The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia has been a safe
haven for Democrats, with the justices there willing repeatedly to favor
plaintiffs who have filed suits against the Trump administration. Margot Cleveland obtained a memo
from a federal judicial conference held this past March showing that
the DC judges are actively hostile to Donald Trump and want to ensure
the Supreme Court shares that hostility. This behavior crashes into the
federal canons governing judges, as well as into the reality of Trump’s
conduct.
Andrea then goes on to outline who they are and how they're corrupting the judicial canons and the invertebracy of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts. An outstanding article to say the least, and again, more reason for a 28th Amendment for age and term
limits to the federal judiciary. They’re out of control, and the
Congress has failed to use their Constitutional authority to rein them
in.
So, let's talk about King Jugurtha of Numidia and the Jugurthine War.
Never heard of that? Imagine that. Chuckling...yeah well neither did
I until I was doing some research on Julius Cesare and stumbled on to
it. Jugurtha murdered family members to become king, and bribed Roman
officials, including Senators to let him get away with it. He bribed
military officers to prevent being defeated, and this went on for years
with these officials happily taking their money and looking away.
Finally the public outcry over all this was so massive it forced Rome to
act.
This story exposes the massive corruption that was so Roman, so vile,
and so ubiquitous triggering so many civil wars in Rome's history. I
don't think most realize how corrupt and unstable Roman government was
for all of it's existence.
This kind of corruption was rampant during the three Obama
terms impacting the military, the administration, and the judiciary,
with Obamaites appointing federal judges for 12 years. Twelve out of the last 17 years filling the federal judiciary with corrupt and incompetent political hacks, All of whom are have been epitomized by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who should sitting on is a park bench, not a judicial bench.
The
exposure of that corruption has been the justification for the purges
going on in both the military and the administrative branches of
government, but the judiciary is out of control and uncontrollable. We need term limits as getting a two thirds vote for an impeachment conviction is impossible.
Definition leads to clarity, history is everything, and the patterns of life repeat over and over again. I think this story is useful as this kind of corruption is now in play with the federal judiciary, and it's uncontrolled, putting their own values and agenda ahead of the Constitution, Congressional legislation, Executive privileges, their oath of office, and destroying the rule of law, which is destabilizing the nation. It's time to stop looking the other way, it's time for a massive public outcry, and a Jugurthine War, i.e., a 28th Amendment.
I will be using this historical reference in the future. Think how China was allowed to buy advanced computer systems from the US, how N. Korea got nuclear arms, how Iran was given billions and was on the verge of a nuclear bomb, and who was responsible for that.
My go to news site first thing in the morning is American Thinker, which I think is the absolutely best new site out there, they've even published one of my articles in the past. There are a lot of articles appearing at AT by a large number of volunteer contributors, but they only have a few paid staff members, who on every Saturday different members of the AT writing staff put out a "Members Weekly Newsletter". There are times these pieces are so good I wished they'd publish them on line.
One such article is by Mike McDaniel entitled, It was always clear that Justice Jackson would be a disaster, but she's worse than anyone could have anticipated.
Biden committed himself to a DEI nominee, and a black woman fit the bill, who could easily have been called a "mediocre" left wing ideologue right from the beginning. A left wing ideologue totally unconcerned with reality, or the law starting, out with her exchange with Republican Senators who asked her to define what a woman was. She couldn't. Why? She's not a biologist was her answer. But they all failed to drive a stake into the heart of her nomination when they all failed to ask her if she was a woman. As Mike notes the answer to that question might have ended her nomination.
It was apparent her understanding of Constitutional law is abysmal after Senator Ted Cruz asked her to take a position on that which is foundational to the Constitution, Natural Rights.
After doing what all these Biden nominees have done consistently, answering questions not asked, over and over again, finally Cruz asked if she held a position on Natural Rights, yes or no.
She answered saying she held no position on Natural Rights. Well that's foundation to the very existence of Constitution, and for any law student to have no opinion is impossible, but for a federal jurist, and one being nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, that's not just impossible, it's a deliberate lie. A lie in an attempt to avoid exposing the fact she's not a jurist, she's a radical left wing ideologue and an activist.
Recently Justice Amy Coney Barrett smacked her hard and heavy dealing with birthright citizenship, something rarely done on the court, if ever. Then she had to be schooled by ... of all people... Sotomayor on the President's legitimate Constitutional Article II powers as the chief executive with the authority to hire, and fire. She claimed allowing him to do that would open the door to an Imperial Presidency, saying:
Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and
our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.....
Well, that's the job for the Legislative branch to address, not the judiciary.
But the interesting thing is not one of the jurists took exception to Justice Amy Coney Barrett smack down, and Mike explains why. She's an enormous pain in the butt. Instead of asking questions for clarification she babbles on "mindlessly" and according to Mike:
Canny court watchers have noted the annoyance of the wiser justices at Brown Jackson's loud-mouthed antics.
I have to imagine when the Justices meet privately as a group to discuss issues her penchant for mindless rambling is almost unbearable. Over the years I've served on boards of my industry's trade associations, and had that kind of babbling go on to the point I would get up and walk out of the room until they were done, and then they would start all over again, it become unbearable. But they didn't serve on those boards for life, a SCOTUS justice does, how unbearable that must be.
As a side bar. Who has consistently been the justice who asks the fewest questions and comments the least? Justice Clearance Thomas, who I consider the finest justice to sit on the court in my lifetime.
She thinks the federal judiciary should be able to impose universal injunctions against the Executive at the district level, requiring both the Executive and the Legislative branches to acquiesce their Constitutional authority to unelected minor judges. She claims she fears an Imperial Presidency that will destroy "democracy" but has no concerns about an Imperial Judiciary that really is destroying democracy by destroying the rule of law. An Imperial Judiciary where her feelings are far more
important than the laws written by Congress and anything written in that dusty old document called the United States Constitution.
Mike ends his article with this paragraph:
Brown Jackson's petulance in these two most recent cases suggests Kagan and Sotomayor realize Brown Jackson is not up to the minimum level of competence required of the Court and are no longer going to try to keep her blazing incompetence and leftism under the radar. She's too overtly leftist even for them.
Sotomayor apparently thinks Jackson is blazingly incompetent? How shocking is that? Jackson is arrogant, pompous, petulant, and grossly incompetent, and ya just can't fix stupid. But when you put a person with those combined qualities in a position of power, they're unbearable. Ketanji Brown Jackson is another excellent example of why there needs to be a 28th Amendment to fix the Founders gravest error. Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
I've written much about the federal judiciary, along with age and term limits, some of which are listed below.
Culture is a
universally accepted set of foundational beliefs and perceptions that
lead to the formation of a society, presumably, and hopefully, a stable
society. We now have an issue with what’s universally accepted. So,
what if we could rewrite the Constitution? There’s a lot of talk about
an Article V Convention to fix all the issues confounding America today.
Well, that’s interesting because we no longer have a
universally accepted cultural foundation as the left has undermined all the traditional values that created the nation by infiltrating the nation's institutions, including religion, education, unions, entertainment, the media, big corporations, and the departments of the federal government working surreptitiously behind the scenes to destroy the American identity, the American culture, the American economy, and the Constitution. While many were aware of this for decades, we're now discovering just how bad the corruption has been with all these DOGE exposures, and how bad the federal judiciary has been contaminated.
Also, we don’t really know
what would happen if an Article V convention was convened. While I’ve read
conflicting opinions, I’m convinced once the states decide the
Constitution needs serious adjustment via an Article V Convention, that
Convention can pretty much go wherever and do whatever it darn well pleases. Just because it may
start out with just wanting a balanced budget, there’s nothing
preventing them from going way beyond that.
There is absolutely no outline, rules, or
restrictions in the Constitution for what an Article V Convention may
do, but it was the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that neither the
Congress, the President of the United States, nor the courts can
interfere, in any way by simply not saying they could interfere, or make rules up
to control the Convention. Since the Constitution failed to outline any restrictions, there are no restrictions.
But what would everyone want in a new Constitution? It’s hard to say, but make no mistake, without
conservatives taking strong stands, willing to be rocks in the current and bravely facing the slings and arrows from the left, the left would go full Marxist, and the Pravda media would beat their drums 24/7 in support of the worst possible outcome, and many so-called conservatives would fold like the invertebrates they are. But
here’s what I think should be done.
For years I’ve been saying we need a 28th Amendment to fix
the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made. Lifetime appointments to
the federal judiciary, and while giving the Congress the right to determine the jurisdiction of the courts, they failed to define boundaries for the courts.
Of course, at that time, the only federal court was the
Supreme Court of the U.S., but that’s changed dramatically over the
years. Now there are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one
Supreme Court, and each and every one of them is shot full of not very
bright, incompetent political hacks, including SCOTUS, the only
Constitutionally mandated federal court.
All the rest are creations of Congress, and any one of
them can be eliminated by Congress, which Congress did in the 19th
century. Believe it or not, once again, the Constitution gives Congress the
authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, not
federal jurists, nor SCOTUS. My position has been since Congress refuses to put the
federal judiciary in its place, it’s my view has been there needs to be a
28th Amendment creating term and age limits for the federal judiciary,
and done so in this manner:
There are three levels of the federal judiciary: The
District level, the Appeals level, and the Supreme Court. Each level
should have a ten-year limit, with a review after five years requiring a
majority approval by the Senate. At each level, each nominee would have
to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court,
before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out
and they’re not nominated to a higher court, they may be nominated at
some point in the future. No jurist can return to a lower court if their
term runs its course at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be
appointed to a court if their nomination to any court has ever been
rejected by the Senate.
No jurist may serve after the age of seventy. Make 9
Justices a Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court
packing FDR attempted to do, and Joe Biden and the Democrats are
attempting to do now.
But as time has gone by, I realized that wasn’t nearly
enough to fix the nation. Do not be deluded, the nation is in the midst of a third revolution, and the courts are part of that insurrection.
You know those commercials that spout, “But
wait. There’s more!” Well, I decided what’s needed is “a lot more” in an
all “New and Improved” 28th Amendment. An all-new and improved omnibus
Amendment addressing a host of Constitutional issues in order to fix the
nation. I’ve added seventeen sections to this amendment.
My new and improved 28th Amendment:
I would not only fix the judiciary with term and age limits, and fix the
number of SCOTUS members at nine, and given some of the rulings now coming from the judiciary from some who were foreign born, require all federal judges to be natural born citizens. It should also include term limits
for all federally elected officials. Three two-year terms for the House
of Representatives.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, and give Senators one
six-year term. The Founding Fathers created the House to represent the
people, which is why all tax bills must originate in the House. The Senate was to represent the states. Senators were appointed
by the states to be de facto ambassadors to the central government in
order to prevent what we’re seeing right now, a federal government that's out of control.
All federally elected officials may
be recalled by their states. The House members by public vote by
whatever margin the states may choose, and Senators by agreement between
their state legislatures and their governors.
Repeal the 16th Amendment. End income tax.
Eliminate the Federal Reserve and return the
nation’s financial responsibilities to the Legislative and Executive
branches, in order to make them accountable.
Repeal the 26th Amendment that gave
18-year-olds the right to vote in federal elections, and raise the
voting age to 30. The right to vote should be earned, and that can only
be done with time. By age 30,
people’s brains start to work properly.
Create sunset mandates that cover all
laws, regulations, taxes, and government agencies. And these sunset
clauses should include all departments of the federal government except
State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, and Defense.
Congress shall define in the clearest
possible terms the five permanent departments must recognize the
Constitution is the law governing government, and state all regulations are in fact de facto laws that must be approved by Congress, or face charges of
treason, or sedition,
Every budget the House of
Representatives and the Senate send to the President must be balanced,
and the Congress must present a yearly budget to the President, by a
specified date. If they fail to do so, they will cease being paid until
it’s approved.
Retire the national debt, with a hard
debt limit. A debt limit that can only be overturned by approval of three-fifths of each of the houses of Congress and the President of the
United States.
