Sunday, February 5, 2017

The 21st Century Theocracy

One of the fundamental principals liberals have always maintained was the separation of church and state. It's been argued ad nauseam to the point that some people actually believe the words exist in the constitution. The point, of course, is that there can be no such thing as Democracy, when ultimately your country's legal system is being determined by the morals and ethics of an elite few in flowing robes who deem their opinions divine and beyond reproach.

The broader demand of our Nation's governmental system is the fundamental guarantee that the our elected legislatures will domestic pass laws, that our executive branch under the charge of our elected President will fairly enforce those laws, and the that the President and executive cabinet will be responsible for any and all military and national security considerations, up to the actual declaration of war. The President and Senate also work together to nominate and confirm Justices who take an oath to impartially administer justice based on the constitution and the laws of the U.S.

This is a simple, yet elaborate means to provide our nation with the sort of  checks and balances that does not allow any one person or group of people to create an authoritative system of rule that can expand beyond the scope provided to them. While the Congress does in fact hold full constitutional control over domestic policy, and the Executive branch does in fact hold full constitutional control over national security issues, the reality is that these people are all subject to the next election, and the fact that they ultimately answer to the people. They are charged with "ruling" so to speak while they are in office, but they can ultimately be replaced by the people if the manner in which they do so does not meet approval.

Of course, the same does not hold true for the third branch of the Government, which is why our constitution did not provide the judicial branch with any means to actually "rule" over the people. Their ultimate responsibility was to be an objective arbitrator of the rules and laws created by the legislator. You can look and look and look and look all you want, but the concept of the courts declaring a law invalid while simultaneously creating their own laws to replace them is no where to be found in the constitution. Because the Judicial branch is ultimately the only branch which does not answer to the people, it should be more than clear to everyone that they have no business "ruling" over those people. We should advocate for this no more than we should advocatee for an unelected theocracy of a church to be setting and enforcing the laws within our country.

That being said, over time the courts have slowly but surely become not only an equal branch when it comes to actual law making, but it has become clear that they may be the most powerful branch of the government. If you think of all the major laws that have been created by the courts, many in direct contrast to the actual legislative laws that they take oath to administer justice "by"... it becomes clear that we have what amounts to an unelected theocracy in place. The difference being that political ideology replaces religious theology as the guidance for their actions. Ironically (or maybe it's by design), they also wear the same flowing robes that your religious leaders wear.  

This is why the nomination of a new Justice to the Supreme Court is (as the President states) probably the most important responsibility that a President has. It's why these nominations come with such emotional national drama, millions in outside advertisement, partisan grandstanding, and ultimately the ultimate political confrontation at all levels. Of course none of this would be necessary if the court had not expanded itself beyond the role originally given to it.

Realistically there is a good chance that our high court will have a fundamental shift in judicial philosophy relatively soon. There is almost no chance that Neil Gorsuch will not be confirmed and take the place of Justice Scalia, and there appears to growing speculation that swing Justice Kennedy will step down (possibly even after the next session) and leave Trump responsible for naming his replacement. The political irony would be that for those who have been applauding the increased role of the courts in the actual governing of our nation, they will now have to deal with new potentially high handed judicial decisions being penned by Justice Roberts or Justice Thomas.

Or should I say Pope Roberts or Bishop Thomas?


Roger Amick said...

Interesting. The Republican party has long been able to get a majority of the evangelical voters. It is required that every Presidential candidate must speak at Liberty University. Many Republicans vote to please that contingency.

The Republicans are going to repeal the law that if a preacher of any faith speaks from the pulpit in support of any candidate, will lose their tax exemption.

The President noted in his prime time celebrity judicial appointment, his Catholic faith as a motivation to choose him.

The President prayed for improved ratings of the Celebrity Apprentice.

But that's not what this post is about.

The judiciary took the role of determining whether a law is or isn't Constitutional. You seem to be leaning towards wanting the courts to reverse Marbury v Madison. That would make the President and congress can decide the ultimate determination that what law is Constitutional. Would you want to have given that power, when the Democrats are in charge?

I don't buy your argument, because it is obviously aimed at the Washington Federal judge, that stopped the anti-Muslim immigration policy.

