American's Real Constitutional Crisis: The Federal Judiciary!

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags:

  

The Pravda media is frothing at the mouth declaring Trump dismantling of the Deep State is causing a  ‘Constitutional Crisis’. Really?  Let's explore this.  

This week I published, DOGE, Trump, and The Federal Judiciary, Part V, saying:

Then two days later in the Southern District of New York, where a ham sandwich could be charged with a crime and found guilty, Judge Paul Engelmayer responded to a complaint by 19 state's Attorney's General that what DOGE was doing "presents a unique security risk to the States and State residents whose data is held", which is interesting logic as a way to prevent exposure of fraud and criminal activity, and the judge bought into that somehow believing the federal judiciary can tell the President of the United State he can't oversee the departments he's responsible for under the Constitution.  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that. 

Access was limited to “civil servants with a need for access … who have passed all background checks and security clearances and all information security training” required by laws and regulations”............

Not only has he entered a "no access" judgement, he's ordered the immediate destruction of all data they've obtained thus far, in spite of the fact they've shown massive levels of fraudulent payments.  Why? 

This ruling is absolutely insane, and it must be considered illegal, or at the very least unethical.  His ruling was issued ex parte.  Only Democrat attorneys were present, no one from the Trump administration was given notice of this meeting, no one was allowed to argue for the administration, or even be in the room.   How can that be legal?  Also, where in the Constitution does it give this judge the authority to prevent the President of the United States and the new Secretary of the Treasury from having access to:

"any Treasury Department record, payment systems, or any other data systems maintained by the Treasury Department containing personally identifiable information and/or confidential financial information of payees, other than to civil servants with a need for access to perform their job duties within the Bureau of Fiscal Services.”

Their argument is the President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch, and anyone he appoints to review what federal agencies are doing is illegal, but the actions by those already there, who were appointed by former Presidents, are legal.    Does the word bizarre come to mind?

If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's being caused by these radical out of control judges.  In my DOGE, Trump, and The Federal Judiciary article I've already discussed Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who I consider to be particularly vile, but let's meet all of these lawfare judges.

 

• Judge Angel Kelley, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, nominated by President Joe Biden.......Kelley granted a restraining order against National Institute of Health (NIH) funding cuts. Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Barack Obama - Jackson recently made news by temporarily reinstated the fired head of the Office of the Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee......
• Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, nominated by President Barack Obama - A Democrat donor, McConnell is attempting to block another spending freeze from Trump and is even taking the extreme approach of threatening administration officials with criminal charges if it is not reversed. But McConnell is more than just a typical Democrat. He’s a committed activist......(Matt Vespa calls him a "left wing loon", and ya just gotta see the clips in that article.)
• Senior Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by President Bill Clinton-  Kollar-Kotelly boldly stood against Trump’s efforts to cut government excess by blocking DOGE from “obtaining access to certain Treasury Department payment records,” which includes an estimated 90 percent of federal payments.
• Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, nominated by President Barack Obama - Engelmayer blocked DOGE’s access to the Treasury Department payment system. In his ruling, Engelmayer forbade all political appointees, including the Treasury Secretary(!) from accessing Department of Treasury data.
•  Senior Judge George O’Toole Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, nominated by President Bill Clinton- O’Toole has already tried to buck Trump in two significant ways. First, he blocked Trump’s federal government employee buyout, even after 65,000 federal workers had already taken the offer. This prolonged a pause on the deferred resignation program.
• Chief Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, nominated by President Barack Obama Gonzales made headlines by blocking the deportations of Venezuelan criminals to Guantanamo Bay.

The article goes on to cite what I can only call serious doubts about their commitment to the rule of law, along with their understanding about what's legal.  But their character has to also be seriously called into question.  More evidence for the need of a 28th Amendment to eliminate the Founding Fathers gravest error:  Lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.

In the meanwhile what's to be done?  I've recently come across what some consider a solution, injunction bonds.  According to this article an X user reveals how DOGE can beat left-wing activist judges at their own game, and overcome the damage done by the left in weaponizing the courts in recent years "activating a wave of radical judges", whose "blatant political activism is exposing just how corrupt and broken our judiciary has become".  Take a look…

Dan Huff:

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds.

