Wednesday, February 24, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Itself Authority Over Congress and Citizens

Today, 1803 – U.S. Supreme Court Gives Itself Authority Over Congress and                                      Citizens

Written by Dave Jolly 

How often have you heard of a federal court declaring a law to be unconstitutional?

One example that comes to mind is when the Arizona state legislature passed Senate Bill 70 back in the 2010.

Since Obama refused to do anything to protect the border or American citizens, Arizona took it upon themselves to pass their own immigration law. However, the very people the law targeted protested and gained the support of Obama’s anti-American Justice Department who joined the effort to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona’s immigration law and the case ended up in the US Supreme Court.

The high court struck down several key provisions in the law, claiming they were unconstitutional. In so doing, they handcuffed Arizona law enforcement officers, making it more difficult to serve and protect the citizens of the state.

More recently, the US Supreme Court struck down marriage laws and constitutional amendments of four states. In most of the instances, the majority of the people in those states voted to protect marriage and families. When sinful homosexuals protested, once again the liberal high court ruled the state constitutional amendments to be unconstitutional. Thus the perverted agendas of 5 members of the Supreme Court overruled the majority of citizens in each of the 4 states in question.

So how did they get the power to overrule the people, state legislatures and even Congress?


The Supreme Court was established by Article III of the US Constitution, but creating the lower federal courts was left to Congress.

In 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 or more formally known as An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This act created the position of US Attorney General and the structure of the federal court system.

In the last days of John Adams’ presidency, he appointed a number of Federalists to various courts which became known as the midnight appointments. However, Madison ran out of time in delivering the appointments to everyone appointed. When Jefferson was sworn in, he quickly decided to not deliver the rest of the appointments, thus nullifying the undelivered commission.

Among the undelivered commissions was the one for William Marbury to be the new Justice of the Peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. When Marbury learned of the nullification of his appointment, he filed suit and took his case to the US Supreme Court.
Ironically, Marbury won and lost in the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court issued their ruling on this day, February 24, 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the unanimous decision saying:
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.”
Marshall concluded:
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
In other words, the high court’s decision gave themselves the authority to nullify any law passed by Congress and state legislatures and even by the majority vote of the people, if they believe it violates the US Constitution. Thus part of The Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional.

 Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison

 The "Supreme Court Stories" video series presents the true tales of people and events surrounding pivotal Supreme Court cases. In Marbury v. Madison, the first video of the series, political science professors Jocelyn Evans, Kirk Randazzo, David Woodard, and Kyle Kopko talk us through the election of 1800, the appointment of the "Midnight Judges," and the first instance of judicial review. 

In recent years, this ruling by Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court justices in 1803 has been abused more than it has been properly used. Liberals sitting on the high court first redefine the wording of the Constitution or read into it what is not there in order to promote their personal liberal agenda. Then they rule on the constitutionality of laws based upon their perverted interpretation of the Constitution.

Taking the example above about the recent ruling on marriage equality, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that states cannot pass their own laws to define what a legal marriage is. In fact, the 10th Amendment gives states the power and rights over the federal government unless the states so chose to give such power to the federal government.

In the case of defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the states never gave that power to the federal government. Instead many states passed laws and even amended their own constitutions to specify what marriage is and isn’t. Justice Ginsberg should have recused herself from the case since she had presided over some same-sex marriages prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, but she knew she needed to be present in order to promote her agenda instead of ruling on what the Constitution really says.

Every time you hear any court declare a law, ordinance or even amendments to state constitutions as being unconstitutional, it all leads back to the Supreme Court ruling in the Marbury v. Madison case 213 years ago today.

Sources used for the above: Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review; MARBURY V. MADISON; Marbury v. Madison; Marbury v. Madison (1803); Supreme Court Stories: Marbury v. Madison; ARIZONA’S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT LAWS; Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality; Judiciary Act of 1789;


Unknown said...

re SCOTUS "same-sex marriage" ruling: i found Judge Anna's comments most insightful & enlightening on this subject, truly a unique perspective! 74. Wait a Moment - How can it be illegal for people to get married? @
Also their perceived authority over one is ONLY as a federal U.S.citizen, so why not consider removing oneself from that jurisdiction peacefully & lawfully?

marie said...


marie said...

Notice in Regard to Continuing Abuses

pjr said...

For all the "constitution-ists" out there, here's legal_reality's take on this:

In a message dated 2/25/2016 9:58:14 P.M. EST, legal_reality writes:

26 February A.D. 2016 [GMT]

The author of that piece means well, but he's clearly a "constitution-ist." Thus, he has no real understanding of what's happening in our present system. I won't take the time here to correct his several misstatements. In general, he simply has no real idea what he's talking about.

Marbury v. Madison confirmed the Court's power to determine its jurisdiction. Marbury sought "trial" level action, and the Supreme Court wasn't set up to be a trial court for very many things. Since they wanted to keep the Supreme Court as a court of review rather than turn it into a trial court, they made the ruling that they made.

Navigating the Supreme Court rulings is the best way to learn our present legal reality. They always apply the correct standard, and they always identify the relevant facts. Some of the relevant facts are mentioned very subtly, and some of the relevant legal concepts aren't mentioned at all. But, once we realize that they always apply the proper legal standard, we read and re-read and re-read the rulings that seem to be contrary to our then-existing understanding so as to identify the obvious fact in the ruling on which the obvious result is compelled, and to do that, we have to know "everything" about the law applicable to the matter.

In other words, we have to learn everything to be able to decode those rulings, and for many issues, the only way to learn "everything" is to learn what these rulings say. Thus, it's a learning process of successive approximation, until certain fundamentals are in mind. Once we have certain fundamentals in mind, our "decoding" effort becomes a lot more time-efficient.

The powers in this present system are quite "legit," within the perspective of "this system." Key about them, though, is that "federal" means "federal," as in "by agreement." There has to be a commercial consent component to just about everything that involves the "government" as a plaintiff. Where that commercial consent exists, the party defendant has very few relevant defenses (and, typically, is just screwed before the case even starts). Where that commercial consent doesn't exist at the time the suit is initiated, then the party defendant had better understand that "federal" means "federal," or else what happens very early on is the formation of the very agreement that didn't exist prior to the litigation but which, now that it exists, is also instantly breached, which puts us right back into the first situation, i.e., very few relevant defenses (and the defendant has definitely screwed himself very early on in the litigation).

Another way to answer your question is with a question -- How does one spank a porcupine? :) (Very carefully!)

Key to what I do and teach is knowing enough about the system so as to minimize any interaction with it. Thus, as from "War Games," "The only winning move is not to play." How we do that depends on which game we're not interested in playing (any more), and down that path is some very helpful legal education so that we comprehend what it is, exactly, that we're dealing with.