Posted originally on Sep 13, 2024 by Martin Armstrong

This partisan part-time political hack we call President Biden has had the blatant gall to call for term limits on Justices of the Supreme Court only because the Democrats want the Court to rule as they see fit – not according to the Constitution. In HARRIS v. McRAE, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), a pregnant woman sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., which operates hospitals providing abortion services, that being indigent, the Constitution required they pay for her abortion since the Democrats were misrepresenting Roe vs Wade as some sort “right” to have an abortion. The Court held that the Constitution is NEGATIVE – NOT Positive. It was a restraint upon the government, not a free lunch where it must pay for whatever a citizen demands.

In Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977), the Court held that the government need not fund elective abortions because withholding funds rationally furthered the State’s legitimate interest in normal childbirth. We sustained this policy even though under Roe v. Wade, the government’s interest in fetal life is an inadequate justification for coercive interference with the pregnant woman’s right to choose an abortion.

The Democrats have torn the country apart with this ABORTION issue when even Justice Ginsberg said this had nothing to do with women’s rights; it was all about reducing the population. They called it a woman’s right to kill her child and misrepresented this as some kind of Constitutional right that never existed. If time has no relevance, then we should do away with the death penalty and adopt retroactive abortion since your mother would have aborted you had she known what actions you have taken as an adult.

Biden has rejected everything a tripartite government was supposed to prevent with this separation of powers. Biden has displayed in his political bias nothing shy of a bold-faced audacity or nerve to do something that some people might think of as impudent or even disrespectful, and that is destroying the separation of power and ushering in one-party rule or a dictatorship.

We Need to Repeal the Judiciary Act of 1925

The Supreme Court Should Have the Inherent Power to Establish its own Circuit Panels, Securing the Absolute Due Process Right to be Heard by the ONLY Court Established by the Constitution

The ruthless Edward I (1272-1307) “Long Shanks” was the king in Brave Heart who killed William Wallace of Scotland, ensuring his name would live forever. Edward I is also remembered for his persecution of the Jews and ultimate banishment from England when he borrowed heavily from them and could not repay his loans in 1290. When Edward I returned to England in 1289, he was confronted by judges who had ruled against him so he dismissed all of them summarily. Then, in 1290, Edward I seized all the property of the Jews and expelled them from England. Since he dismissed all the judges, Edward I could then default on the Jews, confiscate all their assets, and then banish them, seizing all their real property in England. All of this became possible by dismissing the judges to render his decrees against the rule of law all for profit. The Jews were not allowed in England until Oliver Cromwell permitted them to return to England in 1655 by refusing to extend Expulsion Laws imposed roughly 300 years earlier by Edward I in 1290.

So why is this historical fact important? Judges were given lifetime tenure because of Edward I’s actions, who dismissed all judges because he did not want to comply with the law. Here we are again, 735 years later, and Biden is again trying to meddle with the Constitution so he can have it rule only in his favor. FDR, in 1937, surprised everyone when, after being reelected in just weeks, he wanted to install one new justice for every Justice over the age of 70. He would have stacked the court with six new justices to ensure it would rule in favor of his socialist New Deal. As I have said, the LEFT always seeks dictatorship. They do not believe in democracy or civilization. When they are in power, they want absolute dictatorial power. They adhere to the philosophies of Karl Marx, and as such, they portray their followers as the victims of the rich, and because the rich have more money than they do, they are the downtrodden and oppressed.

I had warned for years that those in Washington DO NOT like outsiders. Back in 2020, only 106 Republicans out of 196 joined Texas, demonstrating that behind the curtain, nearly 50% of Republican politicians preferred that Trump leave because he is not one of them. During the 2020 election, Texas filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania over its questionable election count and procedure. The Supreme Court avoided ruling, claiming Texas had no standing, which is entirely false. Not giving a decision, either way, was propelling not just the risk of civil unrest as each side claimed they were right, but it undermined the confidence in the entire election process.

In Missouri, people are finding severe violations of law aside from registering all the illegal aliens. Out of a total of 78,421 registered to vote in just ONE WEEK, it was found that 23,253 were DEAD PEOPLE! I previously reported that there was an investigation into elections in Chicago. A Grand Jury concluded that there had never been an election without corruption.

