Look, you are intelligent, many people here dont want to acknowledge this. They just want to have one KING governing the whole US, no branches, no constitution, nothing.
Look, you are intelligent, many people here dont want to acknowledge this. They just want to have one KING governing the whole US, no branches, no constitution, nothing.
It's more like they don't know or understand the Constitution and that the federalist papers were 85 essays written about the discussions & arguments that took place to form the Constitution and were primarily meant to promote ratification of it. Taking a paragraph out of an entire essay would not necessarily provide an interpretation about this one issue. The founders gave several avenues for checks and balances, it is just that Article III has been misinterpreted to mean the judiciary has "lifetime" appointments for so long that it's going to take the Congress finally putting a resolution or some document out that explains it how it should be and that is they may hold office "during good behavior" - meaning interpreting the law correctly - not attempting to set partisan precedent with their decisions that abuses their role in the three equal branches set by the Constitution. Yes, they are the weakest, but that is not the hill to die on.
As I see it, the best way to address the overreach of these judges is to address their "bad" behavior. Congress can do that and it's been a discussion in the past, there was just not enough in office that were willing to take on the judiciary.
After he talked with many house members, Andy Biggs introduced a Resolution on 3/31/25. It has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and there's not yet been a hearing set that I see, but it's a really good start IMO!...
Look, you are intelligent, many people here dont want to acknowledge this. They just want to have one KING governing the whole US, no branches, no constitution, nothing.
It's more like they don't know or understand the Constitution and that the federalist papers were 85 essays written about the discussions & arguments that took place to form the Constitution and were primarily meant to promote ratification of it. Taking a paragraph out of an entire essay would not necessarily provide an interpretation about this one issue. The founders gave several avenues for checks and balances, it is just that Article III has been misinterpreted to mean the judiciary has "lifetime" appointments for so long that it's going to take the Congress finally putting a resolution or some document out that explains it how it should be and that is they may hold office "during good behavior" - meaning interpreting the law correctly - not attempting to set partisan precedent with their decisions that abuses their role in the three equal branches set by the Constitution. Yes, they are the weakest, but that is not the hill to die on.
As I see it, the best way to address the overreach of these judges is to address their "bad" behavior. Congress can do that and it's been a discussion in the past, there was just not enough in office that were willing to take on the judiciary.
After he talked with many house members, Andy Biggs introduced a Resolution on 3/31/25. It has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and there's not yet been a hearing set that I see, but it's a really good start IMO!...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/270/text?s=2&r=1