The supreme court runs an event each year for people to learn about our founding. The people are encouraged to “build their own constitution” just like they did in Philly, complete with the checks and balances to hold it in place. There’s a $25,000.00 prize sponsored each year for the first to complete one that actually works using the same components we have in our documents. Just like this guy, nobody can ever do it. But nobody ever seems to catch on to the whole game.
We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP.
Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken.
You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin.
Our entire system relies on the court being able to keep the government within its limited constitutional bounds by saying no. That was why they supposedly had to be “independent”. In other words, the entire purpose for having an independent judiciary is to be sure that the court felt free to say NO to a government that overstepped its constitutional bounds.
It is a little known fact that Madison spent his youth on a ranch. He allegedly incorporated many of the concepts he learned there into the constitution’s design to keep the government within strict limits. It is brilliance you know.
Yes means allowing the other branches to do things they are not constitutionally permitted to do. No means that the court steps up and says, you can’t do that, it is not constitutional. You don’t need to be independent in order to say yes. There is no controversy in a YES. Everyone is Always free to say yes! The key is setting up a system where the court feels free to say NO.
Think about it like this. Say you want to set up a trust to provide for your child. If you make the administrator of the trust dependent on the child to keep his position, then he is much more likely to say yes when he shouldn’t. But not at all likely to say no when he should say yes.
And the flip side is that if you make the administrator independent of the child he is much more likely to say no to the child when he should, but you run the risk that the power goes to his head and he denies the child access to funds that the child should be getting. You see? There is no controversy in saying yes, only in saying no.
So an Independent judiciary’s advantage is that it is free to say no to the other branches in order to protect the peoples’ rights because they cannot be removed. But the danger is that they will say no too often and not allow the government to exercise authority it in fact has. It is essential you understand this distinction.
Here’s another way to think about it. Whatever action the government takes is either constitutional or not constitutional. And the court can either uphold an action or strike it down.
Many of the justices on the court enjoy the thrill of giving so much they don’t get enough just writing opinions that hand out new powers, so they play Santa during the holidays as well. They just want to give and give, but the question often raised is, to whom do they give?
The dependent court is more likely to uphold actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional. The Independent court is more likely to strike down actions of all sorts, both constitutional and unconstitutional.
There is no controversy that the court was made “independent”, ostensibly, to protect the individuals’ rights from being trampled and to keep the government within its bounds, i.e. to say NO. Here is quote from Federalist 78 on the topic.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
I could go on and on with quotes talking about the foundational principle of independence and staying within the constitution etc etc. But I am not going to waste your time. If you want to brush up on the idea, then go read the sales brochure number 78 I just quoted from, or pick up any high school government book. What I have said is not controversial. It is the supposed heart of our system.
A dependent judiciary’s advantage is that it is responsive to whoever controls it but its disadvantage is that it tends to rubber stamp things. The independent court says no a lot but you can’t control it. It is critical to understand this distinction.
Here is an important question to ask yourself when doing an analysis of the court’s performance. Can you think of a single time that the court struck down a law that was even arguably constitutional?
I sent an advance copy of my article to the court. As a result the court ordered this poor secretary to go through the different opinions and pull out the ones where the court struck down a law as unconstitutional. She did find one. You can see she’s holding it in her hands.
I could not come up with a single example. I doubt anyone can, because the examples don’t exist! Nothing even close. Of the very few laws they have struck down as unconstitutional, about 176 or so, there really was no question. The laws were laughably unconstitutional. Of course the court has struck down a few laws. It does happen. They have to in order to keep the long con running and to keep the illusion of the system’s “checks and balances” going.
But my question was, are there any laws that were struck down that were arguably constitutional? that is a very different issue. That is the issue that goes to independence. The few times they have struck laws down, they were so far over the line it was ridiculous.
Now think how many 10,000’s of laws have been passed and think how far beyond the constitutional limits the court has allowed the whole system to expand. There is example after example of the court upholding laws that are clearly NOT constitutional but none striking down laws that are even arguably constitutional! Because they do not behave as an independent body.
It is essential that you understand the distinction and analysis I just made between what the danger is between independent and dependent courts before moving on.
Now think about any controversial issue. Abortion, gun rights, Obamacare, busing, drug laws, special required light bulbs, toilet flushing, EPA, FDA, go on down the list. What is the PROBLEM with any of those issues? Is it that the court strikes down too many laws when it shouldn’t? NO.
