5. Judicial Powers, US Constitution Article III


Judicial Powers, US Constitution Article III

The Judicial responsibility is to decide if cases brought before the courts are constitutional.  The Courts are NOT to make laws; the authority to make laws is reserved to the Legislative branch of the government.  Many judges and courts are, in fact, making laws, often overturning the will of the people and their collective votes.  Judges and courts that do this are taking unconstitutional actions.

Article III of the constitution outlines the Judicial Powers of the United States.  Unlike the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, there is no age limit, nor terms of office outlined in the Constitution.  Also there are no requirements as to education, etc. that are listed in the Constitution.

Section I states:  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at states Times, receive for their services a compensation. 

They are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate (as stated in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2) and can serve a lifetime, unless impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

Section II states:  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made…

Some questions that we need to consider in looking at the responsibilities of the courts:

1. When considering cases, should Judges be “blindfolded” or should they show “empathy” to the parties in the case?

If you serve on a jury do you have the power to find the defendant not-guilty because of your “empathy”?

2. Should foreign law be considered in their decisions?

When and where would this begin or end?

3. Should Supreme Court justices be bound by precedent?

If a case is determined to have been incorrectly ruled in the past, can it be changed?

4. What matters most, the law or the results?

If laws don’t matter, why have any?

5. Is the Constitution a living document?  Or should interpretations of the Constitution evolve to keep up with the times?

President Thomas Jefferson gave solemn warming against those who would subvert democracy through judicial activism, saying, “Our peculiar security is in the position of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

In 2003, Justice Antonin Scalia, in Lawrence V. Texas, 539 US 558.602 said: “The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role in assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.”

A sitting member of the Supreme Court confirms that we have an activist court!  We elect only people of character with a fidelity to the Constitution.  Otherwise, we will continue to have our Constitution shredded through activist judges.  Please remember this on November 2nd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: