Creating A Constitutional Crisis To End An Imaginary One Regarding Trump

Constitutionally illiterate inferior court judges and Marxist/left wing Attorneys General have no constitutional authority to direct and undermine the functioning of the Executive Branch.

Nineteen Marxist/left leaning Attorneys General sued the Trump administration, and the judge made a ruling before seeing the complaint!

More Revolution from the Insurrectionist Federal Judiciary

Engelmayer is the first judge ever to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the president of the United States that also forbids a cabinet secretary from accessing his own records without giving these parties an opportunity to respond. He offered zero analysis of his constitutional authority to make such a radical ruling, the federal rule governing injunctions and temporary restraining orders, or why he is enabling fraud and grift by blocking access to records that show who got government money and for what.

Letitia James should be more concerned about being indicted for conspiring with the Biden White House to influence a Presidential election!

The Constitution created three equal branches. Inferior courts are not one of them

Fun facts: The Constitution created three equal branches. The Legislative which writes the laws, the Executive which carries out the laws, and the Judiciary which applies the laws to cases and controversies. The Judicial only includes the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 1, U.S. Constitution:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

All other courts are inferior courts created by Congress so the Supreme Court would not have to hear every federal case! The only part of the federal judiciary that’s equal to the presidency is the Supreme Court, not all of the federal district courts scattered across the country! They absolutely have no power to direct the Executive Branch, (the President), how it is to conduct its Constitutional duty to:

Article II, Section 2, U.S. Constitution:

require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,

Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution:

take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution, Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Chief Justice Joseph Story on the powers of the President

From: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority, and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political.

Fun fact: With emphasis to all the morons who think they’re cute calling Elon Musk “the President”:

To aid him in the performance of these duties, he, (the President), is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority, and in conformity with his orders.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion on Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018):

Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone…have become increasingly common. District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.

I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.

If district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions, that authority must come from a statute or the Constitution. No statute expressly grants district courts the power to issue universal injunctions.

When did this absurd idea of inferior courts issuing universal injunctions start?

Justice Thomas in his Trump v Hawaii opinion cites the first instance of its usage in a 1963 case called Wirtz v. Baldor Elec. Co.

Wirtz concerned the secretary of labor’s setting of the minimum wage in a particular industry.

In its ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court argued for the broad relief of a universal injunction under the logic that executive officers should honor court decisions “in all cases of essentially the same character.” If a court decides an issue, the same relief given to the plaintiff in the case should be provided to others with similar causes of action.

From a NATIONAL REVIEW essay adapted from a speech given by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions to the Federalist Society’s National Student Symposium on March 10, 2018:

First of all, nationwide injunctions encourage forum shopping. There is a reason why so many lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration in California and Hawaii, and why others were filed against the Obama administration in Texas. Lawyers are looking for the most favorable forum in which to advance their goal of imposing a policy outcome on the country without winning at the ballot box or in the legislature.

Second, nationwide injunctions cut off discussion among the lower courts — a key feature of our legal system that leads to smarter, better decisions.

Third, when a single district judge issues a nationwide injunction while similar cases are pending elsewhere, that overrides the rulings of other judges. For example, a federal judge in Maryland held that the wind-down of the DACA policy was lawful. So even though the plaintiffs in that Maryland case lost, it was as if they won, because judges in San Francisco and New York issued injunctions that stopped the federal government nationwide.

I have previously written about the out of control judiciary:

Even an individual Supreme Court Justice doesn't have the power to shut down the country with a ruling! It is an absurdity that at the urging of Marxist/leftists one unelected federal judge among several hundred can shut down the function of the whole government, particularly the Executive Branch, especially when the judge outrageously and illegally for that matter, issues an opinion without even reading an alleged complaint, as in the previously mention Letitia James case!

The real question? Why do we Americans put up with these outrages instead of demanding the Supreme Court and our elected representatives put an end to them?

Solutions to the Constitutional outrages?

1. Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court can do as Justice Thomas suggested and bring these inferior court usurpers in line with the Constitution.

2. Congress can start doing its duty and begin impeaching judges blatantly violating their oaths and by not exhibiting “good behaviour” while holding their offices:

3. Since Congress created the inferior courts, it can eliminate some or all of them entirely.

The other option? The head of the Executive Branch ignores their rulings

As I stated and repeatedly demonstrated, only the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches are equal. The Judicial is only the Supreme Court. Inferior courts created later by Congress, are not even able to question the proper functioning of the Executive Branch. President Trump is the Chief Executive in charge of the Executive Branch and Chief Law Enforcement Officer as per the Constitution. Overseeing the departments under his control, and unlike Presidents before him, making sure they are properly accounting for tax dollars they receive and not defrauding the American people, while making sure the federal workforce is actually doing their jobs. This stance might be the impetus for Chief Justice Roberts, frankly, to get off his ass and reign in his underlings, putting an end to this leftist nonsense that has no Constitutional basis.

There is precedent for the Executive Branch to ignore the Supreme Court let alone inferior courts

The Supreme Court has committed judicial activism practically from the start, stepping outside their narrow Constitutional boundaries, using each precedent to build on the next, like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) - The first act of judicial activism.

  • References in History.com, Britannica.com etc., will tell you the Supreme Court "created" judicial review when in actuality, the Supreme Court was forbidden to "create" anything at all, let alone the authority to oversee the actions of the Legislative and Executive branches. Yet the Supreme Court determined it had the power to decide cases concerning the Constitutionality of Congressional or Executive actions and when it deemed them unconstitutional, can overturn them! When Chief Justice Marshal ruled Section 13 of the 1789 Judicial Act violated Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, he is the one who actually violated the Constitution by going outside his Article III boundaries!

  • Thomas Jefferson, of the Republican party, (NOT the Democrat/Republican party) beat John Adams of the Federalist party in a Presidential election so brutal and mean spirited they would not speak again for many years. Marbury was a Justice of the Peace named by Adams in his rush to pack the courts with Federalists that did not have his commission signed off by the previous Secretary of State, John Marshall. Now President Jefferson directed his Secretary of State, James Madison not to seat Marbury. Marbury ran to his friend, now Chief Justice Marshall, and filed a suit. Marshall and Jefferson were bitter rivals, and Marshall came up with an ingenious and devious unconstitutional solution.

Fun fact: Chief Justice John Marshall should have actually recused himself based on his personal relationship in the matter.

President Thomas Jefferson ignored the ruling

Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. - Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME ll:50

Each of the three departments has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution without regard to what the others may have decided for themselves under a similar question. - Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:215

Let the inferior courts try to enforce their unconstitutional rulings