Replies

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.

"My previous responses to you outline the Judicial branch's limitations. They are precluded from being "coequal" by the provisions already discussed."

So you think that the President is also not coequal since he too can be impeached by congress?

" The Congress, of course, is charged with this responsibility."

How could congress possibly hold the President accountable if the judiciary can not find him guilty? Without high crimes and misdemeanors, there can be no impeachment. If you remove that authority from the courts, you also remove it from congress.

"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."

Actually that would be a "kritarchy" and that is not what I have argued at all, I'm arguing for three coequal branches (strange since this was settled long, long ago) and you are arguing for the subservience of one to the other two. Beyond that, whether you realize it or not, by removing the indapendance of the judiciary, you are in fact creating a de facto dictatorship, because the congress would lose their impeachment powers over the president.