Posted on 02/12/2017 8:56:17 AM PST by HarleyLady27
Enforce the law.
If the court disagrees, ignore them and have them try to enforce their decision.
If the courts want to force a constitutional crisis, they’re playing with a losing hand.
Unelected judges have no business making political decisions.
What the judges did is take power away.
Number one reason never to elect a democrat president.
“Miller does not agree with Marbury vs Madison.”
Lawyers cannot agree on the significance of MvM.
The fact remains, judges do not get to decide the decisions of the president. The law does not state: “The president may decide....but only if no federal judge disagrees.”
The very institution of the presidency took a direct hit to the water line. I was expecting the President to immediately return fire with a full broadside, but so far, nothing.
By failing to immediately condemn the Seattle judge's restraining order, and categorically refuse to recognize the court's obvious overreach and usurpation of his authority, the President did, in fact, acknowledge such.
Frighteningly, it appears that this administration has allowed the judicial branch to assume a position of supremacy over the executive branch that it does not have, under the Constitution.
The court is acting in an extra-legal and extra-constitutional manner, and no one is bringing them to heel. Its a crisis as dangerous as any we've seen in our lifetimes, and needs to be brought to an end with all due speed and force.
Did you know that in MvM that after justifying review on the back of the oath of office that Marshall expressly noted that those in other branches took the oath too?
So let me ask you: if it is worse than a solemn mockery to require the court to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only statutes passed by Congress then what is it to require the other branches of government to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only the opinions of the Court?
You can also look for somewhere in the Constitution for where it says that Judiciary branch as the power to declare laws/actions ‘unconstitutional’ and you won’t find it. It is a power the Supreme Court gave itself. In a sense we are more like Britain constitutionally than we like to think—yes we have a written Constitution but also a rather large and important unwritten one.
Deep searching. It MUST be in there somewhere. s/o
After all, the courts have told citizens:
We’ve no religious freedoms if Christian.
We will accept perversion and forgo Christ’s principles in marriage.
American lives, Christian lives will never be equal to those of other nations. We are found lacking.
Judges don’t wear a black robe for nothing. A good many things can be hidden under volumes of black fabric.
Just about any lawyer will agree that MvM established the USSC as the final arbiter of the Constitution.
According to the USSC.
Lousy decision, but one that has only been effectively challenged by Jackson and Lincoln.
The ONLY recourse is to refuse the judgement. Certainly the courts are no more likely to overturn that precedent than the US Senate is to vote for an Amendment to limit their terms of service.
It’s right there in the Preamble. “We, the Judiciary of the United States....”
Not much has changed in 413 years:
Through tattered clothes great vices do appear;
Robes and furred gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks.
Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.
Get thee glass eyes,
And like a scurvy politician seem
To see the things thou dost not.
King Lear
Interpretation is passive, voiding is active involvement. That involvement should be open to review by the people, which is why action is given to the elected branches.
-PJ
Plenty of people right here on FR believe that a few lower courts ruling that Cubanadians are eligible to be President is the final word.
Which by the way also makes Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids eligible.
I do agree. Stephen Miller is a mighty talented prince of the Trump reign.
Still, I think he needs to prove his executive ability in the next several years, so it would great if Trump gives me such a role, perhaps in his second term.
Being a great commentator doesn’t necessarily make a great executive.
A man with the gravity and experience of a Rex Tillerson or Jeff Sessions is who we need as a president. Pence fits the bill too.
Yet comparing Miller to Cruz (another orator/debater), I would definitely prefer Miller provided he grooms himself in the proper jobs. Trump knows best. He’s probably already thinking of how he can employ Miller in an executive role.
Stephen handled Chucky Cheese very well this morning.
Philosophically, I agree 100%.
However, it’s a rare jurist that will agree. The courts believe every action by the government is subject to judicial review.
Even Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that gave Gitmo prisoners habeus corpus.
The President may have acknowledged the process, but not the conclusion.
If he immediately blasted the lower court as completely illegitimate, the Left would have nuked Trump as a dictator. As it is, he has the full 9th Circuit second-guessing itself right now, based on a broad reaction to a ruling that obviously disregarded the actual law the Executive Order was based on. Even the 9th knows the limits of its credibility and may end up doing the right thing without Trump escalating things.
If that happens, then Trump wins in the long run because future courts will think twice about making totally partisan rulings that disregard the law, especially since the Left is flooding all the courts with lawsuits now.
-PJ
It is right after the Clause that declares “Federal Judges have the power to overrule Laws passed by State Legislatures or Citizen referendum and duly signed by the State Governor.”
It is in there... somewhere... right?
/S
[Without the tyranny of the judiciary, Liberaliism is nearly powerless to accomplish its goals. The remaining tool (weapon?) of liberalism is violent protest.)
For all of us illiterate Rubes out here in "Flyover Country"
"Stare Decesis - the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent."
"... the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."
“Just about any lawyer will agree that MvM established the USSC as the final arbiter of the Constitution.”
That is not what this issue is about.
This issue is about a federal judge overriding the president’s lawful decisions.
If the judge doesn’t like it, he can kick it up to the USSC, but even then the USSC has limited scope of only declaring if the law itself is constitutional or not and if the president has followed the law. They cannot declare they don’t like the law or the presidents decisions. That’s not their decision.
The USSC cannot demand the congress or the president stop perform any act or following any law. They have zero enforcement capability.
MvM only established that the USSC has the right to judge if a law is constitutional.
That just can't be - the courts always give us liberal/progs what we want even if we lose an election.
And the most loyal. How many times was he there, giving passionate speeches at rallies, when the outcome for the election didn't look so good? He was mentored and by Senator Sessions when he was on his staff. Now that AG Sessions is in place, I expect Sessions/Miller to do some real effect swamp draining and getting things done right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.