How did we get to the point where only nine people will actually be voting in the 2024 election, while we get to choose between their Manchurian Candidates?
We’ve gotten here directly from the pains and havoc caused by Judicial Activism. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor just last week opined on how unfair it is to constantly have to deal with Originalism and actually complains that her Originalist counterparts are erasing years of activist law that she believed was not up for dispute.
Unfortunately, how they originally got to those now overturned rulings was by using Powers or creating Powers for government that never existed through unending court rulings that stated they had them. First, they gave themselves additional powers by “finding powers between the lines of the Constitution” through interpretation, and then later exponentially expanded government authority illegitimately by redefining words in the Constitution, and subsequently signed laws. These unlawful powers are Judicial Review and Judicial Activism.
How did we get to the point where only nine people will actually be voting in the 2024 election, while we get to choose between their Manchurian Candidates?
For People who make a living from constant extra-Constitutional judicial proceedings and have a vested interest in expanding personal and financial gain from ever-empowered government action through the Courts, the matter is what they call Settled Law.
Settled Law, also known as Stare Decisis, is a doctrine of the courts that states that case precedent must be followed and should not be overturned by future courts, because it will confuse Americans, cause them to believe the courts are not following the Constitution, they will lose Good Faith in the judiciary system and legal chaos will occur. As lawyers went before the courts, they had to codify existing rulings in their arguments, which solidified the legal standing for the original court review, and then sitting judges had to rule in honor of previous decisions.
However, most of those decisions were decisions made through the unlawful use of Judicial Review and Judicial Activism, powers the courts granted to themselves on their own rulings, and then made court doctrine that required following those decisions and, according to a sitting Supreme Court Justice and millions of Americans, those rulings are above being questioned.
The Constitution, however, is clear that the Supreme Court was vested “The” Judicial Power, not Judicial Powers. The, singular, Judicial Power is the power to hear disputes between two parties and hold trials. It is not the to work outside of, next to, or above the Constitution. Thus, some 27 years after ratification, the courts, in Marbury v. Madison (1803) said the power of Judicial Review (and as a subpower, Judicial Activism) was not explicitly in the Constitution, but “in between the lines” of the Supremacy Clause. This is entirely the weirdest interpretation, because The Supremacy Clause actually binds them to the Constitution; it does not give them the power to redefine the Constitution — the most Supreme law and a contractual obligation amongst the American People as the sole signatories — nor any laws, or any words for that matter.
Founding Father Richard Dobbs Spaight once opined in correspondence with a Justice that it was immaterial what law was being overturned, or the subject of such controversy, it was the ursurpation of the power of Judicial Review that he condemned, stating that the courts could not find anything either directly or implied in the Constitution to give them the authority to grant themselves, the legislature, or the executive branches additional powers not enumerated in the Constitution (lest we forget that pesky 10th amendment the SCOTUS dislikes that states any powers not enumerated are left to the states).
To better understand this for modern times, he simply states they can not enact tyranny to prevent tyranny.
No matter which side you are on for Trump as a candidate in the 2024 election, the constant changing of definitions and the forced binding of signatories (the American People) to those changing definitions without approval by the signatories through their contractual amendment process (see: the Amendment Process) makes the Constitution illusory and, therefore, void under contract law. I do not know a single person who would enter into a contract knowing that the definitions of words in that contract can change at anytime, and yet you would still be bound to the contract. It’s an absurd legal stance to believe that a third party could completely rewrite a contract and hold signatories to it into perpetuity simply because they signed the illusory contract sometime in the past. But this is the stance of most of the Justices in our history, and also the position of people who support the easy change of the Constitution through the courts instead of the formal amendment process.
Having constantly expanded, changed and created new definitions of words and even finding meaning between words to distort our Founding Documents in pursuit of personal glory and political expediency through the courts, is the foremost pressing issue for the 2024 election cycle. It will loom over us until we address the holes and gaps in these rulings that granted the courts such unceasing and ever-expanding powers that can only be checked through a Constitutional Convention.
As the Supreme Court hears whether Donald Trump should be on the ballot in Colorado (and possibly all 50 states), try to remember that the free elections in the United States of America should not be redefined, reinterpreted, and decided through an unquestionable Judiciary practicing unconstitutional powers through their rulings, which further makes our founding documents unenforceable and taints our election process.