That decision divided the powers of each branch of the government under Article III of the Constitution. The executive order isn't exactly spelled out in the Constitution. Yet Presidents since Washington have used them. Do you really want to keep the courts away from determining the Constitutionality of executive orders.

Commonsense said...

I would subscribe that the branch of government that is least accountable to the people would also be the least powerful.

As it is right now the courts are far too powerful and have abrogated legislative authority onto themselves.

That is why this past election was about supreme court nominees.

Do I like it? I do not. But if you are going to invest so much power in nine unelected people who serve for life, I would rather it be our guys.

C.H. Truth said...

Do you really want to keep the courts away from determining the Constitutionality of executive orders.

Of course, the courts should determine the "constitutionality" of laws and orders. But as it pertains to orders... the court should determine the degree of whether or not the order falls under the authority of the President and whether or not the order specifically goes against the constitution.

Justice Robart ruling basically stated that he felt that the President's order was unjustified and unfair because the President failed to show that these countries posed a real threat.

Justices were never given constitutional authority to impose their own personal opinions regarding the "justifications" of a law. Quite obviously Justice Robart has not privy to the same security briefings or other classified information.

The constitution and the statutory laws both provide the President with authority to use his "discretion" on these matters.

There is nothing anywhere that gives a Justice the authority to overturn an order (that follows constitutional grounds and statutory laws) because they disagree with them.

Roger, none of the other judges came to this conclusion. They all basically limited their rulings to those specifica traveler's with permanent residents who were stuck in limbo at airports, etc. They all provided nothing more than a temporary stay of the order.

The second Boston judge that refused to "extent" the stay did so because there was no longer anyone specifically stuck in limbo, and the Administration had already reversed the order to exclude anyone with permanent green card resident status.

To agree with Justice Robart is basically to say that all of the other Justice rulings on this were wrong for not coming to the same overall conclusion.

Commonsense said...

Oh and I don't have a problem with repealing the Johnson amendment.

LBJ pushed it through in the first place because he was getting political static from the churches for his chicanery in Texas.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - here is another way of looking at it.

How would Robart's ruling apply to other travel bans made by Presidential order? What would separate this order from other orders, such as a travel ban due to a contagious disease.

Keeping in mind that all travel bans (historical and future) will be inherently unfair to certain people, and that has never been reason to find them unconstitutional.

Is there really a "constitutional" issue in the Trump order that doesn't apply to other (previous or future) travel bans. If you believe there is, then what would it be?

Hint: The fact that a judge doesn't believe that the order is "justified" is not a constitutional issue. That is purely a matter of opinion, and would not suffice to show either that the order is outside the President's authority or that it goes against the Constitution.

Roger Amick said...

A federal appeals court on Sunday ruled that President Trump’s controversial immigration order will remain suspended for the time being, allowing those previously banned from coming to the United States at least another day to get here.

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit preserves a lower judge’s order to temporarily halt the ban — and based on a schedule the court outlined, the stop will remain in place at least until sometime on Monday. The Justice Department said it would not elevate the dispute to the Supreme Court before that.

Trump responded to the development Sunday by writing on Twitter that he had “instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY.” A Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman did not immediately return messages seeking comment on how, practically, that screening would be implemented.

“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Trump wrote. “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

The next few days will be telling for the future of the president’s executive order. The appeals court asked those challenging the ban to file written arguments by 4 a.m. Eastern on Monday and asked Justice Department lawyers to reply by 6 p.m. Eastern. They could then schedule a hearing or rule whether the ban should remain on hold.

The bigger question isn't addressed here. But is does extend the decision by the Washington judge who declared it unconstitutional.

C.H. Truth said...

Well Roger... I guess I wouldn't expect anything other than a cut and paste of what everyone is already aware of... along with your own admission that it doesn't address the question.

In the future, if you don't have an actual response that is relevant, you might as well skip it.

But just so you understand...

By the time it gets to the Supreme Court, even if the liberal justices want to uphold it (and assuming Gorsuch is not sworn in by then) - they have to come up with a constitutional reason for it.

They will either have to declare that Presidents no longer have authority to call for travel bans, or that they can no longer call for them in specific areas of the world...

