Do you ever wonder why very little changes in Washington for the good? It seems no matter who is President there are few substantive changes that are constitutional.
Yet every four years we spend untold millions of dollars and thousands of hours promoting one candidate or another. But at the end of the day, no matter who is elected, things either get just a bit worse or a lot worse.
Same goes for Congress and the Senate. We expend so much time, effort and money electing these idiots and nothing gets better. Why is that?
Well, as usual, Mark Levin pointed to it just the other day on his radio program. It’s the bureaucracy and the judges. These faceless, nameless bureaucrats are immune from elections. Whether it’s a conservative or liberal president, it’s of no consequence to career bureaucrats.
Congress likes it this way. It gets them off the hook in making difficult decisions. They can point to the bureaucrats and judges as the culprits.
It matters not to them who controls the House and Senate. They just continue on, pumping out more and more rules and regulations to choke us all and further their own influence.
It’s the same with federal judges. Mark Levin cited the case of same-sex marriage. In every state where the citizens were allowed to vote on it, the people overwhelmingly affirmed marriage to be between one man and one woman.
This is how the state process should work and why there is a 10th amendment to the Constitution. States have every right to determine such things.
Mark Levin then asks, “What happened – in every case to date? Federal judges have reversed the vote of the people.” He then asks rhetorically: “How do you fix that? Well, we vote,” he says. “But these are lifetime appointees.”
By this I have to assume he means that voting for a president, representative, or senator won’t do enough. It’s not like you can fire these judges or just appoint replacements.
That is all true, but if a conservative Congress had any stones, there is something that could be done.
To do so one must open up the Constitution again – look at Article III, Section 1 – Judicial Power. Reading the first paragraph, we plainly see that the only constitutionally mandated federal court is the Supreme Court. “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.”
In other words, it’s Congress that establishes all lower federal courts, and because it’s within their purview to “establish” them, ipso facto, they also have the authority to dissolve these courts. And constitutionally there is no need for consent from either the President or the Senate.
Congress alone has the authority to create and dissolve the lower courts. In fact, in my opinion, that’s why it was written as “from time to time.” I don’t believe that the founders intended for the lower courts to be permanent fixtures. In my opinion, most of the involvement of the federal “inferior” Courts in state legislative business is not just meddling but unconstitutional.
I believe the founders intended for the Congress to recognize a problem, establish an “inferior” federal court to deal with that specific issue, and then dissolve the court when the issue had been properly adjudicated.
A Congress that actually exerted its constitutional authority would take care of a lot of “states rights” issues. Yet these days, I’m sure even to suggest such a thing would be political sacrilege.