These five departments should be
eliminated entirely: the Department of Commerce, Housing and Urban
Development, Education, Energy, and Labor. All others can be folded into
the five permanent departments, or preferably become agencies, bureaus,
etc, all with five year sunset reviews.
Make all federally elected
officials, and their staffs, employees of their state's government ending
their federal employee status. The states shall determine the size of
their staff, and fund employment benefits for all. All federal retirement funds for these personnel shall be sent to the
states for appropriate distribution and definition. Security and office space shall be provided by the
Federal government.
Strengthen the First Amendment, and specifically end New York Times v. Sullivan
where the Supreme Court gave the media the right to lie without consequence.
Strengthen the Second Amendment
preventing local or state authorities from passing gun laws without the
approval of Congress and the President of the United States.
Washington D.C. is a city that shall
be totally governed by the federal government and cannot have
representatives in Congress, as was originally intended by the founding fathers.
No state may change the Electoral College system requiring all their electoral votes to go to the popular vote winner.
Strengthen immigration restrictions, stating immigration into America is not a right, it's a privilege, and end birthright citizenship. Only children born of legal immigrants who become citizens can have citizenship via birth, and that right will automatically be bestowed when legal immigrants become citizens.
(Editor's Note:I published this on June 26, 2015 and again
on January 16, 2018, and May 13, 2021. This started 10 years ago
originally, but current events are proving just how true the writers
concerns were, and should be even more concerning now. With current
events and the outrageous behavior of the judiciary of the Federal
courts, and the tyranny imposed by the federal and state governments, I
feel the need to post it again. RK)
“A painfully slim 5 – 4 ruling this week by the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel”.
He writes, “The court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that allowed
police officers to inspect hotel guest registries for any or even no
reason, and without a warrant. The ruling that the Fourth Amendment
applies to businesses and that statutes may be declared unconstitutional
on their face is consistent with principles as old as, and even older
than, the Constitution.”
But he also notes:
“Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s majority opinion is also a blueprint for a
major power grab for the administrative police state” because “her
majority opinion even seems to suggest that police departments may be
given power to approve their own searches using administrative subpoenas
instead of going to judges to obtain warrants”.
Administrative subpoenas? Is she serious? This isn’t something that
should even be an option! The article goes on to explain why say it’s
Constitutionally inappropriate for administrative subpoenas to be issued
by federal bureaucrats saying, “Justice Frank Murphy’s short but
powerful and prescient dissent from his all-Democrat appointed
colleagues is spot on”:
"I am unable to approve the use of nonjudicial subpoenas issued by
administrative agents. Administrative law has increased greatly in the
past few years, and seems destined to be augmented even further in the
future. But attending this growth should be a new and broader sense of
responsibility on the part of administrative agencies and officials.
Excessive use or abuse of authority can not only destroy man's instinct
for liberty, but will eventually undo the administrative processes
themselves. Our history is not without a precedent of a successful
revolt against a ruler who "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our
people."
Perhaps we are too far removed from the experiences of the past to
appreciate fully the consequences that may result from an irresponsible
though well meaning use of the subpoena power.
To allow a nonjudicial officer, unarmed with judicial process, to demand
the books and papers of an individual is an open invitation to abuse of
that power. It is no answer that the individual may refuse to produce
the material demanded. Many persons have yielded solely because of the
air of authority with which the demand is made, a demand that cannot be
enforced without subsequent judicial aid. Many invasions of private
rights thus occur without the restraining hand of the judiciary ever
intervening.
Only by confining the subpoena power exclusively to the judiciary can
there be any insurance against this corrosion of liberty. Statutory
enforcement would not thereby be made impossible. Indeed, it would be
made easier. A people's desire to cooperate with the enforcement of a
statute is in direct proportion to the respect for individual rights
shown in the enforcement process.
Liberty is too priceless to be forfeited through the zeal of an administrative agent."
Does Sotomayor, who actually described herself as the “wise Latina”, really understand that?
The founding fathers created lifetime appointments for federal judges
because they wanted them to be unafraid about losing their jobs for
unpopular decisions. There were some differences between then and now.
First of all there were few federal judges and nowhere in the
Constitution does it outline exactly their duties. Originally the
Supreme Court handled very common cases. Their authority developed over
time and they pretty much created their own parameters of
responsibility.
Secondly the federal government was amazingly small compared to today
and everyone pretty much thought it would stay that way. However the
passage of the 16th amendment (income tax) and 17th Amendment (popular
elections of Senators) pretty much laid the foundation destroying the
checks and balances between the branches of government and the vision of
a limited central government, which the founding fathers believed was
essential to individual liberty. They couldn't have been more right.
Although it’s true judges can be removed by impeachment. It’s also true
the federal judiciary is filled with political hacks that have made
decisions that can’t be construed as anything but high crimes. The high
crimes of the Constitution means a “crime of high office”,which can
simply mean they’ve failed to perform the duties they have sworn by oath
to perform. It’s clear the federal judiciary no longer believe they
have to "solemnly swear (or affirm)they will administer justice……under
the Constitution and laws of the United States." They’re clearly not
following the Constitution, and they clearly don’t believe they need to
“preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and
domestic” since they are Constitution’s greatest enemy. If that’s so –
and it is – and it’s so obvious – and it is – why aren’t more judges
impeached? Because getting a two thirds majority to vote for conviction
from the Senate is almost impossible.
"Jefferson doubted that the fear of impeachment was little more than a
paper tiger, or as he put it frequently in private correspondence, “not
even a scarecrow.” He put the danger this way: “We already see the
power, installed for life, advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to
the great object of consolidation. [“The engine of consolidation,” he
had said, “will be the federal judiciary . . . .”] The foundations are
already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of
constitutional state rights, and the removal of every check, every
counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a
sovereign part.”
Has this occurred? It should be obvious to the most casual observer that
it has and the Supreme Court’s recent decision King v. Burwell is a
clear example the federal judiciary has become an out of control law
unto themselves. Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent
is a simple, direct and easy to understand intellectual tour-de-force
demonstrating how far they’ve sunk in their efforts to overturn the
balance of power created by the Constitution.
