appointed activists?

their real desire is to destroy

WE THE PEOPLE … well, Party is again intentionally usurping design. Worse, those entrusted to uphold the Constitution on the design premise thereof: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined” (Federalist 45), with the powerful becoming Party activists, thereby able to pervert design premise. Now, the Constitution, itself a Bill of Rights, spawned the first ten amendments: The Bill of Rights. Those, based on the distrust of Anti-Federalist not believing what the Federalists were selling; the government cannot legislate what it cannot control. Federalist 45 paraphrased.

Except, in the desire for autarchy, what is the best opportunity to gain the ability to completely control? Either through Executive Order (EO), amend the Constitution, or both. Then, using Party activists, Party can control the outcome of any situation, thereby gaining total control (autarchy). WE THE PEOPLE, self-subjugating into Party pawns, believing Party has the best interest of those who believe: See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. And to instill the belief of government protecting the will of the people, the Constitution divides power into three branches thereof. Only, we’re taught they are three coequal, except: Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments (Federalist 78).

But constitutionally speaking: 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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office (Article III/Section 1/United States Constitution).

Which begs, how is good behavior defined: The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a monarchy it is an excellent barrier to the despotism of the prince; in a republic it is a no less excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws. … There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid (Federalist 78).

Thus, is ruling based on the dictates of Party over constitutional design considered “good behavior”? And, if the government cannot legislate what it cannot control, how can it then control immigration when it has no power to do so: Amendments. The 14^th now the lightning rod for Party to control country based on the premise of immigration. One Party ending “birthright citizenship,” through an EO. Yet, one judge: “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.” But, in preventing an EO’s execution, who made one judge king, the sole arbiter thereof: The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is unprecedented as it is dangerous (Federalist 81). The key being “dangerous” and “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” especially if one is a political activist and not acting in “good behavior.”

Only, in the 14^th’s design, the writer therefore defined “jurisdiction thereof”: This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons (emphasis added). It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country (Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan/fourteenth amendment author). Which if one decides to use precedent or unconstitutional action to define the constitutionality of an issue: The rules of legal interpretation are rules of COMMOMSENSE, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived (Federalist 83). Namely: The Constitution!

And while the vicious cycle of Party continues to consume country: Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental (Federalist 78).

If there are such things as political axioms, the propriety of the judicial power of a government being coextensive with its Legislative, may be ranked among the number. The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed (Federalist 80).

Hydra: A water serpent. In fabulous history, a serpent or monster in the lake or marsh of Lerna, in Peloponnesus, represented as having many heads, one of which, being cut off, was immediately succeeded by another, unless the wound was cauterized. Hercules killed this monster by applying firebrands to the wounds, as he cut off the heads. Hence we give the name to a multitude of evils, or to a cause of multifarious evils (Webster’s 1828).

Except: But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws (Federalist 78).

Well, we’re just a couple days past the month mark of Christmas past. And one of my favorite shows that I haven’t missed since I was about five offers some sage wisdom in words: Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer – Let’s be independent together. But understand: … the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution (Federalist 81). Only in deciding constitutionality of a law, is the law itself even constitutional? Sadly, one will never know unless they know and understand the structure and design of the Constitution.