That power was not authorized by the legal document called the Constitution, and is therefore usurped. Usurpation is a high crime.
****************
>>Bull Snipe wrote: "Argue your point with the Supreme Court, they are the ones that declared Texas’s secession as Unconstitutional."
How does one go about arguing with unelected oligarchs appointed for life who believe it is their right to rule over the people? John Taylor explained the danger of such an attitude to liberty, and proposed a simple check:
"As the Senate and House of Representatives are each an independent tribunal to judge of its own constitutional powers, so the State and Federal governments are independent tribunals to judge of their respective constitutional powers. The same principle is applicable to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, both State and Federal. It never could have been forgotten or disapproved of in the formation of the State and Federal departments. Being an essential principle for preserving theoretical liberty, used by the Federal constitution, it never could have designed to destroy it, by investing five or six men, installed for life, with a power of regulating the constitutional rights of all political departments, or at least of the most important. Suppose the Supreme Court should attempt to settle collisions of opinion between the Senate and the House of Representatives: are not the political rights of all the States as important for the preservation of theoretical liberty, as those of one of these houses? It was foreseen by the framers of the constitution, that the difficulty of distinguishing between political laws and judgments, and those intended for the distribution of civil justice, would not be diminished by the supremacy of a concentrated power, and that it required the acuteness of collateral powers to detect and control it. The remedy provided for this difficulty, is the only remedy hitherto discovered; and has been interwoven in some shape with the texture or forms of all governments, pretending to a construction at all calculated for the preservation of liberty. It consists of a mutual veto." [John Taylor, "Tyranny Unmasked." 1822, Section III]
Andrew Jackson, when confronted by a "constitutional" ruling by SCOTUS on the National Bank, followed Taylor's lead and told the court to pound sand:
"The Bank veto of July 10 is the most important presidential veto in American history. It was a powerful and dramatic polemic, cleverly written to appeal to the great masses of people and to convince them of the truth of its arguments. The President claimed that the Bank enjoyed exclusive privileges that gave it a monopoly of foreign and domestic exchange. Worse, eight millions of its stock were held by foreigners. "By this act the American Republic proposes virtually to make them a present of some millions of dollars," said Jackson — and why should the few, particularly the foreign few, enjoy the special favor of the country? "If our Government," he continued, "must sell monopolies... it is but justice and good policy... to confine our favors to our own fellow citizens, and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty." Over and over, like the intense nationalist he was, Jackson reiterated his concern over this foreign influence within the Bank.
"Then [President Jackson] turned to the constitutional question involved in the recharter. He noted that [Marshall's] Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland had judged the Bank constitutional. "To this conclusion I cannot assent," he declared. Elaborating, he announced that the Congress and the President as well as the Court "must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." Ever since the writing of this passage Jackson has been unfairly faulted for attempting to make himself co-equal with the courts in determining the constitutionality of Congressional legislation. What [Jackson] actually said was that no member of the tripartite government can escape his responsibility to consider the constitutionality of all bills and to vote or act as his good judgment dictates. And, in the matter of the Bank now before him, Jackson did not agree with the Supreme Court. Since the Bank recharter was subject to legislative and executive action, he simply claimed the right to think and act as an independent member of the government." [Robert Vincent Remini, "Andrew Jackson and the Bank War: a study in the growth of presidential power." W. W. Norton & Company, 1967, pp.82-83]
Jackson recognized the doctrine of co-equal branches, a doctrine foreign to most modern "conservative" thinkers. Progressives, on the other hand understand its importance, and are scared silly that the executive and legislative branches will one day step up to the plate and put the Supreme Court in its rightful place.
****************
>>Bull Snipe wrote: "Since when has a justice ever been elected to the Supreme Court?"
That is my point. They have been answerable to no one since the days after Lincoln's reign of tyranny. It is time to put a stop to that madness.
Mr. Kalamata
Article III Sections 1 & 2 of the United States Constitution disagrees with you.