Scalia states:
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare ……the cases will publish
forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United
States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it
takes to uphold and assist its favorites…
He went on to say:
“Words no longer have meaning …..Under all the usual rules of
interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But
normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding
principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved……
He observes:
The Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful
drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue
Congress from its drafting errors.’”…..“The Court’s decision reflects
the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive
distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the
statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s
decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the
Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both
making laws and mending them.”…..
Demonstrating just how dangerous the federal judiciary has become:
“More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws
and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not
by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law
something different from what it intended, then it should amend the
statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no
roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that …
Congress ‘must have intended’something broader.”…
He states what should be the understanding of all federal jurists:
“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it,
the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the
Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”
If the Constitution is going to really be the document that governs
government, and is the real and legitimate law of the land, it's in
serious need of reinforcements. It’s time for a 28th Amendment that
would impose strict term and age limits on the federal judiciary.
There are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the
Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year
limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by
the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same
process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their
term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated
to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future. No
jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a
higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their
nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist
may serve after the age of seventy. And make 9 Justices a
Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe
Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do.
Here’s the fix! Abolish the FED, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and
pass a 28th amendment. Everything else will fall into place.
Culture is a universally accepted set of foundational beliefs and perceptions that lead to the formation of a society, presumably, and hopefully, a stable society. We now have an issue with what's universally accepted. So, what if we could re-write the Constitution? There's
a lot of talk about an Article V Convention to fix all the issues
confounding America today. Well,
that's interesting because we no longer have a universally accepted cultural foundation. Also, we don't really know what would happen if
such a convention was convened.
While I've read conflicting opinions, I'm convinced once the states decide the Constitution
needs serious adjustment via an Article V Convention, that Convention can go pretty much where it pleases. Just because it may start out with just wanting a balanced budget,
there's nothing from preventing them from going way beyond that.
Since there's absolutely no outline, rules, nor restrictions in the Constitution for what an Article V Convention may do, but the clear intent of the Founding Fathers was neither the Congress, the President of the United States or
the courts can interfere, simply by not saying they could interfere, or make rules up to control the Convention.
But what would everyone want in a new Constitution? It's hard to say, but make no mistake, without conservatives taking strong stands, the left would go full Marxist. But here's what I think should done instead.
For years I’ve been saying we need a 28th Amendment to fix the biggest mistake the Founding Fathers made. Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.
Of course, at that time the only federal court was the Supreme Court of the U.S., but that’s changed dramatically over the years. Now there are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court, and each and every one of them is shot full of not very bright, incompetent political hacks, including SCOTUS, the only Constitutionally mandated federal court. All the rest are creations of the Congress, and any one of them can be eliminated by Congress, which Congress did in the 19th century. Believe it or not, the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, not federal jurists, nor SCOTUS. But since Congress refuses to put the federal judiciary in their place, it's my view has been there needs to be a 28th Amendment creating term and age limits for the federal judiciary, and done so in this manner:
There are three levels of the federal judiciary: The District level, the Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future. No jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist may serve after the age of seventy. Make 9 Justices a Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing FDR attempted to do, and Joe Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do now.
But as time has gone by I realized that wasn't nearly enough to fix the nation. You know those commercials that spout, "But wait. There's more!" Well, I decided what's needed is "a lot more" in an all "New and Improved" 28th Amendment. An all new and improved omnibus Amendment addressing a host of Constitutional issues in order to fix the nation. I've added sixteen sections to this amendment.
My new and improved 28th Amendment shall not only fix the judiciary with term and age limits, and fix the number of SCOTUS members at nine, it should also include term limits for all federally elected officials. Three two year terms for the House of Representatives. Repeal the 17th Amendment, and give Senators one six term. The Founding Fathers created the House to represent the public, and the Senate to represent the states. Senators were appointed by the states to be de facto ambassadors to the central government in order to prevent what we're seeing right now. A federal government out of control.
All federally elected officials may be recalled by their states. The House members by public vote by whatever margin the states may choose, and Senators by agreement between their state legislatures and their governors.
Repeal the 16th Amendment. End income tax.
Eliminate the FED and return the nation's financial responsibilities over the Legislative and Executive branches, in order to make them accountable.
Repeal the 26th Amendment that gave 18 year olds the right to vote in federal elections, and raise the voting age to 30. The right to vote should be earned, and that can only be done with time, including serving in the military. By age 30 people's brains start to work properly.
Create sunset mandates that cover all laws, regulations, taxes, and government agencies. And these sunset clauses should include all departments of the federal government except State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, and Defense.
Congress shall define in the clearest possible terms the five permanent
departments must recognize the Constitution is the law governing
government, or face charges of treason, or sedition.
Every budget the House of Representatives and the Senate send to the President must be balanced, and the Congress must present a yearly budget to the President, by a specified date. If they fail to do so, they will cease being paid until they do, and it's approved.
Retire the national debt, with a hard debt limit. A debt limit which can only be overturned by approval of four fifths of each of the houses of Congress and the President of the United States.
These five departments should be eliminated entirely: the Department of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Labor. All others can be folded into the five permanent departments, or preferably become agencies, bureaus, etc, all with sunset reviews.
Make all federally elected officials, and their staffs, employees of their state governments ending their federal employee status. The states shall determine the size of their staff, provide office space, and fund the employment benefits for all. All federal retirement funds for these personnel shall be sent to the states for appropriate distribution. Security shall be provided by the Federal government.
Strengthen the First Amendment.
Strengthen the Second Amendment preventing local or state authorities from passing gun laws without the approval of Congress and the President of the United States.
Washington D.C. is a city that shall be totally governed by the federal government, and cannot have representatives in the Congress.
No state may change the Electoral College system requiring all their electoral votes go to the popular vote winner.
Strengthen immigration restrictions, stating, immigration into America is not a right.
It's time to fix the one really big error made by the Founding Fathers,
lifetime tenure of the federal judiciary. It's time to pass a 28th
Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary, and if
possible, all federally elected officials. If we can't have both, at
least get age and term limits for the federal judiciary.
There
are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the
Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year
limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by
the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same
process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their
term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated
to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future.
