Why do we have a Judicial Branch
Submitted by NeoConned on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 12:22
Obama supporter I know stated the Constitution is a document open to interpretation. He then asked me this:
" To say that a couple of thousand words gives you clear guidence in all of the complex situations that we face is an insane amount of simplification."
My response: "It does give clear guidance, anything not outlined in article 1 section 8 is to be left to the states as per the 10th amendment."
He responds "Then why do we have a judicial branch? They could have left the courts out...the constitution is CLEAR on everything! Nothing to adjudicate!"
Anyone care to respond?
»
I agree
I agree.
They should have been left as an advisory panel like Jefferson preferred.
Why? To rubber stamp all the unconstitutional acts of
Congress and the usurpation of power by the President.
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley
The Federal courts
The role of the federal courts is spelled out in the Constitution.
The judicial function is not to correct mistakes in statutory law nor to invent new statutory law nor even to interpret statutory law. The judicial function is to apply the law AS WRITTEN to the unique facts that arise in life. So no matter how perfect a law is, there will be disputes about how it applies in some of the infinite possible human circumstances.
The userpers have been the
The userpers have been the Presidents that have promoted what they deem more important, above the will & intent of the Constitution which they swore to protect with their life.
Internationalism.
They are the ones who make treaties & subject our sovereignty to others.
They do it legally.. The courts hands are tied,. "Natural Born " sound important to you ? There is NO more important election than the President. END of STORY.
Good people do Good deeds
and are no respecter of person
I can do it in 2 words...
No force.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
It's the juries, stupid.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supremes the last say on what is constitutional and what isn't. Every congress critter, every soldier, and every jury member is on the hook to protect and defend the Constitution, not the rulings of the Supreme Court.
The reason we have a judicial branch is for the juries. Juries of the people judging the accused AND THE LAW constitute the next to last line of defense against a tyrannical state.
What if the juries...
Are educated in the public schools. And, to make it worse, not taught that they can find not guilty by reason of an unjust law?
Maybe this is what we need. A public service (meaning privately funded of course... lol) to educate the population on their duty as a juror.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Can you explain this a
Can you explain this a little further or provide some links as to the role of the Supreme Court as initially devised vs what it has become.
Marbury v. Madison
The Supreme Court appointed itself to rule on the Constitutionality of the acts of the other two branches in the Case of Marbury V. Madison. Chief Justice Marshall, who wrote the opinion, was a Hamiltonian. Thomas Jefferson took vehement exception to this usurpation of power. It was his belief that the States had the last word on what was and was not Constitutional and, consistent with the compact theory, had the right to "interpose" between the Federal government and the people and had the right to secede.
Juries
I was not thinking along those lines. My answer to the original question is that the reason the Founders included the instructions for and constraints on the judiciary in the Constitution is that juries constitute a branch of government that is independent of the branch that makes laws and the branch that enforces them. The Supreme Court is not an independent branch. Its members are appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch. That is probably the reason that the Supreme Court cannot convict. It can only overturn convictions and laws. The Supreme Court is an agent of the state. Juries are not. Juries are empowered to overrule the Supreme Court. Juries ARE the third branch of government (or should be).
Here is a web site devoted to informing juries of the real power that they have.
http://fija.org/
He is right don't need a
He is right don't need a judicial branch they have been the major usurpers of natural law by imposing statute de facto law etc. since the begining. Also don't need the other branches since they have proven they cannot be trusted wven with limited powers and the people cannot be trusted to keep thier construct government in check according to thier documented rules.
We need a free market in ajudication people can choose whom they will have adjudicate thier contract should a dispute arise. Juries of peers will try criminal cases as they have done since the beginning of time
There is only one law do not harm others or violate thier natural rights period!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
Get Prepared!
agreed
agreed
Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!