Replies

" Do you seriously believe that the founders intended the Judiciary to have the last word?"

They don't have the last word, congress can change the law and even amend the constitution, thereby overriding any ruling made by the court.

"The Constitution itself gives power over the Judiciary to the Legislative branch."

The constitution does not "give power over" the judiciary, that is a wildly, overly broad description and not at all what the Constitution says.

"I must conclude that the Judiciary has been afforded "coequal" status at the pleasure of the Legislative."

That is a very novel interpretation. So you are confirming my contention, that you do not believe that our government was intended to be composed of three separate but equal branches. If legislative writes laws, and the executive executes those laws, who do you propose is to judge those laws? Is the executive now prosecutor, judge and executioner as well? If the executive itself oversteps the laws as written by congress, who is to hold him accountable?

You are making arguments that go well beyond those that the administration is making. The administration is asserting that their actions are legal. You are asserting that the executive is above the law. You are arguing for a totalitarian dictatorship.

The constitution does not "give power over" the judiciary, that is a wildly, overly broad description and not at all what the Constitution says.

The power to remove justices and to overturn decisions speaks for itself.

So you are confirming my contention, that you do not believe that our government was intended to be composed of three separate but equal branches.

My previous responses to you outline the Judicial branch's limitations. They are precluded from being "coequal" by the provisions already discussed. If the Courts want a law or decision enforced, they must rely on the other branches of government.

Is the executive now prosecutor, judge and executioner as well? If the executive itself oversteps the laws as written by congress, who is to hold him accountable?

The Congress, of course, is charged with this responsibility. However, the political situation at any given time, is in reality the power base for any branch of government; but the Courts at best, are allowed only the latitude granted by the other two branches. Currently, that latitude is wide; however complications, in the area of national defense, can quickly change this.

You are arguing for a totalitarian dictatorship.

No more than you are arguing for a dictatorship of judges who have the power to tie a President's hands in time of clear and present danger. It's a messy business, isn't it? Not at all perfect.