Article III. Section. 1.
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.
Judicial power has been defined as the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justice.
Judicial power is not the power to legislate or to administer. In fact, those powers were designated to the legislative and executive branches of government. Article III the shortest of the first three branches of government because it was always intended that the judicial branch be the weakest of the three independent branches of government. That is correct, the three branches of government were never intended to be equal, only independent.
"This member of the Government (the judicial member) was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt." —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114
After the Marbury v Madison decision, which has been perhaps the most damaging decision ever in regard to the continuation of our Republic where the people elect representatives to perform their sovereign act of legislating, Jefferson said this:
"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212
And now these predictions of judicial despotism are becoming reality.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly, there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303
And now John Roberts has assumed the role of the all-powerful dictator ruling from the bench in the same assumptive role of Supreme Authority that consumed others such as Marshall, McReynolds, and Warren. Roberts played the role of Chief Justice and God when he claimed that congress meant tax and not penalty, and state and not State when he said that Obamacare was constitutional. He than ruled that paperwork must be more accurate in an executive order whose purpose was to negate an executive order that assumed that the executive had legislative authority, which it does not. Now he is ruling that a law duly passed by a legislative branch can be overturned because of a Supreme Court ruling that, according to the United States Constitution would only have the authority of an opinion and not law. The Supreme Court was given no authority to pass law, legislate, and so precedence would be no basis to override a duly passed law.
THE SUPREME COURT, THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IS A THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC AND OUR FREEDOM BECAUSE IT IS ACTING IN A WAY THAT IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. YES, THE SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIARY ARE ACTING IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.