Every election is always rigged! The only question is whether it actually affected the outcome. Nobody will dare launch a real investigation into that. When a Grand Jury in 1908 investigated elections in Chicago, they concluded that there was probably never a fair election. It does not matter which side wins; they are all in the game. The very reason why the United States cannot possibly survive as a unified nation is simply because politics is no longer about what is good for the nation as a whole but for one side to impose its dictatorial beliefs and oppress the other side. Civilization ONLY survives when we all benefit. This has degenerated to such an extent that civilization is no longer viable with such polarized philosophies. Marx started this mess by claiming that the government possesses the power to force his socialistic/communistic policies upon the whole.

In 2020, people in Texas were talking about secession. In 2024, many states will again hear that, and our computer warns that this may even be the last election. No matter who wins, neither side will accept the result. Here in 2024, 75.5% of those in California want to secede from the United States if Trump wins.

AlaLouLa! California! Good riddance!

This time, we are approaching the break up of the United States, and it may indeed be the only solution. No side has the right to oppress the other, and the Supreme Court will NOT defend the people or the Constitution. The rule of law was the foundation of civilization, and refusing to comply with that duty condemns the nation to oblivion.

The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny any petition by one state against another. The only way to settle this dispute is to rule. Then, both sides would have no choice but to settle down. The Supreme Court’s refusal to address the integrity of the 2020 election claiming discretion was in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Now, the 2024 election will always be in dispute, and after 2020, this will further divide the country, guaranteeing that the only solution will be the country’s breakup.

Biden got more votes in each of these swing states than Hillary or Obama. Strangely, that was NOT the case in any other state. This was indicative of fraud, and it should have been addressed, yes or no. Because the Supreme Court refused to rule, they have doomed our nation, and you have the whole January 6th prosecutions because of that, turning a blind eye to the rule of law.

As I have stated, 2020 was STOLEN not by questionable voting machines, counting votes twice, or by dead people voting. This was a well-organized coup that took place in Washington with the count, and the Deep State played a major role in ensuring Trump lost because they wanted war. We are now faced with this failure by the Supreme World War III. Kamala never won even one delegate during her run for president in 2020. The Democrats would not allow anyone else to challenge Biden, ensuring this was a Hobson’s choice, a pretend free choice in which only one thing is offered. This was the first time in American history that the candidate had been installed by the Deep State, Kamala Harris, like the final days of the Roman Empire.

Priscus Attalus was the Prefect of Rome during the second siege of Alaric, the Visigoth King (409 AD). Alaric threatened to destroy Ostia and all the granaries maintained there, causing widespread starvation throughout Rome. Alaric used this threat to blackmail the Senate into appointing Priscus Attalus Emperor. Although of noble birth, Priscus was a feeble man content to remain Alaric’s puppet. He was deposed one year later in 410AD, and Rome was sacked for three days. Nevertheless, Priscus remained in the Gothic camp unharmed, and he was later used again, proclaiming him emperor once more in 414 AD. Priscus was deposed for a second time in 415 AD and handed over to Emperor Honorius, who later banished him to Lipara.

Video Player

00:00

01:28

History repeats because human naturehas never changed throughout the centuries. Kamala is just another feeble placeholder like Priscus and Biden, keeping the seat warm while the UNELECTED behind the throne pulls the strings. This is why they opposed RFK and Trump: They have real agendas. Just look at the Agenda 2030 coming from Klaus Schwab and you will see the real future we face. This is the man who is destroying the future of civilization as everyone else who has sought to alter the culture and manipulate societies following the lead of Karl Marx.  The end goal is to establish the United Nations as a one-world government. There shall be no borders, which we already see the results of that policy, and to surrender our military power to the United Nations. Perhaps they grew up watching James Bond films cheering to the vilians.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS FAILED US

The Judiciary Act of 1925 held that the Supreme Court would have the discretion to select what it wants to hear in direct violation of the Constitution, which has NEVER been addressed. The Constitution ONLY established the Supreme Court as part of a tripartite government and the separation of powers as laid out as essential to constrain tyranny by Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), who was also the inspiration for the Second Amendment, which was to keep citizens armed rather than maintain standing armies to prevent war.

As such, the lower courts were created ONLY by statute under Congress and could just as easily be shut down since they are NOT mandatory by the Constitution. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court, and every Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office – (1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and (2) the Judicial Oath.

Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional, for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion not to hear cases. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this when it defined “discretion” by saying,

“The term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.”

Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931).

This means those in power do NOT have to obey any law, even the Constitution, for they play the odds that the Supreme Court takes so few cases they can get away with abuses all the time. The Supreme Court also said:

“it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.”

Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936).

When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men. The Constitution is a mere scrap of paper once the Judiciary Act of 1925 was enacted. There should be NO discretion whatsoever, and instead of trying to jury-rig the Supreme Court, it should be expanded by allowing it to create judges and establish panels for each district that exercises the Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court that the Constitution necessitates.

The Supreme Court possesses Supervisory Power through its constitutional supremacy. Just as Congress has Supervisory Power over its own members, the same is true for the Supreme Court, which cannot be subordinated to politicians like FDR or Joe Biden, who sought to change this because they did not get their way. The existence of the SP as implicit in Article III’s establishment of exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, then any distinction between supreme and inferior statutory courts created by Congress rather than the Constitution, does not render the Judiciary a play-toy for Politicians. Congress can structurally create inferior courts within the judicial department. Yet, it or does not have the power to invade the separate Judicial branch and overrule its inherent authority under Article III.

Article I, Section 5 makes it clear this inherent Supervisory Power regarding Congress. It states:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The Supreme Court has recognized four general categories of powers belonging to the National Government—enumerated, implied, resulting, and inherent. Enumerated powers are those specifically identified in the Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall made it clear that the Constitution expressly provides the National Government with specific enumerated powers, stating:

This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted.

id/17 US 405

This was a very famous and important case that addressed the foundation of the federal vs. state government structure. The United States government needed to pay off the debt that the nation acquired during the War of 1812. Prior to the war, the First Bank of the United States would do this. However, the charter authorizing the bank to make such payments had expired in 1811. Therefore, in 1816, Congress approved a charter for the Second Bank of the United States, which opened its first branch in Philadelphia. The bank then opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland.

James W. McCulloh (1789-1861) worked as a cashier for the Baltimore branch. Later, he would become Comptroller of the US Treasury from 1842 to 1849. and the state of Maryland wanted to tax the bank they imposed, but James McCulloch refused to pay. Maryland filed a lawsuit against McCulloch, demanding that the bank pay its taxes in full.

The trial court ruled in favor of Maryland. James McCulloch then appealed. The appellate court upheld the decision. James McCulloch then filed for a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to review the case, which it did in February 1819. Daniel Webster (1782–1852) The Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether Congress had the authority to create the bank in the first place. If so, the question then turns to the next level. Does Maryland have the authority to tax a federally established bank?

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled unanimously in favor of James McCulloch, holding that Congress was within its power to create the bank and that the bank was fulfilling its duties in accordance with the rules of the Constitution. Consequently, this meant that the tax Maryland had levied against the bank was unconstitutional. By taxing the bank, the state of Maryland was levying a tax against every U.S. citizen, which no state had the authority to do.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists various powers the States handed to the National Government. Among these powers are the power to tax, spend, borrow, and regulate commerce. Congress also has the power to regulate the electoral process under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, and the President has the power to veto legislation specified under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2.

Implied powers are those powers that are “necessary and proper” for Congress to be able to fulfill its duties.  In other words, the Constitution’s enumeration of powers implies an additional grant of such powers necessary to effectuate them. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the power conferred by the Necessary and Proper Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl.18.) embraces all legislative means which are appropriate to carry out the powers provided expressly by the Constitution (McCulloch, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 421.). Chief Justice Marshall stated:

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”

Previously, the Supreme Court had also ruled in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 326 (1816) (Story, J.) that the government of the United States can claim no powers not granted to it by the constitution. The powers granted must be expressly given or given by necessary implication. This case was decided by Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), who wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that there were implied powers. He noted that analyzing whether a power is constitutional must begin by determining whether the Constitution expressly provides for the power id/§ 1238 (1833). If the Constitution does not expressly state (or enumerate) the power, the question becomes if such a power is necessary to implement a power explicitly provided by the Constitution.

Chief Justice Marshall 1828 identified resulting powers as those “result[ing] from the whole mass of the powers of the National Government and from the nature of political society.”  American Insurance Company v. Canter, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 511 511 (1828). In this case. Chief Justice Marshall held that the constitution definitively confers on the government the powers of making war and treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty. Therefore, since it has the power to acquire territory, then the result must be that it must have the right to govern such new territory.