This will fundamentally change Presidential powers in the future. Not just this order. In effect, it must declare "all" travel bans from certain areas unconstitutional.

Roger Amick said...

You buy this: "they can no longer call for them in specific areas of the world..." I don't see it as that and the courts so far, don't agree. It's seen as a ban on Muslims, and that's against everything this country stands for .


Roger Amick said...

I posted the decision because wp believed that the 9th Circuit would not uphold it.

Roger Amick said...

This is not the kind of game I expected today. Two interceptions by Tom Brady???

Roger Amick said...

1971 Pentagon Papers case:

The administration of President Richard Nixon tried unsuccessfully to prevent the press from publishing information about United States policy toward Vietnam and they posed a threat to national security.

The current Supreme court, could very easily end up with a 4-4 tie, refusing to support the Trump executive order.

caliphate4vr said...

Fuck the NFL and they wonder why college football is kicking their ass


Roger Amick said...

That was a fabulous game. 25 point comeback in the Super Bowl is pathetic?

Commonsense said...

Blowing a 25 point lead is something that's going stick in the Falcom's craw for a long time.

Commonsense said...

It's an analysis liberals should read along with members of the mainstream media (but I repeat myself).

Byron York: Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart's restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president's constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and "second-guesses the president's national security judgment" about risks faced by the United States.

Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?"

"Your Honor, I don't have that information," said Bennett.

"Let me tell you," said Robart. "The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you're here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that."

Perhaps Robart has been briefed by the intelligence community on conditions in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and the rest. Perhaps Robart has received the President's Daily Brief. Perhaps not. In any event, the Justice Department argued — reasonably but not successfully — that it is the president, and not a U.S. District Court judge in the Western District of Washington State, who has the knowledge and the authority to make such decisions.

It is not up to the courts to determine whether a policy is wise or not. That is what elections are for. The only question is whether he has the power and authority to do so.

KD, #HilaryLooksgoodinOrange said...

Like Hillary Blowing a commanding Lead over Trump in the Fourth Quarter with two weeks to go and spiking the ball on the 3 yard line thinking (as all Liberals did) that she had WON.

Epic loss on the liberals are post election still not over.

Week 3 of this season should be as fun to watch as the Last 2 as more Liberals go ever more bat shit insane.

HB, never has had the IQ to answer Questions, as his medical condition gets worse it is just more noticeable, even when he is the one that brings an ISSUE here, like this one.

HB complained about us not discussing the U-6, like he just newly discovered that Unemployment number, but when asked why he brought that issue here, you got it, crickets.

HB, why did you want to discuss the High US Unemployment of 9.4 percent and why over the last 3 months it is trending UP?

Commonsense said...

Unlike liberals, the people of Atlanta will get over their heartbreaking loss in the Super Bowl.

After all, it was still just a game as an election was still just an election.

KD, NFL Commissoner must over turn this said...

Exactly, The Falcon's Had a great year, and unlike Liberals they understood they could loss as only One Team ends the Year with a WIN.

IF the Falcon's were liberals they would demand that the game be "re-played" or maybe just that both teams get a "Vince Lombardi Participation Trophy".

So because the Falcons Led for most of the Game, that means they WON, like Liberals believing getting a few more votes in a very few states give you the win under Presidential Election Laws. Right.

IF the Falcon's were liberals they would take this to court.

Roger Amick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger Amick said...

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump has long been effusive in his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

In an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, which will air ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his “respect” for Putin — even in the face of accusations that Putin and his associates have murdered journalists and dissidents in Russia.

“I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them,” Trump told O'Reilly.

O'Reilly pressed on, declaring to the president that “Putin is a killer.”

Unfazed, Trump didn't back away, but rather compared Putin's reputation for extrajudicial killings with the United States'.

“There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?”

Yet you have an undying respect for this disaster.

Roger Amick said...

This is epic. We are a nation of immigrants who came here for a better life. We did not come here to deal with drugs, or commit murder. Hispanic, Arabic, the Jewish fleeing the holocaust, people of all origins come her to make a better life for themselves and our great country in general. Discrimination against a specific ethnic group is contrary to what OUR nation stands for.

Roger Amick said...

Cue the plagiarism drunkard spam.

I wrote it myself.