“Ultimately all judicial power rests with the Supreme Court of the United States. They are the final arbiter of all judicial issues.” The three branches of government are set up as co-equal branches of government so that no one branch of our government can rule over the others. “Our founders didn’t want any part of this government getting too strong. They certainly didn’t want a king to form. They expected these branches to fight each other for power.” ~Ron B Palmer
Each branch can assert its own legitimate power to reign in one of the other co-equal branches that begins to exceed its authorized power. It was expected that all of them should be “power grabbing” because that’s what our founding fathers intended for them to do. That’s how you balance power. So when one of them throws the fight, they screw up the honesty and integrity of the system. What the legislators have been doing is asking the courts to step aside and let them take over. Our founding fathers were afraid of this and therefore split it into two houses. This tells us that we should not allow this to happen.
“Some judges believe that the legislature should be the supreme power…and they don’t really take on their role as a co-equal branch, and this causes problems….This essentially breaks the system from the way our founders set it up, and what these judges believe is that even if something might be unconstitutional they like to defer to the legislature and allow the legislature to work it out even when the legislature is denying fundamental liberties to people. Fortunately for us this is not the majority view of the Supreme Court.” ~Ron B Palmer.
The legislature is not a ruler over the courts. The courts have their own powers and they are supposed to be using those, not acting like minions to the legislature. The legislature is supposed to represent the will of the people but the founding fathers were very wary of legislative power and further weakened this power by setting up two separate houses of Congress. Part of the reason for this divide that they understood that the will of the people in the short term can easily become the will of the mob. For this reason the House of Representatives has two-year terms keeping them very close to the short term will of the people and the Senate has six year terms, allowing them to be more circumspect. All Bills that pass into Statutes however must remain compliant with the Constitution as that is the boundaries for government power that the Will of The People set. And the only way to change that is through United States constitutional amendments, not through Statutes!
One of Ron’s favorite quotes comes from a Mel Gibson movie the Patriot. When the main character as a previous war hero was asked to join the Continental Army he stated, “why would I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?” This quote nicely sums up the danger of a pure democracy and is instructive on why we do NOT have a pure democracy in this country. Our Constitution clearly is designed to limit those in power from trampling the rights of individuals. It almost did not pass because it did not originally include explicit statements on these rights. It passed only when it was promised that these would be quickly added and that was done with the Bill of Rights.
In our system there are protections against incursions into the rights of individuals. The Supreme Court holds all judicial power under our Constitution and it falls to them to make final judicial determinations about the Constitutionality of our statutes. However, it does NOT fall only to them. The Executive branch also has the right to make its own determinations of constitutionality and base their actions on that belief. Further, our founding fathers expected every individual to do the same.
In summary, the legislature is supposed to be representing what they believe to be the will of the people within their communities within the guidelines of the constitution (which is the Supreme will of the people and sets the ways in which that Supreme will of the people can be altered short of which the fickle day-to-day will of the people cannot exceed the boundaries that the people have set within our constitution.) This protects us from the Will of the mob and still allows us to govern ourselves. The courts are supposed to evaluate the short-term or immediate will of the people and measure that against the Supreme Will of the people to see if in there exuberance they have not surpassed what they set as the boundaries for themselves. It’s the judges that use their tests to determine this in day-to-day cases. That is precisely why they are called judges. They make rulings on the applicability and constitutionality of the statutes. And if they find that a statute is interfering, burdening, or prohibiting the exercise of the fundamental liberties and rights guaranteed to the people by the people, they can rule to suspend that statute in that case. Then if the losing party wishes to challenge this ruling they can take it to appeal.
Therefore, when the system works properly, the burden should be on the party trying to deprive the liberty. When a parent tries to disrupt and interfere with another parent’s ability to exercise their individual liberties, rights, and freedoms they are the ones that should have the burden to prove that they have met the standards that authorize the court to do so. They must prove that conditions are so grievous that it warrants overcoming a fundamental liberty. An example would be violation of a criminal statute.
This would reduce the number of parents whose liberties are attacked from the expense, burdens, and suffering of having to appeal. It would be the parent doing the attacking having to appeal when the judge shoots them down for not having met the burden to prove that they have what is needed to invoke the authority and power of the State to deprive the parent being attacked. Not the parent that is attacked.
The parent being attacked shouldn’t be restricted from exercising their rights and freedoms on how and where they spend their future income and how and what choices they make in raising their children all within the laws applied to everyone regardless of marital or nonmarital status when the other parent fails to provide the proper evidence to the court. The attacking parent is supposed to overcome a very high bar, not the parent being attacked –innocent until proven guilty. It should be no different than convicting a criminal. Nobody should lose their individual rights to be who they choose to be or to make their own private decisions involving their children just because they choose not to be with another person. Who has ever heard of such absurdity outside the family courts? Parents in divorce or separation live this absurdity every day.
When you really look at what has been going on, generations of people have been sold a multitude of excuses and absurdities. And the only way for them to continue is to keep you confused, highly stressed, alone, and in the dark. They made you believe that what they do is right and that’s all it took. They pandered to your desires and you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Then you didn’t notice that they placed their hands in your pocketbooks and your ankles in shackles until it was too late and you were rendered paralyzed and believed you were helpless. They trapped you in your own emotions.
There is a way out, you just have to reframe the discussions away from the lies that they’ve been teaching and put it right back onto the constitutional principles. You’ve learned to accept their lies. We can help you learn to find your way out of them. We’ll be discussing this more in our webinar on Friday, April 4, 2014.
See you there! If you still need to register, here’s the registration link: HOLD MY SEAT PLEASE, I WANT OFF THIS ROLLERCOASTER! I WANT MY LIFE BACK!