This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! 

When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake. 

The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass. 

Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for.  Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way. 

For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case.

If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules.

The best part? This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.

Dan will be keeping a close eye on this situation, so we encourage you to give him a follow by clicking here.

What if a a judge refuses to grant an injunction bond?  That decision can be appealed under an "abuse of discretion" standard, which may include "disciplinary action against the judge through the appropriate judicial channels." Will the proceeding be halted until the issue over an injunction bond is resolved?  I think so, but I'm not sure, as I had difficulty finding information about injunction bonds, and the wording in the stuff I found is anything but clear.  I'm not an attorney, but this certainly looks like an street worth going down.   

The concept of the rule of law by these judges is as flawed as it is for the Democrat party as a whole....it's called hypocrisy!   One more thing, in this article, No, Trump Does Not Have to Abide by a Mythical 'Judicial Supremacy', by Selwyn Duke where he states:

 Note here that Marbury was the 1803 SCOTUS opinion declaring that the judiciary must be the ultimate arbiter of laws’ and actions’ constitutionality and that, consequently, its rulings can constrain the other two governmental branches. Translation:  The courts gave the courts their trump card (and Trump card) power.  Not the Constitution — the courts themselves .................

So, no, President Trump doesn’t have to obey blatantly unconstitutional court opinions. This said, with how he’s shaking up the system and busy draining the bureaucratic swamp, it’s perhaps politically prudent to remedy the current judicial adventurism through the higher courts, as he’ll almost assuredly win on appeal. At some point, though, it will be time to drain that fetid judicial swamp and address the real constitutional crisis: the rule of judges who would be kings.

If there has to be an actual Constitutional Crisis, that being anything the Democrat party doesn't like, then let it be now!

What If We Could Rewrite the Constitution?

By Rich Kozlovich

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.

1. 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.  
2. 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.  
   
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment.  End income tax.  
4. Eliminate the FED and return the nation's financial responsibilities over the Legislative and Executive branches, in order to make them accountable.
5. 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.
   
6. 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.  
7. 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.
8. 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.
   
9. 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.
10. 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.    
    
11. 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.  
12. Strengthen the First Amendment.
13. 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. 
14. Washington D.C. is a city that shall be totally governed by the federal government, and cannot have representatives in the Congress.  
    
15. No state may change the Electoral College system requiring all their electoral votes go to the popular vote winner.  
16. Strengthen immigration restrictions, stating, immigration into America is not a right.

And that's the way I see it. 
 

Core Constitutional Rights Under Threat From ‘Quasi-Totalitarian Movement’: Constitutional Scholar

By GQ Pan  July 15, 2021

Rob Natelson, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, warned of a “quasi-totalitarian movement” that is threatening the core rights enshrined in the Constitution, from the right to be locally governed to freedom of fair and honest elections.

A leading constitutional scholar whose work has been repeatedly cited in the U.S. Supreme Court cases, Natelson told The Epoch Times that the U.S. Consitution created a federal system in which people could govern themselves in their own states and their own families. As the federal government became increasingly centralized, however, Americans have lost control of their ability to govern themselves.

“In a federal system, if someone is unhappy with a policy of his state, he can move to another state. But if the government is unitary, then it’s the same everywhere, and that reduces human freedom,” he said, noting that the recently defeated election bill H.R.1, also known as the For The People Act, would have threatened the states’ freedom to self-govern.

“The U.S. Constitution allows states to govern their state and local elections. It also allows the state legislature to supervise presidential elections as it wishes. It also allows state legislatures to write collection law for members for congressional races,” Natelson explained. “H.R. 1 was trying to nationalize most aspects of national elections. Some of the law is constitutional—although ill-advised. But much of it is unconstitutional.”...........To Read More.....

What Happens if the Election Audits Go Trump's Way?

