SCOTUS and other federal judges are the problem. Trump is stepping up the fight, similar to Thomas Jefferson against Chief Justice John Marshall.
1. Jefferson warned of a judicial oligarchy, and that is precisely what John Roberts presides over.
2. John Marshall ruled on a tautology, which is restating the constitution, in Marbury v Madison (1803). Then Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove claiming that the judiciary should be the branch of government that determines what is constitutional.
3. Assuming what one tries to prove is not an implied power.
4. If the legal question has discretion as to constitutionality, SCOTUS is not empowered by the constitution to decide. Yet that is all they do, precisely because John Marshall wanted to legislate from the bench.
5. Federal district court Judge Boasberg took it to a new level; now federal judges want to be the executive branch. What happened to separation of powers?
6. You want the constitution to matter again?
6a. Easy. Term limits on SCOTUS and federal judges. None of them follow the dictates of good behavior as was intended in the late 1780s. 10 years or 15 years. That is it.
6b. Mandatory retirement age of 70 years old. POTUS FDR proposed that, and regardless of his reasons for doing so, it is a great idea.
6c. A proof is required to determine constitutionality, else leave it alone.
6d. Remind each jury that jury nullification is constitutional.
6e. Once a year, each federal judge must take a polygraph and truthfully be able to say yes that on each case they ruled on, their judgement was honest, unbiased, and not personal or political.
SCOTUS and other federal judges are the problem. Trump is stepping up the fight, similar to Thomas Jefferson against Chief Justice John Marshall.
1. Jefferson warned of a judicial oligarchy, and that is precisely what John Roberts presides over.
2. John Marshall ruled on a tautology, which is restating the constitution, in Marbury v Madison (1803). Then Marshall assumed what he was trying to prove claiming that the judiciary should be the branch of government that determines what is constitutional.
3. Assuming what one tries to prove is not an implied power.
4. If the legal question has discretion as to constitutionality, SCOTUS is not empowered by the constitution to decide. Yet that is all they do, precisely because John Marshall wanted to legislate from the bench.
5. Federal district court Judge Boasberg took it to a new level; now federal judges want to be the executive branch. What happened to separation of powers?
6. You want the constitution to matter again?
6a. Easy. Term limits on SCOTUS and federal judges. None of them follow the dictates of good behavior as was intended in the late 1780s. 10 years or 15 years. That is it.
6b. Mandatory retirement age of 70 years old. POTUS FDR proposed that, and regardless of his reasons for doing so, it is a great idea.
6c. A proof is required to determine constitutionality, else leave it alone.
6d. Remind each jury that jury nullification is constitutional.
6e. Once a year, each federal judge must take a polygraph and truthfully be able to say yes that on each case they ruled on, their judgement was honest, unbiased, and not personal or political.