Democrats are at war with the 77.3 million Americans who voted for Donald J. Trump. The federal district courts are the battlefields. Our Republic and our citizens are the potential losers.
Democrats are abusing the federal court system to fight for power and disrupt the government of the United States. Congress can end the war if it would rein in the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. The Constitution grants it the power to do so.
In Article III of our Constitution, We the People empowered the establishment of one Supreme Court – SCOTUS. We also said “…Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…” inferior courts [emphasis added]. Nothing in the language requires it to do so. “Inferior courts” are federal courts below the SCOTUS.
We the People in Article I, Clause 9, further empowered Congress “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.”
As ratified, the Constitution does not require Congress to create inferior courts. Not having done so would have been a huge mistake, and it is extremely doubtful any member of Congress fought against the notion.
Disregarding statutes currently in U.S. law, We the People gave Congress the power to create laws regarding federal courts – including limiting their ability to rule on certain classes of cases.
At this time, various entities, claiming to fear that the U.S. President threatens the Constitution by virtue of fulfilling the obligations of his office and the mandate of voters, have filed lawsuits to prevent him from following through on his campaign promises.
According to PJ Media, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Michigan, states that Democrats have a strategy intended to oppose the U.S. President every way they can. She describes a five-pronged approach to “litigate, legislate, educate, advocate, [and] communicate.” This is taking the balance of powers far afield of constitutional expectations.
Sympathetic Democrat Party entities shop for sympathetic judges who, single-handedly, stop the U.S. President from doing what the Constitution empowers him to do. A single federal judge lays claim to more power than the elected President of the United States.
Can a President carry out his or her duties if, at every turn, a sympathetic partisan federal judge says “no?” Did the Founders believe that a single federal judge should have so much power as to stop the other two branches from functioning?
Congress could, if it had the will, impose limits on certain classes of cases federal district and appeals courts can hear. It could, should it muster up the courage, allow only the SCOTUS to rule on certain specific acts of a President. For instance, Congress could specify that any judicial proceeding that inhibits or limits a President’s actions which he or she believes to be based on a constitutionally-sound statute or an enumerated presidential power, would be fast-tracked to the SCOTUS.
No federal judge should have the authority to tell a President that he or she must order an airplane full of illegal immigrants, many of whom are gang members – killers, rapists, human traffickers – to turn back. Neither should a federal district judge have the power to tell the President he cannot lay off people who have low to no functions to perform. No federal district judge should have the power to order the military to retain trans-gendered soliders, or rescind Presidential orders to protect female athletes from the man who wish to dominate them in sports. Neither should a district judge have the power to order a President to disperse taxpayer funds to organizations that serve only the political decisions of a few in Congress or that a prior administration felt were worthy.
Congress has the constitutional power to correct the judicial coup of the President of the United States. They will never do it without public support or the fear of losing the next election. That means you.
To know more about our U.S. Government, order How We the People Designed our Government to Work.
