A Legal Precedent Is An Unconstitutional Aplication Of The Law
With Harriet Miers withdrawing herself from consideration President Bush has given up on the stealth nominee and presented Samual Alito. Judge Alito is an experienced judge and has left quite a paper trail for the Senators to go through and nitpick as they did with Robert Bork. This time Bush has decided to select someone the Conservatives would have confidence with to tilt the Supreme Court in the conservative direction.
Despite how John Roberts and Samual Alito are billed as strict constructionist I would hardly agree that such billing is correct as to be a strict constructionist is to go by the letter of the law. Contraire to legal doctrine the law is legislation which was legally passed by the legislative branch of the state and/or federal governments and not judicial precedent. Both judges show ignorance of the Constitution by acknowledging precedent as law as that is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself for it clearly states that all legislation will be performed by Congress and no other. Alexander Hamilton when defending the Supreme Court in the federation papers clearly states that it would not be a threat to American democracy as long as it was constrained to judicial powers.
To balance the branches The Senate was given the judicial power of impeachment and all branches of government were made to take Constitutional oaths in order to keep t them from exceeding their power. This power has seldom been used and has resulted in The United States lack of freedom. When a federal judge renders a decision that a Senator finds unconstitutional that Senator has the duty to the people imparted by the his/her oath and the Constitution to attempt to get that judge impeached. They also have the duty to attempt to stop individuals intent on misinterpreting the Constitution from getting on the bench by denying them their consent. Perhaps it is time that the Senate sent a message to the federal judges that only the legislative branch has the right to make laws by rejecting Samuel Alito for his unconstitutional stance on precedents, many which were set by activist.
Despite how John Roberts and Samual Alito are billed as strict constructionist I would hardly agree that such billing is correct as to be a strict constructionist is to go by the letter of the law. Contraire to legal doctrine the law is legislation which was legally passed by the legislative branch of the state and/or federal governments and not judicial precedent. Both judges show ignorance of the Constitution by acknowledging precedent as law as that is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution itself for it clearly states that all legislation will be performed by Congress and no other. Alexander Hamilton when defending the Supreme Court in the federation papers clearly states that it would not be a threat to American democracy as long as it was constrained to judicial powers.
To balance the branches The Senate was given the judicial power of impeachment and all branches of government were made to take Constitutional oaths in order to keep t them from exceeding their power. This power has seldom been used and has resulted in The United States lack of freedom. When a federal judge renders a decision that a Senator finds unconstitutional that Senator has the duty to the people imparted by the his/her oath and the Constitution to attempt to get that judge impeached. They also have the duty to attempt to stop individuals intent on misinterpreting the Constitution from getting on the bench by denying them their consent. Perhaps it is time that the Senate sent a message to the federal judges that only the legislative branch has the right to make laws by rejecting Samuel Alito for his unconstitutional stance on precedents, many which were set by activist.
posted by Kerwin | 6:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home