« UPDATE: Somerset PA Saturday 2 August 2008 1000 Hours | Main | August 2nd, Flight 93 Memorial Meeting »
Ravaging the Republic (Part 2)
By davidjeffers | July 24, 2008
Last week I wrote:
“One oxymoron that has become part of the American lexicon is ‘judicial tyranny.’ That is pure nonsense! Tyranny is defined as ‘arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.’ It is impossible for the judiciary to be tyrannical because it has no powers to exercise or abuse. The public has been lied to when it is told that some court has enacted some law through judicial tyranny.”
The judiciary branch was designed to be the weaker of the three branches and was to cause no harm to the other branches. Notice what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #81:
It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to AN INCONVENIENCE, or in any sensible degree TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from ITS COMPARATIVE WEAKNESS, AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which THE POWER OF INSTITUTING IMPEACHMENTS IN ONE PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. THIS IS ALONE A COMPLETE SECURITY. THERE NEVER CAN BE DANGER THAT THE JUDGES, BY A SERIES OF DELIBERATE USURPATIONS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE, WOULD HAZARD THE UNITED RESENTMENT OF THE BODY INTRUSTED WITH IT, WHILE THIS BODY WAS POSSESSED OF THE MEANS OF PUNISHING THEIR PRESUMPTION, BY DEGRADING THEM FROM THEIR STATIONS. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments. (Emphasis mine)
The judiciary is not to cause AN INCONVENIENCE nor is it TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. Why is that? It is because the judiciary has no real power because of ITS COMPARATIVE WEAKNESS, AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE. Let me play that last clause one more time a little louder (you’ll forgive me for shouting):
…AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE.
Therein lays the whole basis of the argument; why are we going to the courts instead of the executive branch to fight our battles? If it is because they will not support us, then take it to the people.
And if we have runaway judges it is because we have a legislative branch that has removed the fear from the judiciary of the HAZARD THE UNITED RESENTMENT OF THE BODY INTRUSTED WITH IT might actually bring. In fact, the last time a legislator spoke of the power that the legislature, THIS BODY (that is) POSSESSED OF THE MEANS OF PUNISHING THEIR [the judiciary’s] PRESUMPTION, BY DEGRADING THEM FROM THEIR STATIONS; in other words, bringing rogue and runaway judges up for impeachment…the last man to do so was Tom DeLay and he was excoriated in the press. He should have been hailed as a hero by the evangelical community and all freedom loving federalist conservatives.
Hamilton additionally wrote in Federalist Paper #78 the following:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, THE JUDICIARY, from the nature of its functions, WILL ALWAYS BE THE LEAST DANGEROUS TO THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and MUST ULTIMATELY DEPEND UPON THE AID OF THE EXECUTIVE ARM EVEN FOR THE EFFICACY OF ITS JUDGMENTS.
In the case of same-sex marriage in both Massachusetts and California, it was not the courts who committed judicial tyranny; it was executive tyranny that illegally brought same-sex marriage certificates to be affected. Next week we take a closer look at the executive department.
Topics: David Jeffers |
One Response to “Ravaging the Republic (Part 2)”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
And in the case of the notorious McCain Feingold Act, too many legislators thought they could “look good”, while passing the buck to a presidential veto, And then the President decided that he could look equally good by signing it into law, and trusting the Supreme Court to do the dirty work of declaring it unconsititutonal. And fo course the SCOTUS decide that it, too would play that game. The whole game is a conspiracy of pass the buck.