Judiciary is not the final arbiter

For the last 80 years anyone and everyone with a beef has run to file a lawsuit expecting to force a verdict in their favor. This was not the intent of the Founders of this nation. For those lawyers with inflated egos believing their judgment carries more validity than the rest of us peons, it’s time they were better schooled about their role in the social order. Consider that an initial 13^th Amendment was shuffled away into the depths of Library of Congress’ stacks (to be found by individuals researching there) that banned lawyers from holding elected office. Why? Because they were tied to the British Crown’s Bar which gave them title as “nobility.”

It’s past time citizens realized that the legal profession (meaning, these days, a profession of belief) has usurped governance by way of court maneuverings and ambiguous legislation written and enacted to give them latitude of legal application.

Certainly, lawyers can disagree with the foregoing, but many in this audience have been hornswoggled in one way or another by attorneys in a court proceeding. The baseline on how a law is administered is the Constitution, which provides the unequivocal undergirding for every statute enacted. If a law or an opinion rendered by a judge and/or jury does not agree with the Constitution, then it is not binding and cannot be lawfully executed.

Judges such as James “Jeb” Boasberg are abusing their station as an “interpreter” of the Constitution

Marbury v. Madison (1803) set the standard: “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” Further, “By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.” Nor has this basis for review been changed or re-interpreted to mean something else, such as giving a district judge personal power to nullify constitutional actions by the chief executive, the President of the United States.

Judges such as James “Jeb” Boasberg are abusing their station as an “interpreter” of the Constitution by wholly disregarding what is plainly written, working outside its directives, and usurping the clearly defined powers of the other branches of government. Then there is the attempted assumption of POTUS’ role as Commander-in-Chief where Boasberg demands to have final word, let alone input on how national security is maintained. Does he even have security clearance to be privy to these classified documents and plans?

Judges aren’t kings. Yet some have taken it upon themselves to repudiate their oath and the American citizens

Consider also the Canadian citizen who is sitting on the D.C. District bench issuing rulings on application of the Constitution to which he isn’t beholden, being a foreign national with foreign loyalties. How did Amir Ali get appointed, and can’t he be removed from his position or possibly the country as a foreign agent interfering with national security by demanding that USAID payments continue? The question is relevant when he orders the executive to reinstate multiple billions in funds to individuals and projects that compromise our nation’s sovereignty and security.

Judges aren’t kings. Yet some have taken it upon themselves to repudiate their oath and the American citizens whom they have sworn to serve, actually abusing their constituents by unconstitutionally attempting to acquire other government branches’ powers.

The actions by these judges are not only impeachable but, in this non-attorney’s opinion, makes them deliverable to constitutional sheriffs to be charged with violating their oath, sedition, and in some cases treason for crimes against the nation.

In Chief Justice Roberts’ inappropriate statement that a “difference of opinion” isn’t impeachable, what he intentionally overlooked is that this isn’t a difference of opinion. The out-of-bounds ruling by Boasberg is an infringement on another branch’s clearly defined authority. The argument is about constitutional jurisdiction, and a lone federal judge has none over the executive branch when it is dealing with sensitive national security and, ultimately, the safety of American citizens.

Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights, those are retained only for citizens of the United States

It is evident that Boasberg has more regard for foreign terrorists than Americans whom these criminals endanger, mutilate, and kill, which brings into question his fidelity to his oath of office. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights, those are retained only for citizens of the United States.

Having overreached their office and intruded on other branches’ authority with questionable rulings, what is ignored by media and, sadly, politicians who also swore oaths to protect the Constitution, is the plain fact that the judiciary, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is not the final arbiter in the application of law. They render opinions that can be reversed by an act of Congress, the People’s House and the Senate, what was once the chamber of States’ representatives. (The latter changed with the ratification of the 17^th Amendment, which many believe should be repealed.)

If an opinion does not agree with or uphold the Constitution, it can be relegated to the ash heap of history by the final word of the People. And nowhere within Article III is a member of the judiciary, particularly a single judge occupying some obscure federal bench, supplied the power to nullify a constitutional act by the President of the United States. National security is at stake.