Next we should starve the courts

The courts so purposely humiliated Congress in the Terri Schiavo case that some U.S. representatives are finally beginning to talk back. Non-elected judges have flagrantly abused the legislative and executive functions of government for so many years that we wonder why a reaction has taken this long.

With the whole world watching, a mere probate judge in Florida thumbed his nose at a congressional subpoena and refused to comply. Then the federal judiciary closed ranks behind him, asserting its independence from and supremacy over not only an act of Congress, but even over the life of an innocent and defenseless woman.

Eleventh Circuit Judge Stanley Birch stuck in the knife, asserting that Congress unconstitutionally "invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle." We marvel at the chutzpah of a federal judge charging Congress with violating the separation of powers after we've endured years of judges legislating from the bench, rewriting our Constitution, distorting our history, assaulting our morals, saving vicious criminals from their just punishment, raising taxes and inflicting us with foreign laws.

When a man's honor is impugned, he can pretend he didn't hear the insult or he can come out fighting. Congress can't pretend it didn't hear Judge Birch's insult, so Congress must take action to curb the imperial action of supremacist judges.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., responded that we saw "a state judge completely ignore a congressional committee's subpoena and insult its intent" and "a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed.

"I still think Jeb should've taken action first as it happened in his backyard. However, since he did nothing, I agree the President should have done what you suggest."

The argument holds for both the state and Federal legislative and executive branches. In both cases, two branches were in agreeement as to the action to be taken, having passed laws to the effect. The judicial branch resisted, and the local cops knuckled to the judge. Jed could have sent in the state police----GW could have sent in Federal marshalls.

What SHOULD have been done is for the Federal executive branch to send in a group of Federal Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, and the court decision be damned.

That option was lost when in 1801 the Supreme Court ruled that the man who wrote the constitution did not know what it said. That is when Chief Justice Marshal ruled that James Madison, the constitution's author, did not understand the true meaning of the words he had written. In Marbury VS. Madison, the court ruled that Madison did not understand the true meaning of the constitution Madison had written.

The sad part is neither Madison, a cabinet member, or Thomas Jefferson, the president, ever disputed the courts ruling that Madison did not understand the meaning of the words he himself had written in the Constitution.

If the author of the constitution and Thomas Jefferson as president did not think they had the power to overrule a justice, then who in the world does have the power?

Saying that Bush should have violated a court order when neither the constitution's author, James Madison or the Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson felt they had a right to violate a court order, just shows ignorance of how are system of government has functioned for over 200 years.

Neither Madison nor Jefferson or any other president has felt they had the right to violate court orders. President Bush doesn't either. Any president that tried it would be impeached and convicted.

During the Truman administration the Supreme court ordered Truman to undo something he had done. Truman reversed his decision and apologized to the court.

I guess only you and a few criminals think they can just ignore a judges rulings.

We are a nation of laws and not men. But since Marbury Vs Madison in 1801 the law has been what ever the judges say it is.

"Saying that Bush should have violated a court order when neither the constitution's author, James Madison or the Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson felt they had a right to violate a court order, just shows ignorance of how are system of government has functioned for over 200 years."

Sorry, but I understand just fine "how are (sic) system of government has functioned for over 200 years".

It's called "being a slave to precedent". Funny thing is that the courts have no problem ignoring precedent and the plain language of the Constitution itself to find "umbras and penumbras" to justify making any ruling they damned well please.

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.