Addressing the question of inherent powers, the Supreme Court did not exactly completely distinguish inherent from resulting powers. In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), here it held that in matters of foreign affairs, the President’s powers represent the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations. Therefore, the President is vested with inherent powers over foreign affairs that far exceed those permitted in domestic matters and those even accorded to the U.S. Congress. Here, Justice George Sutherland described inherent powers as those that are independent of an authorizing power but are inherent to the government in its role as sovereign. Justice Sutherland stated that inherent powers originated in the external sovereignty that Great Britain passed to the United States at the end of the American Revolution. Justice Sutherland wrote:

“[S]ince the states severally never possessed international powers, such powers could not have been carved from the mass of state powers but . . . were transmitted to the United States from some other source. . . . When . . . the external sovereignty of Great Britain in respect of the colonies ceased, it immediately passed to the Union. . . . The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the Federal Government as necessary concomitants of nationality.”

id/Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. at 316–18

Justice Sutherland emphasized the difference between domestic and foreign powers, with the former limited under the enumerated powers doctrine and the latter virtually free of any restraint. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. at 316–18. However, what he really did was claim that it was the “Declaration of Independence, ‘the Representatives of the United States of America’ declared the United [not the several] Colonies to be free and independent states, and, as such, to have ‘full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.’” He further stated: “The states were not ‘sovereigns’ in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty — they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties.” Thus, inherent power derived from the sovereignty of the federal government merely replacing the British Crown.

Therefore, aside from the doctrine of enumerated powers, the power to legislate by the rights expressly given and duties expressly enjoined by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ascribed implied, resulting, and inherent powers to the National Government. Consequently, the United States has the power to create the currency, pay debts, acquire territory, legislate for Indian tribes, exclude and deport aliens, a hot topic currently, and require that those who are admitted be registered and fingerprinted. All of this amounts to the powers of sovereignty to conduct foreign relations.

NONE OF THESE POWERS CONFERS ON CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO DECREE THAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN NOT EXPAND, AND AS SUCH, IT IS TO EXERCISE DISCRETION, COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THE GUARANTEE OF ARTICLE III

In 1924, the 17th Solicitor General, the Government’s representative in the Supreme Court, argued that the Judiciary Act of 1925 should have given the Supreme Court the power to render advisory decisions. They refused to do so, for that would have expanded the Supreme Court when the objective was to eliminate it from entering the era of socialism that had just followed the imposition of the Income Tax.

Although the federal courts of appeals as they exist today originated in only 1891 when Congress passed the Evarts Act, their antecedents are as old as the nation. The first federal courts
authorized to review the judgments of federal district/trial courts on appeal were the circuit courts created by Congress in the 1789 Judiciary Act. At that time, individual Supreme Court Justices were riding circuits or would then go to their circuit to hear appeals – not the full court. These were the old circuit courts manned by the Justices, distinct from the modern courts of appeals for the various circuits today.

Therefore, the Supreme Court was greatly marginalized by the Judiciary Act of 1925 and transformed your constitutional right to be heard by the ONLY court created by the Constitution – the Supreme Court. All other courts are inferior statutory animals, and there is no Constitutional Guarantee to prevent them from being shut down.

Congress can pass a law that orders you to kill your firstborn in Biblical terms. You would only have STANDING in court if the government directed you to kill your first born. Then you could appeal assuming the district court rules in favor of the government, the court of appeals turns a blind eye, and they can impose lifetime indefinite contempt of court until you agree to kill your child. You can then appeal to the Supreme Court, but because of the Judiciary Act of 1925, they have the discretion to listen.

It took me 7 years to get to the Supreme Court. They ordered the government to explain. If they did not do that, I would die in prison. My personal life was entirely in the hands of this discretion. This is simply against everything the American Revolution stood for.

Judge Walker effectively held that distinct courts have the inherent power to imprison you for life without any trial or Due Process Rights while your discovery stays. Walker held: “Although the courts’ inherent powers do not draw from any specific grant of statutory authority.” He held that this inherent power was the same as the English courts. He effectively held that Congress did not have the power to circumvent that fact, which nullified the entire American Revolution. It was only because Justice Sotomayor, then a circuit judge, wrote a separate opinion stating that “This due process presumption should work in the opposite direction, as well: Except in unusual circumstances, a civil contempt sanction longer than eighteen months should be presumed to be punitive.” id/Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.2006).

I was held for seven years in civil contempt to turn over assets for a “POSSIBLE” restitution the court ruled I never owed.

When there is no rule of law, not only is Liberty in danger but everything we have

including Due Process of Law all the way to our Freedom of Speech is also in danger.