Armstrong Economics Blog/Uncategorized Re-Posted Aug 6, 2023 by Martin Armstron

The Democrats sent a letter demanding Alito recuse himself on any such question regarding the power of the Supreme Court. Once again, just as FDR tried to stack the court to turn the United States into his vision of a Marxist Utopia following Stalin after he recognized the Communists as a legitimate government, they are at it again. They are out to utterly destroy the freedom of the United States and are attempting to regulate the Supreme Court to only rule in their favor. This is all part of 2032 where our nation is so divided, it will no longer be able to stand as one nation.

The Democrats are beside themselves after Justice Alito told the Wall Street Journal that Congress lacks the authority to regulate the Court. He expressly stated:

“Congress did not create the Supreme Court,” Alito said. “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it.

No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

Justice Alito is correct – there is ABSOLUTELY no power in the Constitution that would allow these extremist Democrats to regulate how the Supreme Court decides anything. “It just can’t be that the court is the only institution that somehow is not subject to checks and balances from anybody else. We’re not imperial,” Justice Kagan told the conference in remarks first reported by Politico. “Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes.” Not only is she unquestionably wrong, but she was also the 45th Solicitor  General of the United States who represents the government. She was there when my case got to the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court ordered the government to reply, she obviously had no basis to justify my false imprisonment. To be accurate, the fantasy they used was Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988), which held that corporations do not have constitutional rights, so I was thrown in contempt NOT as an individual, but as a corporate officer. Kagan was afraid that my case would have overturned the law, so she ordered them to release me and then told the Supreme Court my case was MOOT since I was released.

Kagan never saw the power of the government has ever been a problem and now wants to advocate that Congress can use politics to change the Constitution. Under strict construction, the Constitution has no authority to downgrade the Supreme Court even as a discretionary court. The framers of the Constitution only created the Supreme Court. There cannot be any such power to diminish the Supreme Court by Congress. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers that she is advocating the Congress as an imperial dictatorial power.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

Even 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 Montesquieu, 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. 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 time 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 that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. 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.

“[I]t is a Constitution we are expounding.” M’Culloch v Maryland, 17 US 326 (1819). “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state of from the United States.” Cook v Moffat 46 US 295 (1847). The Supreme Court held that 28 USC §455 statute government recusal of judges was intended “to provide public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.” Liljeberg v Health Serv v Corp, 486 US 847, 859-860 (1988). That lofty goal cannot be upheld as long as judges in inferior courts know that the odds of ever being overturned by the Supreme Court are on par with winning the lottery.

The Supreme Court has NO DISCRETION whatsoever to deny any petition – PERIOD!

& Congress has NO POWER to interfere in the Judicial Process under the Separation of Powers

Congress has abused its power by refusing to expand the court to cope with the nation’s size and instead directing that it should be discretionary, which is NOT in Article III authority of Congress. The Supreme Court, under the Separation of Powers and under its Inherent Supervisory Power, cannot be now diminished by these LEFTIST Democrats seeking once again to overthrow the Constitution in pursuit of their Marxist Authoritarian views for the future. The Supreme Court relies on inherent power to shield the exercise of judicial authority from legislative interference. I would argue that the scope of this inherent power was best described in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Eash v. Riggins Trucking Inc. characterized these cases as relying on the use of an “irreducible inherent authority . . . involving activity so fundamental to the essence of a court as a constitutional tribunal that to divest the court of absolute command within this sphere is really to render practically meaningless the terms ‘court’ and ‘judicial power.’”

IF THE CONGRESS CAN REGULATE THE SUPREME COURT, THEN THIS IS TRULY THE END OF THE RULE OF LAW & THE UNITED STATES!

Montesquieu set forth the Separation of Powers to prevent Tyranny. That was the entire intent behind Article III. No clause in the Constitution even states that Congress has any such authority to regulate the Supreme Court. We have already witnessed a coup with the Neocons pushing for war when only the Separation of Powers dictates that EXCLUSIVELY the people are to have the authority to Declare War – the Executive Branch, which they have seized control of. These people fund covert actions to overthrow leaders, provide arms to Ukraine to start a war with Russia deliberately, and then when they retaliate; we claim we have been attacked.

The Neocons used 911 to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 911 on the fake claims that they had weapons of mass destruction. Every single war has been launched on fake news. The neocon Robert McNamara (1916 – 2009) who took us into Vietnam cost over 50,000 American lives, and millions of dead Vietnamese needed to clear his conscious before he died. Even Pearl Harbor was provoked by Roosevelt, who could not get Congress to Declare War to enter Europe. The US had broken the code of the Japanese and knew what they were doing. Roosevelt seized all their assets in America, cut off their purchases of energy from the USA, and threatened to blockade them to prevent them from buying fuel from any other country. Hence, the United States did NOT suffer a strategic loss at Pearl Harbor since, conveniently, all the American aircraft carriers, which the Japanese intended to target, were at sea. The ships destroyed were all the old ones from WWI. The outcry against Roosevelt was so strong the Senate had to convene an investigation and claimed it was inconclusive if Roosevelt knew in advance.

It gives me no pleasure to even report that the Computer has our days numbered. This abuse is outrageous, and this latest trick to overthrow the Supreme Court will terminate the rule of law in the United States. It was the Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) decision that held that he was not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. This holding was so off the wall and contrary to the whole concept of Territorial Jurisdiction that this became the catalyst for Civil War. It was the Democrats back then who were the slave owners and pushed their views upon the North and undermined the religious beliefs and even the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson wrote that ALL men were equal.

Without the Rule of Law and fair, independent courts, then NO country can survive. The oppressed have no other choice BUT TO resort to violence. That is precisely what our computer is projecting post-2025. The Democrats are once again trying to control the Supreme Court. They never learn. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with Marxists, the Chicago Tribune in 1937 called it a threat to Democracy. It is precisely 86 years (10 * 8.6), and once again, the Democrats are seeking to destroy our way of life and end the Separation of Powers. They dared to criminally charge Trump when Biden & his family engaged in Treason, and now they are attempting to overthrow the Separation of Powers by regulating the Supreme Court. That demonstrates they have ZERO respect for the Constitution.

In building a database to forecast the world economy, history has been the key to opening up the mystery behind the Rise and Fall of Nations. The Rule of Law is the cornerstone of any civilization. If there is no Rule of Law, there cannot be any form of a functioning society. From ancient times, the monarch’s role was that he was the judge who presided over the disputes between the people. That is perhaps best illustrated by the Biblical Story of King Solomon deciding who the real mother was of the child.

Edward Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted how the Rule of Law collapsed. Once the law only protects the government, as the LEFT is seeking once again, then the end of any nation will not be far behind. The LEFT is demanding that they can regulate the Supreme Court to rule only in its favor. There will go not just our right to Free Speech already under assault, but all our human and civil rights will vanish. The Rule of Law is so essential because otherwise, not even your home will have any value if there is no impartial court to decide who has the title, just as King Solomon did decide the rightful mother of the child.

You cannot protect your civil rights, free speech, or your property without an agreed-upon Rule of Law. As an international hedge fund manager, the first FIRST decision you must make before even looking at an investment is what we call – COUNTRY RISK. This is all about the Rule of Law. Will they simply nationalize assets? Any state that engages in that sort of action MUST be avoided.

Edward Gibbon wrote of the crisis in the Roman Empire under the reign of Commodus (180-192AD):

“distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse”

(Book 1, Chapter 4).

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution is negative, meaning it is a restraint upon government, in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). That means without any clues expressly giving Congress any right to regulate the Supreme Court is an attempt to constructively amend the Constitution with interpretation.  The Supreme Court has no Constitutional right or permission to exercise even “discretion” to hear a case. They must hear every case presented to them, for that is dictated by the Constitution and cannot be circumvented by a statute written by Congress or by its own rule-making practice.

The Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each term (year). The court grants and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases annually in a country of over 300 million. That is outrageous, and this practice denies the people the constitutional guarantee of a tripartite government (3 branches), with each branch acting as a check and balance against the others. Let’s review what the government structure crafted by the Founding Fathers created.

Chief Justice Marshall was held in the landmark case Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803), where he declared the role of the Judiciary branch. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” When the nation began, the Supreme Court justices rode on “circuits.” Each justice heard cases in their assigned circuits around the country for there were no circuit courts with federal judges. Article III, Section I of the Constitution expressly states: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution guaranteed the Supreme Court. It gave the option to Congress to create inferior federal courts around the country, but this was by no means mandatory. The implications of this are quite profound, for it means that Congress can close all the federal inferior district and appellate courts, but it cannot close the Supreme Court. The tripartite structure of government requires the Supreme Court – not inferior courts. Justice Reynolds explained this succinctly:

“The accepted doctrine is that the lower federal courts were created by the acts of Congress and their powers and duties depend upon the acts which called them into existence, or subsequent ones which extend or limit.”

Gillis v California, 293 US 52, 66 (1934)

Your constitutional right to the Separation of Power, which DEMANDS an independent Supreme Court, will be forever DENIED under this latest coup by the Democrats. There can be no guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW when these circuit courts are free to do as they like and Congress alters the rules so they always win. The media never writes about this and does not find it strange that we have no unified rule of law in the United States because of the discretion of the Supreme Court, which allows all the circuits to do as they please.

Chief Justice Marshall also held in 1821 a very important decision holding:

“If the constitution does not confer on the court, or on the federal judiciary, the power sought to be exercised, it is in vain that the act of Congress purports to confer it…” 

Cohen v Virgina, 19 US 264 (6 Wheat) (1821) id/324

Congress reduced the power of the Supreme Court by eliminating the constitutional status of the court by enabling them to decide to hear cases at their “discretion,” but that is totally unconstitutional, for no statute can amend the Constitution. Any statute or rule created by Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution – PERIOD!

In Marbury v Madison, Chief Justice Marshall also stated bluntly: “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws.” (id/ 5 US at 163). Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in 1967: “It is a judge’s duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants.” (Pierson v Ray, 386 US 547, 554 1967). None of this has any force of law unless the Supreme Court is returned to its constitutional role and mandates the right to be heard.

Previously, the Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and rendered a small part of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction “discretionary” and subject to the grant of a writ of certiorari. This began the process of reducing the workload of the Supreme Court, yet it remained obliged to rule. In December 1921, Chief Justice William Howard Taft appointed three justices to draw up a proposal to reduce the obligation of the Supreme Court further to hear cases. This became the Judiciary Act of 1925.

The Judiciary Act of 1925 was clearly unconstitutional since Congress could not reduce the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Yet, William Howard Taft (1857 – 1930) served as the 27th President of the United States (1909–1913) and then became the 10th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1921–1930). It was Chief Justice Taft who lobbied with Congress to reduce the role of the Supreme Court. This is up there with Goldman Sachs sending in Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury to eliminate Glass-Steagall, which was enacted because Goldman Sachs lost more money than any public trust during the Great Depression. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1925.

The ONLY way to save some sense of credibility is to overrule the Judiciary Act of 1925 and in so doing, shut down Congress’ claim that it has any right to ignore the Separation of Powers.  How about we then adopt the original proposal of Ben Franklin, who said that the legal community should nominate judges instead of politicians? That was the system in Scotland, and he proposed we eliminate politics from the judiciary. That is the only possible way to achieve a fundamental rule of law.

The Democrats are out to destroy our very way of life in pursuit of their own self-interest.

It is time the claims of power to violate the Separation of Powers by Congress are terminated or there will be NOTHING left and we will collapse into civil war as no other alternative.

---