No
jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a
higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their
nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist
may serve after the age of seventy. And make 9 Justices a
Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe
Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do.
Pass this 28th Amendment, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and everything else will fall into place.
A reader came back saying:
It wasn't really an error when average lifespan was less than 40.
Well, depending on the situation, I'm not impressed with average lifespan arguments because average lifespan is misleading. Well up into the 20th century Child mortality was high. My grandmother had seven children and two died before the age of three from pneumonia. So while he was right about the "average" lifespan, normally, the lifespan was, and is, the "Biblical four score and ten", and a lot of people lived that long. However, as I said, his argument intrigued me so I took some time to find out how long the Founding Fathers lived, all 115 of them.
Many of the Founding Fathers lived long lives, however, two died in their thirties, the youngest 30 dying at sea.
15 died in their forties.
24 died in their fifties.
37 died in the sixties,.
20 died in their seventies.
12 died in the eighties.
4 died in their nineties, the oldest being 96.
Their average life span is rounded off at 64.
If you eliminate all those who died in their thirties, forties and fifties, that leaves 74 Founding Fathers with an average life span of 73.
If you eliminate those who died in their sixties, that leaves 37 with an average lifespan rounded off at 77.
If you eliminate those who died in their seventies, that leaves 16 with a rounded off lifespan of 86.
As I said, his argument intrigued me, however, in none of the arguments presented in the Continental Congress for or against lifetime appointments, was life span ever bought up. The argument was all about unbridled power.
That was the argument. That was the issue, and it was fought vigorously, and the arguments used by those who fought against lifetime appointments were absolutely prescient. It's time to put age and term limits on the federal judiciary.
I think we need to thank Joe Biden. Really, I do! And the reason why is he's nominating people for important federal positions and the federal judiciary that are absolutely unqualified, and in many cases, to put it kindly, strange, and the Democrats are approving them. He hired Sam Brinton, and the left thinks you're the problem:
"The rest of us all wondered what kind of vetting process was involved
when this person was identified as the most qualified individual to
oversee America's nuclear policies. "BIGOT!" they screamed at us when we gave the natural side-eye to this obviously disturbed individual."
That's why we need to thank Ole Joe because it's now clear and obvious, even to the most casual observer, the only people more dangerous to America than the Russians, Iranians and the Chinese, are the American left, and Ole Joe's nominees represent the epitome of that failed, irrational, misanthropic and morally defective philosophy of leftism. But these people can be fired, and when an administration changes, appointed employees are gone. However, that's not the case for the judiciary.
I love watching Senators Kennedy, Hawley, Cruz and Blackburn when they question these misfits Biden is nominating for positions in the federal government, and the federal judiciary. They're questioning demonstrates just how corrupt, incompetent and unqualified these people truly are.
With a few exceptions, most of them aren't very bright or very knowledgeable, and those he's nominating for the federal judiciary are three things. They are en mass; 1) Radial leftists. 2) Anti-American, and 3) because they're young, they'll be making decisions that are absolutely destructive to the Constitution and the American people for the rest of the lives, and no one can do anything about it because the Founding Fathers foolishly created lifetime appointments for the federal judiciary, with the reasoning lifetime appointments would prevent partisanship, which the members of that Convention battled over.
The wrong ones won and those who lost were absolutely prescient, as everything they feared has come to pass.
Senator Kennedy asked one nominee if she knew what the Second and Fifth articles of the Constitution were. She didn’t know.He asked another nominee to tell him about New York Times
v. Sullivan. He thought it was a first amendment issue, but he didn’t know anything
about it otherwise.
Even the bug man knows what the Second and Fifth Articles of the Constitution are about, and absolutely knows New York Times v. Sullivan was a landmark First Amendment case, and one that needs to be revisited in my opinion. I've been a structural pest control professional for forty years, with absolutely no formal legal training whatsoever, so you have to ask yourself, if a bug man knows these things how can
graduates of law schools, seeking positions in the federal judiciary no
less, not know the answers to these questions?
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) is vowing to stop seven Biden Administration
nominees, including one who allegedly ignored sexual assault
accusations........Rubio announced on Friday that he is placing a hold on the former
mayor of Los Angeles........amid allegations that he covered up a sexual assault committed by a top
aide. The other six nominees Rubio is attempting to stop include a
pro-abortion extremist and someone who did legal work for a country
where human rights are abused.......an abortion extremist, someone with no
diplomatic or investment experience, and an individual who has supported
a policy of engagement with Cuba’s murderous dictatorship. I will not
turn a blind eye to these absurd nominations, which will hasten
America’s decline,” Rubio said. ..
Biden has been nominating political hacks with either no experience, are radical anti-America leftists, or have been abject failures, just like Buttigieg and Eric Garcetti, and those who are stunningly strange like Samuel Otis Brinton, and doing so for a good reason. That's the Democrat party!
Every judicial nomination Biden makes must be challenged with every legislative tool available to Senators, and they need to start openly attacking the Democrat members of the Judicial Committee, as did Senator Cruz in this video.
Let's have no doubt about what leftists want. Total and complete domination of America. They're destroying any potential for harmony and making tribalism the structure of American culture. They loath everything that made America great, and are doing everything they can to replace the American culture with Marxist totalitarianism.
For those who read history books this has been well known and obvious, and it's been going on for over 125 years, but now the public is finally seeing who and what these misfits are, what they're all about, and how dangerous they are to freedom and the continued existence of the Constitution of the United States, the greatest secular document ever produced by man, which America's law schools and the federal judiciary has been undermining for most of the twentieth century.
The need for age and term limits on the federal judiciary has never been more obvious, and we can thank Joe Biden for that.
“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning. “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied. “How about Article II?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either.
Okay, let's be clear, the average American might know what Article V is about as it's been in the news a lot over the last ten years, but most probably wouldn't the able to answer the Article II question. But that's not the job of average Americans, and a condemnation of our education system, but it is part and parcel of America law. So, let's do a little review.
