Posted on 04/01/2025 7:22:23 AM PDT by Degaston
Six questions for Congress about their duties related to the federal judiciary.
1. What is Congress doing to ensure that proper standards for good behavior are being enforced for Judges on both of the supreme and inferior Courts of the United States of America?
2. What Regulations shall Congress make to ensure that Cases brought before inferior federal courts so that proper appellate jurisdiction is exercised on these Cases as to Law and Fact?
3. What laws shall Congress make to direct the Places that Trials take place for Crimes not committed within any State?
4. What is Congress doing to ensure that the Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court which Congress has constituted are properly staying within the scope they have constituted for these Tribunals?
5. What laws is Congress making to ensure that the caonstituting of these Tribunals is done properly?
6. What laws is Congress making that shall be necessary and proper for regulating the Courts to ensure that the carrying into Execution of their Article 1 Section 8 Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof, are being properly handled in the Cases brought before Tribunals?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDqQlgWZucs&t=783s
Link correction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDqQlgWZucs&t=783s
Simply put, what is congress doing to ensure the Judiciary stays within the bounds of their constitutional authorly and stays out of the Legislative and Executive branches constitutional authority.
One branch has far to long overstepped their authority and is becoming a true despot within our Republic.
Most of you have an Amendment II constitutional right to bear a gun, but you still have to fill out a Form 4473 to get a gun and await approval.
Congress might require a court to fill out a Form 4474 and await executive branch or legislative branch approval for any court order involving any government, government official or government project.
In concept I agree, we need a conversation on where exactly the Judicial branches authorly lies and those areas constitutionally where they have absolutely no say at all. The constitution is pretty clear imo in most cases, it seems the courts need to get smacked over the head with these facts. They are not the final arbitrators of all things constitutional
My source for this opinion is none other than Jefferson himself:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
This conversation needs to be had with no input from the courts.
Saying the word “duty” to a Member of Congress is like showing a cross to a vampire.
Congress in on the corruption and will do nothing about.
"...Congress might require a court to fill out a Form 4474 and await executive branch or legislative branch approval for any court order..."
with at least 300 leftist judges, from which over a hundred such abuses (designed to obstruct/tie down the Trump admin like lilliputians and Gulliver...) already have happened. I don't think Congress will speedily resolve this in a timely manner - and that's with a Republican majority.
I believe Speaker Johnson should make good on his statement, and shut these outlaw leftist judges completely down.
bookmark
“In concept I agree, we need a conversation on where exactly the Judicial branches authorly lies and those areas constitutionally where they have absolutely no say at all. The constitution is pretty clear imo in most cases, it seems the courts need to get smacked over the head with these facts. They are not the final arbitrators of all things constitutional
My source for this opinion is none other than Jefferson himself:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
This conversation needs to be had with no input from the courts.”
__________________________________________________________
Jefferson wrote a lot of conflicting letters and papers during his life. Like the Bible, they can be cherry-picked to support nearly any argument.
It’s good to remember that Jefferson had no part in writing or negotiating the provisions of our Constitution, as he was our Minister to France at the time. Jefferson’s correspondence clearly shows him opposed to the “new constitution,” so his various remarks about it are from the anti-constitutionalist perspective.
Jefferson was afraid the courts would be used to inhibit or even stop slavery, which was the concern of every Southern politician. His friend Madison understood that the whole thing would only work if the 3 branches of government were co-equal to one another.
Your argument holds no water. The quote and opinion is clear and that a person has held differing views of other issues does not disqualify those views nor invalidate his work, that is indeed a petty, small minded ad hominem attack on a great thinker. Try addressing the merit instead of throwing out ignorant rhetorical attacks.
How about you actual explain why the courts should have absolute and sole power of the interpretation of the constitution when it is clearly written to have 3 co-equal and co-sovereign branches.
How does the Judiciary now warrant the only right to determine how the other branches may operate within there constitutionally prescribed functions. The only limits the court has under such an understanding is their own restraint, literally they could rule that an impeachment is unconstitutional under such corrupt logic.
That is the travesty that is the result of the very poorly reasoned Marbury v. Madison.
You can stop trying to invalidate the well reasoned quote with sophistry and instead actually present a reasoned rebuttal.
“That is the travesty that is the result of the very poorly reasoned Marbury v. Madison.”
____________________________________________________________
Marbury v. Madison is a keystone of our individual and collective rights under the Constitution. The Founders certainly recognized the co-equal nature of the three constitutional branches of government, and intended for there to be friction between them.
When you’re advocating for reversal of Marbury v. Madison, what you’re really advocating for is a king, not a president.
You are making an assumption and showing your self perceived superiority. I agree with the decision, I disagree with the reasoning which most legal scholars also agree it was very poorly reasoned.
Thus my statement “very poorly reasoned Marbury v. Madison”
Under the courts written opinion the reasoning allows for judicial supremacy over the other 2 co-equal / co-sovereign branches. The only restraint to the court declaring any action of the other two branches unconsitutional is the courts own self control. That is an utterly failed legal structure.
The reasoning allows the court to have the final say in both branches vested constitutional authority, if the Judaical branch has the final say on all exercise of vested constitutional authority then we no long have co-equal branches.
There must be constitutional privileges vested in the other two branches that are non-justiciable in order to have three separate coequal sovereign branches.
The reasoning written in the opinion of Marbury v. Madison gives the Judicial branch the position as final arbitrator on all constitutional elements, this is flawed and lends itself eventually to an oligarchy of justices, which we are beginning to see writ large on the national stage.
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.