Here’s an old pic of me with my buddies laughing at me. I had a tendency to say yes too much when I first got out of law school. I guess I picked the habit up in ConLaw class. Actually, I had a good time that night.
The problem with the court is always the same. It says YES TOO OFTEN. Yes to the expansion of the government beyond the limits of the constitution. The exact OPPOSITE problem we are supposed to have with an independent judiciary.
Think about how absurd this whole thing is. We have a court that never strikes down laws as unconstitutional when it should, constantly upholds laws that are clearly NOT constitutional and yet it is protected from removal under the guise of it being independent. Then we are told the brilliance of our system is the set of checks and balances that all revolve around the independence of the court. And the brainwashing is so deep and so effective that people actually DEFEND the system!
A dependent judiciary can be easily removed. That is why they are referred to as dependent. That is the advantage of having them be dependent. You can control them by easily getting rid of them so they can never do much damage! The downside is they never say NO when they should.
With the independent, you can’t get rid of them. They can do a lot of damage, but they are supposed to say no. But look at the reality. We have the worst of both the independent and dependent judiciary.
The problem with the courts that we have is UNRELATED to their independence or dependence WITHIN the system. And thus the solution has nothing to do with its independence! That is a DISTRACTION. The problem is the illusion that any ONE ENTITY can EVER check itself!!! Remember, when the government’s scope of control grows the COURT’S SCOPE of power grows. So when the court “allows” the government to grow. It is allowing its own power to grow! Thus the court has an inescapable conflict of interest.
The conflict of interest is where the problem lies, even if we put aside corruption. And the conflict of interest is complete and it cannot be solved inside the system they have given us. The final say must come from OUTSIDE of the Federal system. Without that change, there will never be any protection for the people.
These guys were having quite an intellectual debate about which one of them would make a better warden. Many people in this country have the same kind of debate about the elections. Sometimes it’s easier to see the error in others way of thinking.
Now do you see why those in charge endlessly discuss the supposed brilliance of the federal system concerning an “independent” court and checks and balances? It is to confuse you and convince you of something that isn’t true. They have created an entity with chinese walls that can never work and they tell you it is the cornerstone of the foundation!
The only thing the independence of the court actually does in our system is provide cover to grow the government! It gives an illusion of a check. And the people allow it to “be final” because it is supposedly “independent”. If the people saw the court for what it actually is, which is “dependent’, as I have just shown you, then the people would not be okay with it being final because they would know it was a rubber stamp for the other arms of the same government.
All the talk of the brilliance of the checks and balances and the independence of the court is just a show.
Why have you never been taught to think about the issue in the terms I just showed you? Because the government controls education and the media are all on the same side. Why are the questions I have asked and the analysis I just made NEVER brought up by the so called constitutional scholars? Why is it never part of the “liberty movement” or the “back to the conjobstitution” movement?
Because those movements are not designed to actually DO anything about the REAL problems as I have told you and told you. They are there to drain off your time. Do you see that the concepts they push can never succeed because they don’t even discuss the real problems. They act as though the holy founding documents are something they are not. That our “independent” judiciary is ESSENTIAL to our FREEDOM when it is not actually independent and it is in fact the key to our enslavement! Quite simply, they act as though the system is something it is not.
I try to break the truth to people as easily as I can. But still, most just can’t handle it.
I have showed you that the courts should not be making non unanimous decisions.
I have showed you that they create powers where there are none.
I have showed you that they don’t have the power to make something constitutional.
Now I have showed you that that the court is not in any way acting independently. The emperor has no clothes my friend. He never does. They just lie to us non stop from cradle to grave and do whatever they want because the people allow it.
Until the people wake up and stop romanticizing the founding and the constitution and our “institutions” as though they are something they are not, there will never be real change. Each person must re-educate themselves. Starting with what I try and show them.
I am done for today. I can only have so much hypocrisy at one sitting… doctor’s orders. Something about me having a stroke if I keep going. I Hope you learned something. Maybe you will be able to laugh the next time you see some schmexpert from Harvard talking about the independent court and all the importance of keeping it that way. It is just a lie. An obvious, sad, and silly lie. Nothing more.
Take care my fellow inmate and tell someone the truth about the law.
Legalman IS the law.