How many Articles are there and what do they do? There are seven. First off, we need to understand the Constitution was set up to balance the power between the three branches, and the states. All of which has been destroyed by the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Article I establishes the Legislative Branch to make laws governing the nation, and more. All money bills must start in the Congress, starting with the House of Representatives, including the borrowing of money, and only Congress can declare wars, all of which has been usurped in one way or the other.
Article II establishes the Executive branch, with the goal of managing the affairs of the nation and the laws passed by Congress, via agencies of the government. The President is the nation's chief executive officer. However, the founders never wanted the Executive to have the power we're seeing today, and would be horrified. The oath where the President of the United States takes to '"faithfully execute" the responsibilities as President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", has become a joke under Biden, and he's not alone, he's just the worst of the worst.
Article III establishes the Supreme Court, and is the only Constitutionally mandated court. All others are creations of Congress and can be dismissed, and many years ago, Congress did such a thing. The founders, after much debate, made the mistake of giving federal justices lifetime tenure. However, it also gave the Legislature the power to determine the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which, as far as I can tell, they've failed to exercise since the late 19th century, so now the federal judiciary thinks it can not only self-determine where their jurisdiction lies, they outrank the Legislature and the Executive, and can, and do, legislate from the bench.
Article IV is called the Full Faith and Credit clause in order to shape and form a united nation. It's become a problem because the nation is no longer a unified nation with unified values and principles, so coupling that with the Commerce Clause of Article I, has made virtually everything a federal issue, including how much water can be flushed down your toilet.
Article V describes the legal means of altering the Constitution, including a Convention of States. Now, this has been a very public issue for years, and I'm willing to bet a huge number of people in America know what Article V is all about, even if it takes a bit of memory jabbing. For a member of the judiciary at any level not to know what Article V is all about is disgraceful testimony to their incompetence, and their unfitness to be a federal jurist, or for that matter, a jurist at any level.
Article VI is about debts, supremacy, oaths, and establishes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and requires all:
"Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's also become a joke as there has never been a more anti-American, anti-Constitutional leadership in the existence of this nation, all of whom represent a very real existential threat to this nation.
Article VII – Ratification. This article details all those people who signed the Constitution, representing the original 13 states.
Okay, if asked on the street, would have been able to answer what the first five were, but I would have been stumped by six and seven. But I'm a bugman, who writes articles, not an attorney, so I know about the first five because I've written about them in one way or the other. But for graduate of university specializing in law to not know all seven of those articles is disgraceful. Every first year law student should absolutely know the answers Senator Kennedy asked this nominee.
Below is a speech about the insane picks by the Biden administration for the federal judiciary by Ted Cruz that may be one of the greatest speeches ever made by a member of the Senate.
When Senator Kennedy was questioned about this, in what I'm guessing was probably a critical way, he responded:
"Some of these nominees that have been forced in the last two years
have no business being anywhere near a federal bench – they don't have
any business being anywhere near a park bench." "I don't ask
the nominees, 'Do you support this precedent or you support that
precedent?' I asked them to tell me about the law, tell me what the
Constitution says, tell me about the relationship between the federal
judiciary and our administrative agencies. These are all very basic
questions."
His goal has been to ether demonstrate just how incompetent and stupid these nominees are or how qualified. In almost every case we're finding their intelligence must be seriously called into question, their understanding of the law must be called into question, their integrity must be called into question, and their values have been shown to be absolutely destructive to the nation. Once these nitwits and misfits are appointed, there's not much that can be done about them.....and that needs to change.
It's time to fix the one really big error made by the Founding Fathers, lifetime tenure of the federal judiciary. It's time to pass a 28th Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary, and if possible, all federally elected officials. If we can't have both, at least get age and term limits for the federal judiciary.
There
are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the
Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year
limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by
the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same
process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their
term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated
to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future.
No
jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a
higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their
nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist
may serve after the age of seventy. And make 9 Justices a
Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe
Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do.
Pass this 28th Amendment, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and everything else will fall into place.
The Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, may protect abortion
as a federal right, a federal judge said on Feb. 6 in an ongoing
prosecution of pro-life activists charged with conspiracy to block
access to an abortion clinic.
Here's what the 13th Amendment says:
Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
That's what it says, that's all it says, and yet Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who I believe received her appointment from Bill Clinton, allegedly a "Catholic and a Progressive", which means she, like Biden and Pelosi, clearly suffer from cognitive dissonance, has decided it should apply to allow the murder of unborn innocents.
Another excellent reason to pass a 28th Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about vaccine
requirements in New York City that was once denied by liberal US Supreme
Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This could lead to a huge ruling about
how much power state and local governments have, the Conservative Brief reported. Last month, Sotomayor denied a request
by New York City police detective Anthony Marciano to overturn the
city’s unconstitutional mandate that all municipal workers get the
Covid-19 jab. Sotomayor denied Officer Anthony Marciano’s emergency request without
comment, and she did not ask the city to file a brief in response. Marciano resubmitted the same petition to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas..
Looks like Sotomayor got overruled - and quite rightly so!Sotomayor, who styled herself as a "wise Latina", which would have drawn outrage from the left if any white man or woman and the nerve to style themself as so wise they deserved to be on the Supreme Court, and has got to be running high on the list of SCOTUS jurists that are either dumb, incompetent, corrupt or blatantly partisan, or all four.
But she wouldn't appear anywhere on a list of "wise" jurists. Her inadequacy may only be exceeded by Ketanji Brown Jackson, who when she was a SCOTUS candidate the Senate questioned her qualifications the left became outraged. Outraged the Senate had the temerity to question her? Now they didn't personally attack her as the Democrats did to Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and the best jurist to have been seated on the Court in my lifetime, Clearance Thomas, they merely questioned the qualifications of a potential jurist. A potential jurist who couldn't define what a woman is. Imagine that!
Of the three branches of the U.S. federal government, the Supreme Court has traditionally received the most respect. And while all three branches have lost some level of confidence among the American public in recent years, it is the Supreme Court that has faced the most precipitous decline, and now find themselves in rare territory: defending their own legitimacy.
According to Gallup polling,
25% percent of U.S. adults in 2022 say they have "a great deal" or
"quite a lot" of confidence in SCOTUS, down from 36% a year ago and five
percentage points lower than the previous record low recorded in 2014.
