[konaice]

Jefferson recognized that the judges, "believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution." However, this did not bind him when performing his duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, he "was bound to remit the execution of it."

We need another president like that.

We also need laws removing certain issues from consideration by the courts, which Kramer addresses in other writings.

[enviros_kill]

A fascinating and well documented discussion as to how we ended up with Alexander Hamilton's dream - the Feds on-line for all time - is covered in "Hologram of Liberty" by Boston T. Party (1997). Recommended reading for all Freepers.

http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

[Sgt_Schultze]

One should also consider this Article 3 limitation on the power of the courts, courtesy of the founders...

...Section. 2, Clause 2.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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.

[supercat]

As I have opined before and should from time to time do so again, the Constitution was written in part as an owner's manual for citizens to ensure that their government is working properly, and to allow citizens to know when they should join the government in acting against lawless criminals, or when they should join fellow citizens in acting against a lawless government.

[Jim Robinson]

bump

[djreece]

Fascinating. Thank you for posting this.

[WillRain]

mark

[swilhelm73]

bttt

[DMZFrank]

Impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution all need to be considered.

We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful. Congress can and should impeach federal judges for blatently unconstitutional rulings that manufacture law.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.