The oligarchy and necessary response

Selwyn Duke explains Why Not One Governor is Qualified to be President. The basis is that it is because they do not carry out nullification of unjust judicial rulings. In explaining why this is relevant, history is explored.

In recent times federal judges have ruled that Arizona must provide driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, states such as Utah and Alabama must allow faux marriage, and a Wisconsin voter-identification law is unconstitutional. And these are just a few examples of judicial usurpations that continue unabated and go unanswered. But the answer, which needs to be given first and foremost by governors, is simple:

“No. No — I will not abide by the court’s unjust ruling.”

What do you think “sanctuary cities” are?

They’re places where liberals have decided they’re simply going to resist federal immigration law.

Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The idea that the courts have review authority for legislation comes from the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. As with any decision, there is always the fine line. That line is being pushed and a response is gathering. This should be a major concern of the courts and a tempering influence on their reach and grab, their oligarchic tendencies. There are several cases in front of SCOTUS that are on the edge and the decisions in these cases will likely guide much more than just the ruling itself demands.

Comments are closed.