Many court-watchers cite a recent spate of controversial decisions as contributing to the drop.
Is this lack of integrity and competence anything new for SCOTUS? No, as the author points out in the 19th century it was understood that court appointees were blatantly partisan, but he also points out court never had the power to alter the social structure of America then as it does now, and it's time to end this unconstitutional judicial tyranny with term limits. It's time for a 28th Amendment.
In Greek mythology Hercules was tasked with cleaning the Augean Stables,
which he did by diverting two rivers into the stables, thus washing out
all the manure. The nation is in need of a Herculean effort to wash
out the stench of corruption in the nation's federal judiciary, which is
filled with political hacks, unfortunately that includes the Supreme
Court of the United States, and nothing has exposed this stench like the
current case before them involving OSHA and the Biden administration's
efforts to by pass the Constitution with their vaccination mandates.
Life is about patterns and cycles, and in order to see those patterns and understand the cycles, we need to understand the learning curve is huge when writing about any issue if you aren't trained in the specific field of expertise you're exploring and writing about.
When I started writing twenty years ago it was solely in defense of the pest control industry and the tools we use, and I wanted to be absolutely accurate. I was prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead. What I found was a wide range of opinions, extreme opposite opinions. At the beginning you have to wade through a lot of information from all sides of these issues, and a ton of misinformation, logical fallacies, data manipulation, false studies, etc., before you find the right answers and patterns of thought. Once you've found who to trust, who to believe, what information is provable and what is not you're finally left with those who are reliable and truthful, and those who practice outright lying.
Let's start with Sotomayor, who stated during her Senate hearings for her seat on the Supreme Court of the United States:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding, so I wonder who is the "wise Latina" about whom she references? Because it isn't her. She's clearly ignorant about much of which she speaks, and this case brings that ignorance of the facts, and her either ignorance of the law or her disdain for the law to the fore.
It’s been clear for a while now that you have five conservative
Supreme Court justices, one left-leaning squish, two liberals, and one
absolute nutjob. That’s not to say that Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan
aren’t also incredibly terrible at their jobs, but it is to say that Sonia Sotomayor is in a class by herself.
Apparently she's astonished...astonished mind you....that anyone would stand against these mandates because she knows....absolutely knows....there are "100,000
children in serious condition", then asking "Where do these people
obtain their misinformation?
Unfortunately, her 100,000 child in crisis statistic is a lie, and she's the source of that misinformation. The actual number, according to the he United States Department of Health and Human Services, the number is 3,342. The reality is children are not significantly at risk from this variety of coronavirus, Covid-19, and they are not filling our hospitals.
She continues as the source of misinformation claiming that vaccinated people can't transmit the virus, which is known to be blatantly false, and has been known for some time, and the omicron variant is "as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did." This is false. She then stated, "We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity" with many children are now on ventilators as a result of this virus and we're "now having deaths at an unprecedented amount". Again, false.
On Jan. 13, 2021, the seven-day average of deaths was 3,421, and the number of deaths on that day was 4,048,according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That’s the peak for the COVID-19 pandemic. As of Jan. 7, the day
Sotomayor spoke, the seven-day average was 1,500 deaths, with the total
reaching 2,230 that day. Since then, the seven-day average has risen
slightly, to 1,552 on Jan. 9.
While there many be a lot of children on ventilators across the nation - the question is - are they on ventilators because of this virus, and there's not one iota of evidence they are, and since children are "extremely unlikely" to be infected with this virus it's clear they're "extremely unlikely" to be on ventilators because of this virus. She also claimed OSHA has the regulatory authority to impose these mandates and in effect a "federal police power."
So, it seems clear she's either stunningly ignorant or she lies. Either way, that makes her an incompetent and corrupt myrmidon jurist of the left, and certainly not the brightest pebble in the brook.
So let's go back to her "wise Latina" comment. If
any conservative or any color, male or female, or just a white male,
said anything that arrogant the media would have crucified them, and now
we know six things.
She's not that "wise Latina".
She clearly is either ignorant of the law, or chooses to ignore the law.
Her logic is flawed
Her conclusions are stupid.
Her views are based on falsehoods
She's unfit to be a judge on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
If
there ever was a member of the federal judiciary that overwhelmingly
demonstrates term limits should be imposed on the them via a
Constitutional amendment, she's the one.
Let's deal with Justices Breyer and Kagan,
but I don't have a cartoon for them that's appropriate, and this one is so rich I just had
to use it.
CLAIM: Vaccine mandates and masks would prevent all of the 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge.
VERDICT: PARTLY FALSE. While vaccines and masks would prevent many cases, they do not prevent all transmission.
Actually, that statement is almost always false. "Masks (especially cloth masks) are nearly useless in stopping or even slowing the
spread of the Wuhan Virus". But no matter, the issue here is his claim
there are 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge, or did he say 750,000,000 as some have reported, which is of course impossible since there's only about 330,000,000 people in America, which means each and every one of them had to have contracted this disease twice. But either way, either number is false.
Justice
Breyer also claimed hospitals are full to the maximum as a result of this
virus with people who are unvaccinated. That's false.
The nation's hospitals are are not full of Wuhan Virus patients, and in point of fact, they're not full of patients in general. According to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), only about 17
percent of all the patients in hospitals are Covid-19 patients, and it's
clear with his wide ranging claim of anywhere between sixty percent and
ninety percent capacity, he don's t have a clue what the number really
is. In short, he's making it up, aka, lying.
Justice Kagan, not to be outdone by her nutty companions, is claiming this virus is:
"the greatest public health danger that this
country has faced in the last century." "More and more
people are dying every day. More and more people are getting sick every
day. I don't mean to be dramatic here. I'm just sort of stating
facts."
Did she say facts? Claiming its just the facts, presupposes she's telling the truth, or is it as one writer says "telling the truth", "is really just a leftist's way of saying, "I'm feeding
you a crock of crap!"'
