Republican Association of Central Committees of MO
Working together to secure Missouri values & freedoms
Executive vs. Judicial
The Judiciary Will Continue to Act Like an Unelected Oligarchy
Until WE Demand It Stop!
Trump is the one man who can do it, if he only will....
​
The Federalist Papers show the Founding Fathers envisioned the Judiciary as the weakest of the three branches, needing the Executive branch to enforce Judiciary judgments. President Trump must stand up to judges who attempt to impose their individual will over and above that of the Executive branch.
​
Following are articles discussing our increasingly out of control Judiciary and what can be done about it.
From Federalist Number 78
"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 . . . may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." (Emphasis added in spots.)
- Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review
The entire concept of judicial supremacy is built on a lie and is a house of cards. Trump and the state governments can easily push back against it. Until and unless they do, we will live in a judicial dictatorship of our own choosing.
​
Excerpts from podcast #561: click here to listen
"A Maryland judge had placed an injunction on Trump's policy on states like Texas...to opt out of refugee resettlement. ...somehow everyone in the political system is brainwashed into thinking that any judge at any time could grant any issue effecting the whole of the people...and just flick his wrist and that is the law of the land, irrespective of ...prior Supreme Court precedent...in that moment at that time a district judge flatulates and that's it....we have three equal branches of government...with the judiciary being the weakest branch as its not elected...."
​
"...last week a court in Missouri said they can't enforce their voter ID laws...."
​
"What we have here today is a dictatorship of judges...IF WE ALLOW IT...and we don't have to allow it...."
Can a Maryland judge force Trump and Texas to resettle more refugees? NO
-Daniel Horowitz
​
The Founders created a system in which all three branches of government would have to independently defend the Constitution. They gave the judicial branch the fewest tools to impose its will on issues affecting the population at large. Never in their wildest dreams did they envision the other branches genuflecting to the Supreme Court, much less lower court judges, but that is what will continue happening until they simply say, “No."
​
Yesterday, a single Maryland judge gave private taxpayer-funded “nonprofit” organizations standing in court to get an injunction against the president’s policy allowing states like Texas to reject their resettlement plans. “Refugee resettlement activity should go forward as it developed for the almost 40 years before Executive Order 13888 was announced,” declared Judge Peter J. Messitte of the Maryland District Court, a Clinton appointee.
​
Here’s the problem. The Constitution never gave a judge a veto power, Read More....
Remember the ‘travel ban’? Lower courts seeking to ‘overturn’ that Supreme Court decision
- By Daniel Horowitz
​
For several generations, we have been told by the political elites that the Supreme Court stands above the other two branches of government, even when the high court violates the Constitution or claims to decide a broad public policy question squarely within the purview or powers of the other branches. Now, it appears that any lower court can simply issue a ruling more progressive than what the Supreme Court just said, and the other branches feel compelled to abide by that ruling!
​
A group of refugee resettlement contractors and other immigration groups are suing because they don’t like the process the administration has set up to allow waivers of the ban. The problem is that the Supreme Court said quite clearly that the president can disallow migration without offering any waivers whatsoever. Chief Justice Roberts could not have been any clearer: