Judicial Myth: The Judiciary is Equal To The Other Two Branches

Share Button

I do not have much respect for the current state of the judicial branch of our federal government. Although I respect some federal justices, and agree with some judiciary opinions, as a whole I do not trust the federal judicial system. More and more, they largely ignore original intent of our founders, ignore principles of individual liberty, ignore constitutional bounds, and ignore the will of the people. They are, as a whole, tyrannical in nature, and primarily use self-created power.

The judicial branch of today goes far beyond what the framers established. An abusive judiciary is one of the reasons we declared independence from the tyrant King George in 1776. Ask the typical citizen of today as to why we declared independence, their answer, if they answer at all, will likely be, “taxation without representation.” That response is true, but only to a point. The Declaration of Independence lists 27 reasons why. Taxation without representation is there in the list, but it is not in the top 5 reasons. It’s not even in the top 10. It is number 17.

Many of the other reasons listed relate to the abusive and corrupt judiciary of the time. My favorite founding father, Samuel Adams, was preaching about the tyranny of the judiciary for years long before independence was declared. An abusive judiciary is one of the grievances that brought more abused citizens to the side of independence. They’d had enough.

I’ve had enough. The ninth circuit court of appeals has opined that the taxpayers of my state, Idaho, must pay for the gender-reassignment surgery of a biological male who is in prison as a convicted pedophile. According to the high-priests of the law of the ninth circuit, not providing him with this elective surgery would violate his constitutional rights. Complete horse pucky!

I’m not even going to explain why this is NOT a violation of constitutional rights. I’m not going to waste your time or mine. We all no inmates do not have a constitutional right to gender reassignment surgery. The ninth circuit is nothing but the seat of depravity, self-worship, false liberty, lunacy, the princes and witches of the 666th district, corrupters, despots, fascists, etc., etc.

Congress needs to abolish the ninth circuit. Get rid of them all! They no longer serve a moral or virtuous purpose. They have no respect for law, for liberty, or our republic. They are not upholding their oath. They are not jurists, they are elitists and destroyers.

“But congress can’t simply abolish a federal judicial district court!” I’ve been told. They sure can. And that leads me to the point of this posting. I want to dispel a few myths surrounding the judiciary. On this particular post, I will deal with one myth, more myths will soon follow.

Myth: The founding fathers created three separate but co-equal branches of the federal government.

Fact: The founding fathers created three independent and distinct branches of the federal government.

No where in the US Constitution does it say the three branches are co-equal, implied or otherwise. As written clearly in the Constitution, congress has the most enumerated powers, followed by the executive. The branch with the least enumerated powers is the constitutionally weak little judicial branch. Look at The Constitution as a whole. Article I, which establishes the legislative branch, is incredibly long, when compared to Article III, which establishes the principles and guidelines of the judiciary.

Not enough to convince you? Okay. Here’s more.

But first, I want to say that I don’t care what some modern day historian, scholar, or judge says on these matters. Although they think of themselves as high-priests of the law and the ultimate authority, they are not. We, the people are. The Constitution is plain and can be read and understood by anyone. You don’t have to rely on lawyers, judges, historians, scholars, etc to understand founding documents, original intent, and history. You’d don’t have to go through years and years of horse pucky law school. Just because justices wear the robes of the unholy priesthood, does not mean they are gods and omnipotent.

To find original intent behind The Constitution, you must find and use only original sources, not what a modern-day historian, or a high-priest of the law, declares. Original sources such as notes from the debates surrounding the creation of our constitution, letters written by founding fathers, and newspaper articles written by the framers. One such collection of newspaper articles is known as The Federalist Papers, written by founders James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, who would later become the first Chief Justice of the supreme court.

In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

…the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

Hamilton also wrote:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

The judiciary has no power of enforcement. Enforcement comes from the executive branch. Presidents in the past have ignored the opinion of the supreme court. “Well, that’s a lovely opinion you got there, but I’d like to see you try to enforce it.” They can’t.

When the judiciary “overturns” a law passed by congress, a new law is not created by the judiciary. All that has occurred is that the supreme court has expressed an opinion. It is up to the executive and congress as to whether or not to give that opinion merit, and to adjust and execute the law in question. But they don’t have to, because the judiciary has no power of enforcement. They purposely have no power of enforcement because the founders did not want another judiciary that trampled on individual liberty. In other words, this lack of enforcement power of the judiciary was to ensure that the executive and the legislative branches had power to protect citizens from judicial abuse.

To be clear, I do not advocate for the president or congress to ignore everything that comes out of the supreme court building, I merely want to make it known that the executive and the legislative have powers to protect liberty from the self-proclaimed high-priests of the law.

Still not convinced? Okay then, lets go back to The Constitution.

Article III, Section I:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

It could be said that The Constitution does not create the judicial branch, it only declares that congress shall establish the judiciary. Congress decides how many justices of the supreme court there shall be, how much these justices get paid, how often they operate, where they operate, and they also decide how many, if any, inferior federal courts and justices are necessary. They establish inferior courts, they can abolish inferior courts. The Constitution cannot and does not, do any of those things. It’s all part of the enumerated powers of congress. Don’t take my word for it. Read The Constitution, specifically Article III, yourself. It will take just a minute or two. Article III is short, because the judiciary is weak.

Constitutionally, congress could reduce the entire federal judicial branch to one justice, working in the basement of The Capital Building, with nothing but a ping-pong table as a desk and a candle as a light.

Does that sound like the judiciary is equal to congress? Still want more evidence from The Constitution? Okay, fine by me.

Article III, Section II declares where the supreme court will have original jurisdiction, and yes, it is limited. The section also lists where it shall have appellate jurisdiction and then states:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Unless the issue falls under the court’s original jurisdiction, congress can set the agenda of the court. In other words, congress can deny the supreme court from hearing an issue and from reviewing statutes from congress. They’ve done it before. And the supreme court at the time fully acknowledged that congress has the power to do so.

The case was Ex Part McCardle in 1869. Chief Justice Chase wrote:

The case was argued very thoroughly and ably upon the merits, and was taken under advisement. While it was held, and before conference in regard to the decision proper to be made, an act was passed by Congress, returned, with objections by the President, and repassed by the constitutional majority, which, it is insisted, takes from this court jurisdiction of the appeal.

The Chief Justice continued:

The provision of the act of 1867, affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception.

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution;; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.

He admitted that congress had, in 1867, given the court appellate jurisdiction for the case in question, but congress repealed the same jurisdiction as the case was being held in 1869. Nothing he could do about it.

Congress can limit what the supreme court reviews. Period.

Does that sound like the judiciary is equal to congress?

Oh, I almost forgot to add something. According to The Constitution in Article I Section II and Section III, and Article II Section IV, Congress has the power to impeach and unseat a federal judge. Judges do not have power to impeach or remove a sitting president or a member of the legislature.

I’ll be going a bit more into impeachment in the next post where I will discuss another judicial myth. Click here to read part 2: “Judicial Myth: Federal Judges Are Guaranteed a Lifetime Appointment (and a word about impeachment)”.

Share Button

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.