In its first three weeks the 2.0 Trump Administration has caused quite an uproar with its fast-moving actions. It’s to be expected that politically charged rhetoric and hyperbole would come from the political class of Democrats and Republicans who benefit from the government’s largesse. Protests from government workers whose agency’s expenditures are coming under public scrutiny have been plentiful as well. Much of this has been caused by President Trump placing Elon Musk in an advisory position in his Administration to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy. And Oh Boy! Howdy! Has he identified some doozies!
While much of this is par for the course and the Deep State resistance is real, there’s something even more concerning. It’s the actions of activist judges issuing injunctions against President Trump and DOGE’s efforts to root out the waste of taxpayer money. Employee unions, Leftist special interest groups and Leftist attorneys have filed suit against President Trump to stop these investigations. These groups assemble to bring the cases before judges sympathetic to their cause or, who oppose President Trump. These judges have issued injunctions intended to prevent President Trump from managing Executive Branch agencies.
And yet, the President of the United States IS the Executive Branch.
This is a blatant abuse of judicial authority and a violation of the separation of powers principle. The US Constitution only establishes the Supreme Court. The Federal District and Appellate Court systems are established by Congress. Congress also sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts and can limit the subject matter of the cases they can hear. This limitation of court jurisdiction is called “jurisdiction stripping” or “court stripping.”
Congress has used this authority several times in the past. One of the more noteworthy instances centered around slavery. In 1857, the Court opined it was unconstitutional for Congress or the Executive Branch to free slaves or end slavery. Thankfully, Congress ignored this decision when it freed the slaves legislatively in 1862. President Abraham Lincoln did the same in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Congress went even further when it removed Reconstruction issues from the Court’s jurisdiction.
It is important to note here that Court stripping may also be achieved through amending the Constitution. The first subject area in Convention of States Action’s Article V resolution is to propose amendments that “limit the size, scope and jurisdiction of the federal government.” An amendment could be proposed under our resolution to clearly state the Judiciary has no oversight authority over the Executive or Legislative Branches of government. This is the exact opinion of The Framers.
The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power. – Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78.
Over the years, the Courts have the opinion they are the final arbiter of what the Constitution says and their decisions should be unchallenged. The Framers had a different view. The Court has the least amount of authority granted to it in the US Constitution. This is because federal court judges are not elected by, and thus not directly accountable to, We The People. It’s also a misnomer that judges are appointed and confirmed to serve lifetime appointments. The Constitution states that judges can serve in times of “good behavior.” It’s a fact that Federal judges have been impeached for succumbing to bribery, preferential treatment of litigants in front of the court and even public drunkenness.
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. – Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson went even further when describing what would happen if the Courts were to be the final interpreter of the Constitution. Jefferson wrote, “The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” That sounds similar to what we have today.
What recourse do we have? We The People do not have a direct way of holding a federal judge accountable for their unconstitutional opinions. However, our elected officials in Congress do. In addition to the aforementioned ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal Court system, Congress also has the ability to impeach federal judges. The Constitution clearly gives Congress oversight authority over the Judiciary. The Judicial Branch does not have the same oversight of the Executive or Legislative Branches. The latter branches are elected by the people. The former is not.
The Framers inserted impeachment authority to Congress to protect the fundamental principle that the federal government’s just powers reside in the “consent of the governed.” Today’s judiciary acts with impunity to the constitutional structure and the will of the people because Congress has not exercised its oversight of the Judiciary effectively. Some claim that exercising impeachment would cause the Judiciary to become a political branch of government. It is precisely because the Courts have seized lawmaking authority from Congress that they have become politicized. Impeachment of activist judges who issue unconstitutional opinions or attempt to restrict the Chief Executive from lawfully operating the Executive Branch as they see fit is the proper remedy.
I say, ‘Defy the unconstitutional orders. Impeach the activist judges!’
In liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
