"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Since the election of President
Trump, we have witnessed a series of rulings by Clinton- and Obama-appointed
federal judges to block executive orders (E.O.) related to
immigration. In each case, the current system has allowed a single
unelected judge to block the actions of a duly elected president who has
attempted to exercise the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and
the voters. Such judicial tyranny cannot be tolerated.
The only court created by the
founders of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), with all other
federal courts established by Congress and administered by the Judicial Branch
of government. District courts, appellate courts, and the various
circuits are all congressional initiatives. Federal judges are
nominated by the Executive Branch but confirmed by the congressional arm of
The Scales of Justice
Throughout the history of the
Republic, the appointment of judges by the party in power has been an ongoing
effort to seat individuals of their own political philosophy. When
the parties were each more centrist, the process was somewhat less contentious,
but as the left drifted farther from the Constitution using the concept of it
being a living document, the divides have widened. We now have a
cadre of Obama appointed far-left judges who are prepared to exercise their
political ideology over their sworn constitutional duties. Some of
these individuals in fact might have been more suitable for ambassadorships
than lifetime judicial appointees, for their primary qualifications appear to
be their history of donating or bundling money for a sitting president plus
their demonstrated talent in the writing of legal fiction.
Currently, judge-shopping, an action
elevated to an art form by advocacy groups and lower government entities in
liberal circuits, will most likely engender a ruling devoid of legal merit but
coinciding with the philosophy of the plaintiff. The activist judge
delivers a ruling, which then is arrogantly applied to the entire nation and
interpreted as blocking the sitting president. These rulings are
most often overturned, but the glacial pace of the courts allows the ruling to
stand for an inordinate time, often running out the clock on the original E.O.
There is talk of resolving the
situation by appointing strict constitutionalist judges, as Trump is now doing,
and "packing" the court. "Dilution" would be a
better term, for the sitting liberals will still enjoy their lifetime
appointments, and it is axiomatic that impeachment is all but impossible,
requiring two thirds of the Senate to agree. While appointments are
helpful by improving the odds of finding a judge prepared to fulfill his duties
honestly, they do nothing to alleviate the judge-shopping or the inordinate
There is a relatively simple answer:
Congress can deliver a fix already contained within the Constitution but
requires the defining of a single word. This word is found in
Article 3, Section 2, which deals with judicial power and jurisdiction:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,
the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as
to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make.
The solution is for Congress to
define "public Ministers" to include the president and vice president
of the United States and all Senate-confirmed Cabinet
ministers. This would allow the Executive Branch to ignore
lower-court rulings for E.O.s and various acts of Congress signed by the
president and avoid the interests of the nation being held up by a single
unelected lawyer of either political persuasion. Some time limits
for appeals should be built in to allow an issue to reach SCOTUS in a
reasonable time less than the current two-year hiatus. If the
lawyers have done their research, there is no reason why an initial appeal to
the circuit appeals court cannot be done in thirty days and a ruling given in
Scales of LIBERAL "Justice"
If SCOTUS refuses a case, then the
lower-court ruling will be moot, and the E.O. or legislation will proceed as
promulgated. Alternatively, if the nine rule on the case, that
decision will be considered constitutionally binding on the Executive and
Legislative Branches. Again, a time limit for hearing and ruling
should not exceed sixty days.
This will infuriate the left, even
though it does not limit leftists' access to the courts or threaten their
appointments, for they have used the legal system to achieve goals they could
not attain legislatively or at the ballot box. It does, however,
return the ability of the president to protect the nation and to address issues
that Congress must ultimately decide on. It also removes the ability
of the "Resistance" to wait out a sitting president by setting
definite time limits for judicial review.
Conversely, if an administration
signs an E.O. that is patently unconstitutional, as were many of Obama's
declarations, particularly those relating to immigration, the EPA, and other
federal agency regulations, a ruling will be rendered before major harm can be
done, or the regulation can be overturned by Congress.
If Congress determines that a
solution can be achieved by defining a single word, they might look at other
areas where this would be a useful technique. For example, the
definition of "natural born" in the Fourteenth Amendment has already
been kicked back to Congress by SCOTUS to define. It should be
defined as an individual born in the USA or territories of at least one parent
who is a U.S. citizen or of two parents who are both legal residents of the
USA. This will end the concept of "anchor babies" as a
means of invading the USA.
The Constitution is a document where
definitions have been used to bend society on a political
basis. Defining a single word, "ministers" in Article 3,
as suggested here will end the ability of a politicized judiciary to resist the
will of the people being exercised by their elected officials. This
can be done without all the bitter and useless efforts to impeach individual
judges or to "pack" that branch of government. Congress
would thereby remove delay as a tactic while still giving all groups
"their day in court" – and ending the current judicial tyranny.