When the government of the United States was created, the power was to shared with three different branches. The branch that was supposed to wield the most power was the legislative branch, while the branch with the least power was to be the judicial branch.
Article III of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and explains how Congress has the responsibility of;
- "Advice and consent" in the process of confirming the members of the Supreme Court and
- To hold them accountable to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Contrary to what most people believe, the members of the Supreme Court are not appointed for life. They are appointed "during periods of good behavior." Whenever a member of the Supreme Court fails to honor their Oath, it is the responsibility of Congress to dismiss the offending judge.
Another power possessed by Congress is the authority to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction on subjects which are not delegated to the government of the United States in Article I, Section 8. In the Tenth Amendment it clearly states that any power not granted to the United States and nor prohibited by it to the states, shall be retained by the states and to the people. In other words since public education, drug enforcement, abortion and marriage are not delegated powers of the government, the courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction.
The nine clowns wearing gowns on the Supreme Court have been usurping power because we the people have not held them accountable. Our Senators and Representatives have a duty to prevent the abuse of power by a runaway court.
If the people want their Republic to be restored and for our government to be the guardian of our liberty, we need to elect Senators and Representatives that will prevent the abuse of power by the Executive and Judicial branches of government.
Opinions? Comments? Questions?
Replies
All will find this section quite interesting and informative on our courts.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-courts.html
The Court rejects DOMA – the Federal government has no power over marriage. They even found that the Appeals court had no right or power to hear the case. So, Marriage is a State issue and power to define.
I have long held that issues such as these have no foundation in the Constitution and therefore the limits of the Court as defined in Article III can not flow up to the Courts actions after Marbury V Madison and McCulloch V Maryland – they invented powers not given – yes they just USURPED THE CONSTITUION but Congress did nothing.
The Courts then adopted the British Common Law Case Law Precedent theory, again they have no foundation in the actual Constitution to do such. Congress and the Executive can not give the Courts these powers as they themselves have no foundation in the actual language of the Constitution to grant such extensive sweeping powers to the Judiciary.
The court then makes a decision that the Attorney General can file suits against States for their Legislative district maps and voter ID requirements. Again where is the foundation for such expansive Federal powers over States business? Again then they toss out making decisions on University admission standards – they send all this back to lower courts to rehash the issues.
Like the Kelso condemnation case the Court regularly exceeds it's powers and the States do not use Article V powers to stop the usurping. As things are now operating we are governed by nine BLACK ROBES – not unlike the the Politburo -
The very first politburo was created in Russia by the Bolshevik Party in 1917 to provide strong and continuous leadership during the Russian Revolutionoccurring during the same year. However, after the Bolshevik's insurrection in Petrograd, the politburo was dissolved and the Central Committee became the governing body of Russia. During the twentieth century, nations that had a politburo included the USSR, East Germany, Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and China, amongst others. Today, there are five countries that have a communist politburo system (China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba).
In Marxist-Leninist states, the party is seen as "the vanguard of the people" and from that legitimizes itself to lead the state. In that way, the party officials in the politburo informally lead the state.
In the Soviet Union for example, the General Secretary of the Communist Party did not necessarily hold a state office like president or prime minister to effectively control the system of government. Instead, party members answerable to or controlled by the people held these posts, often as honorific posts as a reward for their long years of service to the people's party. On other occasions, having governed as General Secretary, the party leader might assume a state office in addition. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev initially did not hold the presidency of the Soviet Union, that office being given as an honour to former Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. Joseph Stalin ruled the Soviet Union for well over a decade before assuming the governmental position of Premier of the Soviet Union during World War II.
Officially, the Party Congress elects a Central Committee which, in turn, elects the politburo and General Secretary in a process termed democratic centralism. Thus, the politburo was theoretically responsible to the Central Committee. Under Stalin this model was reversed, and it was the General Secretary who determined the composition of the Politburo and Central Committee. This tendency decreased to some extent after Stalin's death, though in practice the Politburo remained a self-perpetuating body whose decisions de facto had the force of law.
Rather disturbing is it not . . ?
Mangus Colorado
Wow, is all I can say!
Congress can and has changed "The judicial Powers of the United States..."
I read Joseph Story for my research. His Comments on the Constitution are in public domain. just type in Joseph Story. I also bought his abridged exposition on the Constitution off the internet. It's very good and gets to the point.
Joseph Story's opinion in Martin V Hunter's Leese (1816) is considered "the kaystone of the whole arch of Federal judicial Power."
Between Sir William Blackstone, St George Tucker, and Joseph Story, there is enough studying material for about 5 years full time.
Today, Justice Scalia refers to those guys.
With miles and miles wrightings, opinions, and decisions. They boil it down to the Constitution means what says, and says what it means. Convoluted thinkers try to twist and bend it out of shape.
In one case alone, one judge wrote over 100 pages explaining in great detail his decision. It wound up right in line what the Constitution said in fairly plain language.
I hope you enjoy the research as much as I have. I hope you teach young people the importance of knowing our history why our framers were able to give us our constitution and recodnize our God ginen rights
I have read Story and rest over the years. The 11 amendment did not increase the powers of the court it is a limit to protect government from being sued.
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Notes for this amendment:
Proposed: 3/4/1794
Always keep in mind that the Constitution is A LIMIT on GOVERNMENT and does not bestow rights on individuals. Article III is the limit on the Judiciary then they have some Maritime rights over the open seas.
The Courts have no authority to use Case Law Precedent from lower court cases to establish "BRITISH SETTLED LAW" via court decisions. The Founders, Farmers and Ratifiers said that if the court had that power America would be ruled by Nine Black Robes making LAWS without the Legislature or the Executive.
As you can see the courts can hear cases and make laws to suit their desires without the other two branches participation. Not a very good idea and it takes and amendment to end that usurped power.
What a good summary of powers held by the branches. We all need to follow the guidelines of whom we vote for in the future. Thanks for writing this article.
The only method of removal is Impeachment and in all of history only 35 or 36 have been Impeached over 235 years . . one Federal Judge, Alcee Hastings was impeached and he now serves a a Florida House member? What a joke?
Liberal Lawyers But Conservative Judges. Why?
Posted at 11:02 a.m. today
Adam Liptak: “Lawyers on average are much more liberal than the general population, a new study has found. But judges are more conservative than the average lawyer, to say nothing of the graduates of top law schools.”
What accounts for the gap? The answer, the study says, is that judicial selection processes are affected by politics.
“Politics plays a really significant role in shaping our judicial system,” said Maya Sen, a political scientist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and one of the authors of the study. Since judges tend to be more conservative than lawyers, she said, it stands to reason that the officials who appoint judges and the voters who elect them are taking account of ideology. She said the phenomenon amounted to a politicization of the courts, driven largely by conservatives’ swimming against the political tide of the legal profession.
“The study explored a distinctive feature of American justice. Foreign legal systems tend to be homogeneous, she said, with lawyers and judges closely aligned ideologically.”
“Conservatives had worked hard and effectively to ensure representation of their views on the courts. They have cultivated candidates for the bench, notably through the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group active on law school campuses.”
“But if the numbers of conservative candidates remains small … it makes strategic sense to deploy candidates on the courts that matter most. The study’s authors call this ‘strategic politicization.’”