEOPLE.
“The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union.” —Thomas Jefferson
It is UP TO THE PEOPLE to protect themselves. The government, including the Supreme Court, doesn’t protect the people. Of course the court is acting without any LEGAL authority AT ALL when it “approves” obviously unconstitutional nonsense. That is called corruption. It is called being power hungry. IT IS CALLED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNMENT. Lol It is a lot of things, but it isn’t a separation of powers problem.
The PEOPLE should demand the justices be IMPEACHED immediately. When the master allows the servants to run amok, well, the servants will run amok until brought under control, lol.
If the situation is not what the people want then THEY must change it. But the people have become sheeple. And sheep get slaughtered.
Step one to changing things is understanding the deeply imbedded mental constructs they have placed into the peoples’ minds to control them. That is what this site is for.
I hope you learned something today. I hope the next time you hear some schmexpert from “Harvard law” or a “former federal prosecutor” discussing “Obamacare” or any other S. Ct case, and the court’s “POWER” under “Art III” to in effect make something “constitutional”, that you will just laugh at them for what they are. Obvious propagandists.
It matters not if they do it knowingly. The effect is the same on the people. In all likelihood they are just useful idiots of the power structure being richly rewarded for doing something they don’t even ultimately understand. They probably actually BELIEVE what they are saying. It is almost sad that people can be so easily fooled.
I hope your eyes have been opened to YET ANOTHER way the power structure takes something that is true and then turns it a “quarter of an inch” so that it is crap, lol. THAT IS THEIR METHOD, lol. Once that is done they can step aside and let the people drain off time and energy arguing with EACH OTHER on issues that DON’T matter and never were DISPUTED. It is always the same game my fellow inmate.
That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.