Though the Mueller investigation had a free hand, I expect a Federal judge to block the Barr investigation any day now, prohibiting him from declassifying any files.Long ago the The Federal Judiciary granted to itself extra-constitutional plenary power to decide from day to day what any part of the Constitution means. What it meant yesterday is irrelevant. It might mean something else today. Until the States dissolve the Federal Judiciary through a Constitutional Amendment, there is no hope________________
Just curious, which one of these 3 would you like to get rid of:
All of them, at least in their current form. The Federalists scoffed at the concerns of the anti-Federalist under the pretense that the Judicary would be the weakest of all three branches. Sadly, the anti-Federalists have been proven correct________________
What would this amendment say? Article III of the Constitution to the United States is hereby repealed?
Also can’t wait until the first time there is any kind of disagreement between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Coo-coo banana town is not seeing that the Federal Judiciary is the only co-equal branch that is unchecked. Certainly some mechanism would need to be implemented to resolve disputes between States. But my point remains. The Federal Judiciary is operating unchecked, the very thing you fear the other two branches would do if the Federal Judiciary was to be eliminated. And yes, Congress does have Constitutional power to change the jurisdiction of the courts, but they don’t do it. Even worse, the States themselves retain incredible power to make changes, and simply do not. But let’s view this debate in light of my original post. It is obvious that the courts have become political agencies of the radical left. They will try to shut Barr down________________
It’s not unchecked. The fact that you’re proposing a Constitutional amendment to legally eliminate it proves it’s not unchecked.You then go on to enumerate how two different groups can check the judiciary, further proving that it’s not unchecked.
I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen siultaneously with the implimentation of a new one________________
Sure, but why cut your foot off if you have a wart on your toe, even if you plan to do it simultaneously with the acquisition of a prosthetic?I agree with you 100% that there’s a wart on the federal judiciary, I just think there are a couple of intermediate steps we could try first.
I acknowledge that scrapping the current system would need to happen simultaneously with the implimentation of a new one. ________________
Sure, but why cut your foot off if you have a wart on your toe, even if you plan to do it simultaneously with the acquisition of a prosthetic?Iagree with you 100% that there’s a wart on the federal judiciary, I just think there are a couple of intermediate steps we could try first.