June 13, 2021 By Andrew W. Coy

What will the military, the Supreme Court, and the people eventually do?  How will the military, the Supreme Court, and the masses react to the outcome?  How will the military move, how will the Supreme Court rule, and eventually do the masses rise up and take to the streets...if it becomes clear that the presidential election of 2020 was compromised, was stolen, or at the very least had way too many abnormalities and illegalities and thus the wrong person is possibly sitting in the White House?  What happens if it becomes clear that President Trump was re-elected and the Progressives actually stole the election?  What happens if we find out that the election was manipulated?  What happens if?

We might find out these answers in the coming months.  Maybe.  What about the forensic audits of the popular votes in the contested key states?

Before the actual election in November, President Trump predicted cheating as you've never seen before.  President Trump said there would be voter fraud like never before in U.S. history.  Many people throughout the White House believed and were certain that something felonious was about to happen.  At 10:30 on Election Night, President Trump was up by good margins in the key states.  Then the key states shut down the election tabulations of votes "for the night."  (By the way, the stopping of counting votes for the night had never happened before in presidential history.)  And then when we woke up in the morning, after the tallying of votes was supposedly shut down "for the night," Joe Biden had pulled ahead, stayed ahead, and assumed the White House.  As of this writing, Biden has 306 Electoral College votes, and President Trump has 232 votes.  Two hundred seventy votes is the magic number to win the presidency.

But what about the forensic audits in the key contested states?  Starting with Arizona, then Georgia, then Pennsylvania, then...

The forensic audit of the popular votes in Arizona being conducted right now is intriguing and also a little scary.  The forensic audit of the popular votes should be able to catch and identify voting irregularities, cheating, abnormalities, and felonious actions.  What happens if not only Arizona flips, but also Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?............To Read More.....

What if Proof of 2020 Presidential Election Fraud Develops?

June 8, 2021  By Vince Coyner @ American Thinker 

 

Editor's Note:  I've not received permission to publish this in full, but I think this is a piece that needs wide distribution.  If American Thinker or Vince Coyner object I will take this down and merely link it.  RK 

If the last month has taught us anything, today’s conspiracy theory could easily be tomorrow’s commonsense truth. The speed at which the Wuhan Lab theory as the source of the Covid virus went from “thoroughly debunked” to “Viable” and “Probable” in the media was extraordinary. Indeed, the media scorned the possible source of the most economically destructive virus in history – one that is credited with killing 3 million people – because they didn’t like the then-President of the United States!

Despite the fact that the lab in Wuhan was one of the only places on earth where scientists were studying such viruses, that 3 Wuhan employees went to the hospital in November 2019 with what turned out to be Covid symptoms, that the NIH had actually been funding “gain of function” research in Wuhan focusing specifically on the transmission of such viruses to humans… we were told the Wuhan “China virus” theory was a racist conspiracy theory!

As much damage as Covid did – and far worse, the “lockdowns” used to inflict COVID's damage – that’s nothing compared to the damage another “conspiracy” has done and will do. That, of course, is the “thoroughly debunked” notion that the election of 2020 was stolen, and that Joe Biden is in the Oval Office today because of election fraud. But of course that’s just some tin hat conspiracy theory. We’ve been told that “There’s no evidence of election fraud” and Trump “Lost Nearly 60 Election Fights In Court.” The latter of course is fiction.

Given that we heard similar things for the last year about the origins of Covid, the question is, what happens when proof unequivocally demonstrates that the election was indeed stolen?

The smoke for that conclusion has been around since the wee hours of November 4^th. The stopped counting in key states on election night. Mark Zuckerberg’s wholesale purchase of the voting apparatus in key states and counties. The unconstitutional changes to voting laws that crisscrossed the country… many empowered by the politicization of Covid... And then of course there is the TIME magazine piece that laid out in black and white the “inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election”, chronicling widespread coordination of everyone from the Democrat party, Silicon Valley, BLM, unions, the Chamber of Commerce and various other players to get rid of Donald Trump.

