The Judicial Weapon Against Trump

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The judicial branch was supposed to originally be the weakest branch of government, but over time it has become the most powerful branch.  From the point of view of the framers of the United States Constitution, the judicial branch was not supposed to have the power of interpreting the Constitution, or to interpret the laws of the United States.  Their job was to apply the laws to the cases they heard, and if there was a concern regarding the constitutionality of a law, then they were allowed to offer an opinion regarding their interpretation.  To this day the dockets begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."

Yet, here we are, with the courts acting in ways that is frankly none of their business.

DACA: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that requires the government to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program going.

According to the ruling of a lower court, the Department of Homeland Security must continue to accept renewal applications from the roughly 700,000 young people who are currently enrolled in the program, known as DACA. The administration had intended to shut the program down by March 5.

Why is it the courts are involved in the first place?  DACA was put into place by executive order, an unconstitutional means of establishing the program.  According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers belongs to Congress.  How is it that Obama was able to put DACA in place through an executive order without legislative authority?

Since DACA was put into place by executive power, whether it was constitutional or not, it can then be removed by executive power, as well.  Yet, the courts are going to tell Trump he can't?  Why?

In short, the courts are challenging President Trump because they disagree with him ideologically.

There is no authority granted to the federal court system to strike down an executive order, so Trump ought to tell the courts to pound sand.

The court system's overreach is not only happening at the federal level. At the State level, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has told the State legislature that the Gerrymandered map that has been in place in that State is unacceptable, so the court issued its own congressional map to replace the old one. The GOP had an advantage, it has been assumed, under the old map, so the leftist judges have offered their new map to make it more fair.

The Supreme Court drew the map after Republican lawmakers and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) failed to come up with their own agreement by a set February 15 deadline.

The problem is, according to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

At no point in the Constitution are the courts given any authority regarding elections.  It is purely a legislative authority.  In short, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally.

Here's the problem.  The courts are defying the rule of law by declaring that they are the rule of law.  Over the last two hundred plus years we have been told by the courts that they are the final say on everything, and we have to simply believe them. . . even though there is no authority granted for them to seize such a power.

At what point do we finally start impeaching judges and dismantling courts for their flagrant disobedience to the U.S. Constitution?

Congress has the power, but the reality is, they either don't realize it, they are too fearful to do anything, or they are complicit.

Most folks have told me they believe the latter to be the problem.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary