un-equal branches of government
As established by the inspired founding fathers, our constitution defined a government with 3 co-equal branches, executive legislative and judicial. For approximately 70 years there has been a trending toward excess power, thus usurped power by one branch, the judicial,with accelerated usurpation occuring during periods in the 1960's to the present.
Senator John McCain's bill to limit television advertising during primary and general elections was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court even though the First Ammendment states that " Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Many in Congess voted for this law as a political expediency thinking that the Supreme Court would surely uphold the Bill of Rights
by declaring the law as unconstitutional. Our elected representatives tried to curry favor with a minority albeit a vocal minority by limiting every citizens right to free speech under the guise of"cleaning up politics by removing some of the corrupting money". So now, you or your political organization can not buy media
ads too close to an election.What's worse, you have to watch as well funded web-
sites and editorialists who probably counter you politically retain the right of free speech.Not wanting to be seen as obstructionists to the cause of limiting corruption,the majority of congress sweating from the fire of the latest contived
cause fanned by self-answering polls, caved in and Yea voted a bill they knew to be against the first ammendment, fully expecting the Supreme Court to rule against. Those senators and Representatives bound by oath to support the constitution, punted the first ammendment away to an institution with a legion of 5 to 4 decisions. We the people lost. Free speech,a right among the first enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America, won by blood and the pledging of lives fortunes and sacred honor in an epoch struggle that forever more set at naught the divine right of Kings was abridged.
The actions of a weak and vacillating Congress, with respect to upholding the constitution is aid and comfort to those Supreme Court Justices and those Federal Judges who uphold non-constitutional law, and abridge constitutional rights.
Is it any surprise then that a non-elected non- accountable judge would show contempt of congress by not instituting a new review of decisions unfavorable to Terry Schiavo's parents? A new review meant a review of law and of fact. Much new information regarding Terry Schiavo's husband's abusive and malevolent intent toward his wife has been brought forward, not by heresay but by affidavit. Caregivers reported that Terry was responsive and communicative. This is what was expected to be reviewed by a review of fact. Instead, only the most perfunctory review of law[past decisions made absent new facts] was made.
There has been much talk regarding the Federal Judiciary wresting power by overturning the will of the people via court decisions.This happens and has been happening with disturbing but predictable frequency for decades.But this happens only through the acquiesence and non-action of federal legislators.Courts are seen as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches and state governments, and they truly are, but the legislative branch is not so recognized as a check and balance against the Judicial branch even though the constitution provides for this.The constitution gives power to the legislative branch to control jurisdiction of the federal courts by its power to "ordain and establish" them (Article 111 section 1). Constitutional power is granted to Congress to control the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Article 111 Section 2 paragraph 2. Jurisdiction over all cases, except those involving ambassadors of foreign countries and the individual States(where the supreme court has original jurisdiction) is subject to"such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congess shall make". There are few cases meeting the definition of original jurisdiction, most cases are heard on appeal.This means that Congress has the power to deprive the Supreme Court of the right to hear most of the cases it decides.
What an awesome power of check and balance! This power is not conceptual, it has been recognized and a case in 1869 was taken from the Supreme Court even after it had already heard arguments.
This can never happen without political will,and it is the people that shall provide Congress with political will. If not, the destructive march of the armies intent on destroying the rights we once held to be inalienable, shall continue on eroding abridging and removing the right to free speech,private property, even the right to thr pursuit of life liberty and happiness.Most of us feel affected by misplaced power, some families like the Schindlers feel it with a weight of loss and sorrow that the founding fathers intended to never again prevail upon this land.
Senator John McCain's bill to limit television advertising during primary and general elections was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court even though the First Ammendment states that " Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Many in Congess voted for this law as a political expediency thinking that the Supreme Court would surely uphold the Bill of Rights
by declaring the law as unconstitutional. Our elected representatives tried to curry favor with a minority albeit a vocal minority by limiting every citizens right to free speech under the guise of"cleaning up politics by removing some of the corrupting money". So now, you or your political organization can not buy media
ads too close to an election.What's worse, you have to watch as well funded web-
sites and editorialists who probably counter you politically retain the right of free speech.Not wanting to be seen as obstructionists to the cause of limiting corruption,the majority of congress sweating from the fire of the latest contived
cause fanned by self-answering polls, caved in and Yea voted a bill they knew to be against the first ammendment, fully expecting the Supreme Court to rule against. Those senators and Representatives bound by oath to support the constitution, punted the first ammendment away to an institution with a legion of 5 to 4 decisions. We the people lost. Free speech,a right among the first enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America, won by blood and the pledging of lives fortunes and sacred honor in an epoch struggle that forever more set at naught the divine right of Kings was abridged.
The actions of a weak and vacillating Congress, with respect to upholding the constitution is aid and comfort to those Supreme Court Justices and those Federal Judges who uphold non-constitutional law, and abridge constitutional rights.
Is it any surprise then that a non-elected non- accountable judge would show contempt of congress by not instituting a new review of decisions unfavorable to Terry Schiavo's parents? A new review meant a review of law and of fact. Much new information regarding Terry Schiavo's husband's abusive and malevolent intent toward his wife has been brought forward, not by heresay but by affidavit. Caregivers reported that Terry was responsive and communicative. This is what was expected to be reviewed by a review of fact. Instead, only the most perfunctory review of law[past decisions made absent new facts] was made.
There has been much talk regarding the Federal Judiciary wresting power by overturning the will of the people via court decisions.This happens and has been happening with disturbing but predictable frequency for decades.But this happens only through the acquiesence and non-action of federal legislators.Courts are seen as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branches and state governments, and they truly are, but the legislative branch is not so recognized as a check and balance against the Judicial branch even though the constitution provides for this.The constitution gives power to the legislative branch to control jurisdiction of the federal courts by its power to "ordain and establish" them (Article 111 section 1). Constitutional power is granted to Congress to control the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Article 111 Section 2 paragraph 2. Jurisdiction over all cases, except those involving ambassadors of foreign countries and the individual States(where the supreme court has original jurisdiction) is subject to"such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congess shall make". There are few cases meeting the definition of original jurisdiction, most cases are heard on appeal.This means that Congress has the power to deprive the Supreme Court of the right to hear most of the cases it decides.
What an awesome power of check and balance! This power is not conceptual, it has been recognized and a case in 1869 was taken from the Supreme Court even after it had already heard arguments.
This can never happen without political will,and it is the people that shall provide Congress with political will. If not, the destructive march of the armies intent on destroying the rights we once held to be inalienable, shall continue on eroding abridging and removing the right to free speech,private property, even the right to thr pursuit of life liberty and happiness.Most of us feel affected by misplaced power, some families like the Schindlers feel it with a weight of loss and sorrow that the founding fathers intended to never again prevail upon this land.
posted by Nano-boob @ 3:22 PM
5 comments
