Posted on 07/01/2019 1:34:16 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Just as Rome never had a king after deposing the last Tarquin, yet breathed her last under unlimited Emperors, America will never have an unlimited, absolute monarch. Instead, it has an oligarchic, arbitrary Supreme Court.
While it is Constitutionally limited to the judicial power, as a practical matter Scotus recognizes no limits on its illegitimate power to legislate.1 It writes law. It rewrites law. It permits executive branch agencies to write laws. It creates rights. It denies rights. It denies religious liberty. It justifies murder and other crimes against nature. When Scotus simply disagrees with a state statute, it justifies its repeal by calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” At its arbitrary pleasure, Scotus often denies self-government to We the People.
What happened? Why do free nations fall into slavery? This deceptively simple question and its answer is at the heart of our Framers’ analysis of government in 1787. Its corollary is how do nations prevent the governmental and societal corruption that ends in tyranny of the one (despot or absolute king), the many (democracy), or the few (oligarchy)?
We are all subject to passions and emotions which, if left uncontrolled, lead to poor outcomes in both our private lives and in government. Those with arbitrary authority, whether kings or our Supreme Court, are no different.
Algernon Sidney (1623-1683) assisted our Framers immeasurably when he wrestled with the lack of public virtue in absolute Stuart-era Kings, whose passions, to the detriment of their kingdom, too often overwhelmed reason. He thought it silly, foolish and dangerous to rely on the caprice of one man for national happiness. His revolutionary precepts held that public virtue, which is simply that of public integrity, of not violating a public trust, was a consequence of republican liberty. Let that sink in.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Traitor Roberts knows no bounds on many occasions.
Some people are now starting to complain about his lack of FISA overview.
Federal judges are tyrants in black robes.
Different topic from the post, but you are right. It is astounding that neither Congress nor Roberts have addressed the glaring corruption of their Star Chamber, the FISA courts.
They are more interested in dirty words and porn,
than US security and justice and treason.
They always take the dirty word and porn first. Always.
As an independent co-equal branch of gov, it’s the duty of the executive to ignore parts of rulings where the court oversteps its bounds.
Well, I’d first rather repeal the 17th Amendment to restore a Congress that’s covetous of its Article III powers.
20JUN2019
By virtue of applying for and receiving a driver’s license, the citizen IMPLICITLY waives their 4th Amendment rights regarding unlawful search and seizure as well as their 5th Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination.
While not expressly provided by the state in the Driver’s License registration information, the granting of the PRIVILEGE to drive on public roads constitutes said waiver.
Such NULLIFICATION of the US Constitution is...NOW...law of the land.
Still waiting for an explanation as to why a local District Court judge can usurp the Congressional authority given to the President to protect out country and issue a nationwide injunction to stop the president.
I thought District rulings were only enforceable within the court’s geographical jurisdiction.
Districts are only a matter of convenience. Otherwise everyone in the country would have to travel to D.C. for every federal case. Districts do not have their own laws like states. As they are ruling on federal cases, by definition their scope is national.
Whether or not they should place an injunction before the case is heard is another subject.
“While not expressly provided by the state in the Driver’s License registration information, the granting of the PRIVILEGE to drive on public roads constitutes said waiver.”
Not a lawyer, but I disagree. The Constitution provides that we may travel where we wish, but does not describe the means of travel. You can walk anywhere. The original purpose of a driver’s license was to show that you had been somewhat trained on the safe operation of a motor vehicle. You had to take a written and practical exam. Now that DL is used for “identification” and defacto proof of citizenship they are demanded as a civil right. Its all about democrat votes.
That any one of 650+/- federal judges can enjoin the President from doing his duty is implicit approval by Congress. From its Article III powers, Congress could stop this cr@p in a moment. The nature of our republic isn’t for one man to reform the entire government, to drain the swamp. That is up to us, We the People, and why I hope President Trump expresses his support for an Article V COS after he wins reelection.
You bettcha...
Traitor Roberts need to be held to account.
Is he off to a another Summer bacchanal at Malta?
Not sure about that. I’m real interested in keeping track of Buzzi.
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.