Posted originally on Aug 2, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

With each passing day, our Nation is declining into a state of where civilization is no longer sustainable. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation seeking to strip Donald Trump of any immunity for his definition of a criminal action, in a blatant usurpation of power where he seeks to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on Trump’s Immunity calling this the “No Kings Act” where he has asserted the unconstitutional attempt to strip[ the Supreme Court completely stating that ONLY Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

Schumer had better study law if he wants to pretend to be outraged over the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision regarding Trump. He would NEVER say a word if it was concerning Biden. People like Schumer are destroying the United States with their Marxist agenda. He should look at the immunity that senators and representatives have as laid out in Article I that they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” The Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution, for they knew that people like Schumer would pull every trick to manipulate the country back then. Yet, all we hear is that Trump should be prosecuted for his speech on January 6th.

Schumer is a complete hypocrite, and I find it really offensive the antics he constantly pulls that are dividing the country. He should also look at the fact that the Attorney General is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE even if he recklessly indicts Trump or if a prosecutor brings charges against you, even for personal reasons. The Supreme Court previously held

“A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused’s constitutional rights.”

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)

On top of the question of Immunity, the very foundation of Due Process of Law is NOTICE: They cannot pass a law after you did something to make then it a crime. This rhetoric coming from Schumer is so damaging to the country; he is driving our nation into civil war because he is out of control and believes himself to be a demigod, pushing his political vendetta against every principle of law and the building blocks that were the foundation of our country. He is a vile supporter of the DEEP STATE. To even come out like this shows that he should honestly be arrested for what he is doing to our country. He supported the denial of any right to vote for a candidate, keeping RFK off the ballot because this entire candidacy of Harris was a back-room deal. He should look in the mirror to see what he is doing with this NO KINGS ACT.

Schumer’s acts are so anti-American and UNCONSTITUTIONAL that she should not be representing anyone – EVER!

Tripartite Government – Executive – Congress – Supreme Court

The Separation of Powers

Chuck Schumer has violated his oath of office, and this latest bill is a usurpation of power even worse than the Democrat’s exaggeration of January 6th. He should be taken out of the Senate in Chains, for he has sought to destroy everything that the United States was built upon. They have conspired against Trump and RFK because they NEVER want anyone from outside of their little club on Capital Hill.

Obviously, Chuck Schumer is a complete idiot and should not be representing even a stray dog on Capital Hill. If he understood the Constitution, he would know that the bill he has just introduced is so outrageous it borders on not just partisanship but outright Treason against the United States. The leading case that every law student knows is Marbury v. Madison, which is the seminal case on this very subject of the separation of powers.

It began in January 1801, when then-President John Adama had been defeated in his reelection bid. There was a vacant seat, and Adams sought to fill the position of Chief Justice at the U.S. Supreme Court before he left office. Adams initially asked former Chief Justice John Jay to return to take the position. However, John Jay turned down the offer. Adams then nominated his Secretary of State and close advisor, John Marshall, who had been a lawyer but never a judge, to take the position on the Supreme Court. Senate unanimously confirmed him for the top spot on the court.

With two months left in his term, Adams also asked Marshall to remain simultaneously as his Secretary of State and Chief Justice. Obviously, that was a huge conflict of interest, as he was serving in both the Executive and the Court at the same time. Adams was a Federalist who had just lost the election to his political enemy, Thomas Jefferson. In a partisan move, Adams rushed to fill as many other judicial positions as possible before his political enemy took power. The hatred of Adams toward Jefferson was famous. They both died on July 4, 1826, with Adams at the age of 90 and Jefferson at 83. On his deathbed, Adams spoke his last words: “Thomas Jefferson still survives.” He was mistaken: Jefferson had died five hours earlier at Monticello that same day. Nonetheless, this shows how our nation was also deeply polarized over this issue of centralized Federal absolute control over individual states.

