SCOTUS May only interpret the Law
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Reference: Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia › wiki › Marbury_v._Madison
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.
The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and correctible. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of ordering Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury’s commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.
The Case Against Judicial Review | Move to Amend
“Judicial Review” is not a term familiar to most Americans, but it should be. The concept is a profoundly important operational underpinning of the United States legal system. Anyone working to make this country a more peaceful, just, ecologically sustainable, and democratic place should be eager to examine this basic doctrine.
In a nutshell, judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of executive or legislative bodies to determine whether the action is consistent with a statute, a treaty or the U.S. Constitution. In its most basic expression, it is the authority of the unelected Supreme Court to declare acts of elected members of Congress or the elected President unconstitutional. (Of course, the current occupant of the White House was never elected, but rather installed in what can only be described as a judicial coup d’etat).
It is important to recognize that there is absolutely no explicit reference to the concept of judicial review in the Constitution itself. Proponents of judicial review merely infer that power from Article III of the Constitution which states: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court… and shall extend to all Cases… arising under this Constitution…”
( Original Post Read Here:)
https://movetoamend.org/case-against-judicial-review
Watch “Supreme Court Does Not Make Laws” on YouTube
America On Coffee 
Thank you for the reblog!
Reference: Marbury v. Madison – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Marbury_v._Madison
LikeLike
The U.S. Constitution isn’t even worth the paper it was written on. It, like our “money,” only has value insofar as what our illustrious “leaders” say it has. If we as a people rely on, lean on, depend on either to get us out of this hole in which we’ve dug for ourselves, then we are only going to succeed in digging ourselves in even deeper.
Civil law is a Pandora’s box. It only has as its source of origin and authority, man. Each of us, including that of all “judges” and lawyers, because of our fallibility and finiteness, must rely on our individual opinions, and we all know what opinions are. Under this “system of law,” we are slaves to our own opinions and, worse yet, that of the opinions of those who profess to be our “legal authorities.” It should be obvious where this has taken us…
Read Lysander Spooner’s “Constitution of No Authority.” There is an audio version of this on my website, http://www.takethebadwiththelousy.com, listed under the same title, “Constitution Of No Authority.”
There is another system of law, Natural Law. It is called this because it was put in place when God built this universe. This law requires no lawyers. It is very simple. It says that no one has the right to violate the rights of another, and yet expect his/her rights to be honored, observed, respected.
It also says there can be no crime if there is no evidence of the initiation of, or threat of, force, either explicitly or implicitly. The absence of this clearly demonstrates the absence of a victim(s). Where there is no victim(s), there can be no crime.
Put simply, natural law can be thought of as the old saying, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Bill Ernstberger
LikeLike
How wonderful it is that we have an Almighty God!
LikeLike