Let's try and get this right once and for all. First, these aren't legitimate vaccines as have been defined for decades, that being a vaccine had to do two things. Prevent infection and prevent transmission, and none of these "vaccines" do either, so they changed the definition to accommodate calling these drugs vaccines, which are experimental drugs since it normally takes ten to twelve years to go through all of the FDA's testing procedures. In point of fact, they don't work, including Pfizers drug. Pfizer CEO: Our Vaccines Offer ‘Limited, If Any Protection, otherwise there wouldn't be necessary to have an unending need for boosters Then there's the issue of bad reactions. It is my view that at some point the long term consequences of these forced vaccinations is going to be this generation's Thalidomide crisis.
If
Sotomayor is the number one demonstration of why we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution for term limits for the federal judiciary, both Breyer and Kagan both run a close second.
And to answer Sotomayor's question about where all the misinformation comes from. It comes from you, your cohorts on the court, the corrupt media and the Biden administration's Deep Staters.
(Editor's Note:I published this on June 26, 2015 and again on January 16, 2018. Current events are proving just how true the writers concerns were, and should be even more concerning now. With current events and the outrageous behavior of the judiciary of the Federal courts, and the tyranny imposed by the federal and state governments, I feel the need to post it again. RK)
“A painfully slim 5 – 4 ruling this week by the Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel”. He writes, “The court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that allowed police officers to inspect hotel guest registries for any or even no reason, and without a warrant. The ruling that the Fourth Amendment applies to businesses and that statutes may be declared unconstitutional on their face is consistent with principles as old as, and even older than, the Constitution.”
But he also notes:
“Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s majority opinion is also a blueprint for a major power grab for the administrative police state” because “her majority opinion even seems to suggest that police departments may be given power to approve their own searches using administrative subpoenas instead of going to judges to obtain warrants”.
Administrative subpoenas? Is she serious? This isn’t something that should even be an option! The article goes on to explain why say it’s Constitutionally inappropriate for administrative subpoenas to be issued by federal bureaucrats saying, “Justice Frank Murphy’s short but powerful and prescient dissent from his all-Democrat appointed colleagues is spot on”:
"I am unable to approve the use of nonjudicial subpoenas issued by administrative agents. Administrative law has increased greatly in the past few years, and seems destined to be augmented even further in the future. But attending this growth should be a new and broader sense of responsibility on the part of administrative agencies and officials.
Excessive use or abuse of authority can not only destroy man's instinct for liberty, but will eventually undo the administrative processes themselves. Our history is not without a precedent of a successful revolt against a ruler who "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people."
Perhaps we are too far removed from the experiences of the past to appreciate fully the consequences that may result from an irresponsible though well meaning use of the subpoena power.
To allow a nonjudicial officer, unarmed with judicial process, to demand the books and papers of an individual is an open invitation to abuse of that power. It is no answer that the individual may refuse to produce the material demanded. Many persons have yielded solely because of the air of authority with which the demand is made, a demand that cannot be enforced without subsequent judicial aid. Many invasions of private rights thus occur without the restraining hand of the judiciary ever intervening.
Only by confining the subpoena power exclusively to the judiciary can there be any insurance against this corrosion of liberty. Statutory enforcement would not thereby be made impossible. Indeed, it would be made easier. A people's desire to cooperate with the enforcement of a statute is in direct proportion to the respect for individual rights shown in the enforcement process.
Liberty is too priceless to be forfeited through the zeal of an administrative agent."
Does Sotomayor, who actually described herself as the “wise Latina”, really understand that?
The founding fathers created lifetime appointments for federal judges because they wanted them to be unafraid about losing their jobs for unpopular decisions. There were some differences between then and now. First of all there were few federal judges and nowhere in the Constitution does it outline exactly their duties. Originally the Supreme Court handled very common cases. Their authority developed over time and they pretty much created their own parameters of responsibility.
Secondly the federal government was amazingly small compared to today and everyone pretty much thought it would stay that way. However the passage of the 16th amendment (income tax) and 17th Amendment (popular elections of Senators) pretty much laid the foundation destroying the checks and balances between the branches of government and the vision of a limited central government, which the founding fathers believed was essential to individual liberty. They couldn't have been more right.
Although it’s true judges can be removed by impeachment. It’s also true the federal judiciary is filled with political hacks that have made decisions that can’t be construed as anything but high crimes. The high crimes of the Constitution means a “crime of high office”,which can simply mean they’ve failed to perform the duties they have sworn by oath to perform. It’s clear the federal judiciary no longer believe they have to "solemnly swear (or affirm)they will administer justice……under the Constitution and laws of the United States." They’re clearly not following the Constitution, and they clearly don’t believe they need to “preserve and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic” since they are Constitution’s greatest enemy. If that’s so – and it is – and it’s so obvious – and it is – why aren’t more judges impeached? Because getting a two thirds majority to vote for conviction from the Senate is almost impossible.
"Jefferson doubted that the fear of impeachment was little more than a paper tiger, or as he put it frequently in private correspondence, “not even a scarecrow.” He put the danger this way: “We already see the power, installed for life, advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. [“The engine of consolidation,” he had said, “will be the federal judiciary . . . .”] The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional state rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part.”
Has this occurred? It should be obvious to the most casual observer that it has and the Supreme Court’s recent decision King v. Burwell is a clear example the federal judiciary has become an out of control law unto themselves. Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent is a simple, direct and easy to understand intellectual tour-de-force demonstrating how far they’ve sunk in their efforts to overturn the balance of power created by the Constitution.
Scalia states:
“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare ……the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites…
He went on to say:
“Words no longer have meaning …..Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved……
He observes:
The Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”…..“The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”…..
Demonstrating just how dangerous the federal judiciary has become:
“More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’something broader.”…
He states what should be the understanding of all federal jurists:
“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”
If the Constitution is going to really be the document that governs government, and is the real and legitimate law of the land, it's in serious need of reinforcements. It’s time for a 28th Amendment that would impose strict term and age limits on the federal judiciary.
There are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future. No jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist may serve after the age of seventy. Make 9 Justices a Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do, and all federal judges must be natural born citizens.
Here’s the fix! Abolish the FED, repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments and pass a 28th amendment. Everything else will fall into place.
By Rich Kozlovich
By Rich Kozlovich