From the U.S. Constitution – Article I, Section 1.
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The above clearly means that Congress is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws, NOT the Supreme Court. So, does it not make sense that the Supreme Court can only ISSUE opinion? Yes. And opinions are not laws. Only A statement of the Court’s thoughts on a considered subject. Not law.
From the U.S. Constitution – Article VI, clause 2
1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.
2. Supreme court opinions are not “law” — they are OPINIONS on the cases [rightly or wrongly] before the Court. The ONLY ONLY ONLY federal law in this land is: The Constitution, Laws made by Congress which are permitted by the Constitution, and Treaties made by the President and the Senate which are permitted by the Constitution.
Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.
3. But the statists have managed to convince most Americans that the Supreme Court is THE highest law making body in the entire Country. If people would only read our federal Constitution and use their heads, they would have seen through this absurd claim 100 years ago. – Publius Huldah
I have found that when discussing the subject that the Supreme Court can not make Law with Legislators I get the reply “JURISPRUDENCE” in their argument against my statement.
But, what is “JURISPRUDENCE”? Well, according to: https://thelawdictionary.org/jurisprudence/ it is: “The philosophy of law, or the science which treats of the principles of positive law and legal relations. “The term is wrongly applied to actual systems of law, or to current views of law, or to suggestions for its amendment, but is the name of a science. This science is a formal, or analytical, rather than a material, one. It is the science of actual or positive law. It is wrongly divided into ‘general’ and ‘particular,’ or into ‘philosophical’ and ‘historical.’ It may therefore be deigned as the formal science of positive law.” Ho 11. Jur. 12. In the proper sense of the word, “jurisprudence” is the science of law, namely, that science which has for its function to ascertain the principles on which legal rules are based, so as not only to classify those rules in their proper order, and show the relation in which they stand to one another, but also to settle the manner in which new or doubtful cases should be brought under the appropriate rules.
Jurisprudence is more a formal than a material science. It has no direct concern with questions of moral or political policy, for they fall under the province of ethics and legislation; but, when a new or doubtful case arises to which two different rules seem, when taken literally, to be equally applicable, it may be, and often is, the function of jurisprudence to consider the ultimate effect which would be produced if each rule were applied to an indefinite number of similar cases, and to choose that rule which, when so applied, will produce the greatest advantage to the community. Sweet.”
Well folks, as far as I can see it is NOT part of the Constitution, “The Supreme Law” and does NOT VOID nor does it have any BEARING on the fact that only Congress has the power to make law.
For more on this I highly suggest you watch “Why We’re Losing Liberty” at https://youtu.be/OIfgD6_hofI.
The truth about an Article V Constitutional Convention
“It is idiotic to assert that you can rein in a federal government which ignores the Constitution by amending the Constitution! – Publius Huldah.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
As anyone can read there are no rules, regulations, guide lines, etc. on how to run a Constitutional Convention. NO GUARANTEES. Anything can happen. Do any one of you really want to take a chance of losing the Constitution as it now stands? The possible lost of the Bill of Rights? Again, there are NO GUARANTEES as to what we will get if, a Constitutional Convention is convened.
Many of you of heard about the Convention of States movement which states “Convention of States Project; a national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress.” No where in Article V does it call it a Convention of States or even implies such.
Article V reads as follows: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments. In another words CONGRESS shall call a convention for proposing amendments. Not the states. The States ONLY make application. Again, not what you are being told. Also, note the following from Article V ” as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;” again NOT the States, CONGRESS. So, you should wonder what else you are being told that is not correct.
One amendment at a time please, no conventions. For more information see https://tarheelteaparty.org/?page_id=1186.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3 Oath of Office – U.S. Senators and Representatives
“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God” (5 U.S.C. §3331).
Maybe Congressman and Senators that DO NOT stick their they Oath of Office should just not be reelected. And WE THE PEOPLE should find better people to run for office. I highly suggest giving it some thought.