All that has been missing has been the CSI level proof of the fire itself. Of course, given the depth and breadth of the Swamp, it may never come to light. But then it might. Currently in Arizona and Wisconsin audits are being done of the 2020 election.

So let’s imagine that somehow, integrity rules the day, and both states under audit produce rock-solid proof that the election in their states was stolen; what then? Technically, nothing. Arizona had 11 electoral votes and Wisconsin had 10. Together they represent 21 electoral votes and Joe Biden was declared the winner by 74 votes. In order for anything to change there must be a difference of at least 38 votes flipped from Biden to Trump.

But let’s say even one of those states produces demonstrable proof of election fraud. At that point the Republican legislatures of other battleground states that exhibited strange activity on election night… Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan would be under a great deal of pressure to look into the integrity of their own elections. Suddenly, with an additional 52 electoral votes in play, things look a bit different.

Let’s further assume that the legislatures of Georgia and Pennsylvania determine that there was sufficient fraud in their states to flip the state’s vote to Donald Trump. With Arizona and Wisconsin, those states would bring the total to 57 electoral votes flipped from Biden to Trump, changing the totals to 249 to 289 and leaving Trump with a majority.

What then? Can a state reverse its electoral vote after certification and counting? Can states recall their electors post-inauguration? Can Congress meet and redo the vote count six months after an inauguration? None has ever been done and there is nothing in the Constitution about doing so. Can the House impeach the President for the fraud? Even if the GOP controlled the Senate a conviction would be unlikely because there’s probably little to connect Joe Biden with the actual fraud done on his behalf.

Can the Supreme Court order a new election? While the Constitution gives the Court no such power, in the Bizarro world of modern America that certainly seems to be no barrier. It is unlikely, however, as the Justices had two clear opportunities to resolve this problem and did nothing. When Pennsylvania Republicans sued seeking to throw out the clearly unconstitutional changes to voting law, the Court demurred. Unconstitutional changes such as these are of course the very basis for the Texas lawsuit that the Supreme Court refused to hear after the election. One state allowing their election to be stolen does indeed negatively impact the rights of citizens of another state if that activity results in a fraudulent president who runs the government of the United States under which all American citizens are governed.

Once the fraud has been demonstrated, America is going to find itself in a situation where it doesn’t appear that there is any Constitutional remedy in place. Are Americans simply supposed to acquiesce to the theft and allow the fraudulent president to be the actual president for the next three years?

No. That would be like a thief stealing your identity and looting your bank account and then once discovered, being allowed to keep it because, as we all remember from elementary school, “possession is 9/10ths of the law.” That was wrong in elementary school and it’s wrong in the Oval Office.

What can be done when the Constitution doesn’t address a bastardization of the constitutional process? Does a military junta take control and put Donald Trump back in the Oval Office? Umm… No! Does the 25th Amendment somehow come into play? No, because that would not remedy the situation. Does Biden resign? Unlikely, and again, it wouldn’t remedy the situation.

A Convention of the States as outlined by Article V of the Constitution? Maybe, but that’s a long process and would likely not occur within the timeframe of the next election.

How about a shadow government? Does Donald Trump build a replica of the Oval Office at Mar-a-Lago and show the world what a real president would do in whatever circumstances the imposter president finds himself in?

Do true patriots take to the streets and use violence and intimidation to wreak havoc from sea to shining sea the way BLM and Antifa did last year, and maintain it until the Democrats capitulate?

None of those ideas is an ideal solution. An ideal solution would essentially reverse the inauguration of Joe Biden and inaugurate Donald Trump as the rightful president.

Many pundits are suggesting that Republicans should dig deep and focus on 2022, both at the local and the state level so that the GOP can take back the House and the Senate. While that’s true, it’s not sufficient because it doesn’t address the fraud in the first place.

If it’s possible to steal the presidency with impunity, what office in the nation is beyond reach? The simple answer is none, and that matters because the government has police power and once the Constitution becomes superfluous, the coercive powers of government suddenly have no limits. And for those who say that the Constitution still stands, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It is the citizens’ loyalty to that Constitution and the system built upon it that make it work.