On the day before Adams’ term ended, he nominated 42 men to serve as justices of the peace, who were the lowest judges for minor legal cases, but they were Federalists. After the Senate approved his choices the next day, Marshall was assigned to finalize the paperwork and deliver the commissions. It was a mad rush, and he never got to four of them, including one belonging to a Virginia politician named William Marbury.

Jefferson Retaliates & Withholds the Four Commissions and Marbury Petitions Court

When Thomas Jefferson took the White House, he was somewhat perturbed at Adams’ unethical antic in a desperate attempt to pack the federal courts with political allies. Jefferson told his own Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold the four undelivered commissions. Marbury sued to get his job. Marbury could have gone to the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, where he might have prevailed. However, Marbury went directly to the Supreme Court and petitioned for a Writ of Mandamus, an order to command Madison to give them their commissions.

On February 10th, 1803, the Supreme Court convened to hear the case – Marbury vs Madison. The case centered on three issues. First, did Marbury and the other appointees have a right to their commissions? Second, if they did have a right that had been violated, did federal law provide a remedy? Finally, was an order from the U.S. Supreme Court the proper remedy to solve the problem?

The Marbury v. Madison Decision

Chief Justice Marshall, Adam’s buddy and former Secretary of State, presided over the case. He should have recused himself under today’s ethics since he played a role in the very events in question. The Supreme Court found in Marbury’s favor. However, it wasn’t clear whether Jefferson would obey the Court’s decision or simply ignore it. If Jefferson ignored the Supreme Court, that would have placed the Supreme Court seriously in a position of being irrelevant. If the court ruled in favor of the Jefferson Administration, it would appear like it had given in to political pressure.

Marshall was undoubtedly in a difficult position, and he wrote the decision. He found that Jefferson had violated Marbury’s and the other appointees’ rights when he blocked their commissions since they had already been confirmed and affixed with seals. He further held that Marbury was entitled to sue and seek a legal remedy, and a federal judge could issue a writ ordering Jefferson to comply. This was a very tall order.

Was an order from the U.S. Supreme Court the proper remedy to solve the problem?

However, on the third question, things were very complicated. The Supreme Court’s ability to hear Marbury’s case directly was based upon a portion of the Judicial Act of 1789. This Act gave the court the power to issue writs directly to federal officeholders without a plaintiff going through a lower court. But as Marshall wrote, Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution already specified that the court had original jurisdiction in limited types of cases involving “ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party,” and could only act as an appeals court in all others. Therefore, Congress’s enlargement of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was unconstitutional. In a landmark decision that has defined the separation of these three branches of government that Chuck Schumer has ignored, Marshall wrote:

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”

As a result, Marshall concluded, “the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Marshall Establishes the Supreme Court’s Authority

The decision in Marbury v. Madison was immediately recognized across the nation as the profound definition of our nation. The idea that the Supreme Court could overrule an act of Congress actually predated Marbury v. Madison— when Alexander Hamilton argued that very point in The Federalist Papers in 1788—where we find this principle now was firmly established in law. Thus, this case made clear that the ruling established the power of the federal courts over other branches of government to interpret the nation’s laws. Marshall wrote:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

“Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”

Today, thanks to Marbury v. Madison, the federal courts’ authority is undisputed. Chuck Schumer has absolutely no justification to be in the Senate. He has rejected the law of the land all for partisan politics. Schumer should be IMPEACHED and removed from office. He is polarizing the country, and it is one thing if his argument is even lawful, but when he seeks to strip the Supreme Court of the very role of deciding what the law is, he has gone too far and should be removed for violating his oath of office and is a disgrace to our nation.

As Thrasymachus said some 2500 years ago, JUSTICE is only the self-interest of those in power. Schumer has proven that mixing politics and law is the death sentence for any society. We are rapidly approaching 2032, when it will be time to turn out the lights on the experiment called a Republic. Franklin understood the cycles of time and circumstance.