Will Northern California Counties Join Nevada?

While it is unlikely that California will pass all the legal barriers to split into multiple states, it could be much easier for counties to leave California and join Nevada.

New Nevada

The Bible and Constitution Made America Great: Appendix 4

Over the last several decades there has been an interesting division in America. It can best be seen by looking at a color-coded map showing the results of a presidential vote by county. There are dots of blue (Democrat) that represent large cities and metropolitan areas which are more liberal. Then there is a surrounding sea of red (Republican) representing rural counties which are more conservative.

Often cities and urban areas, with their higher populations, dominate state governments by electing a majority of the state legislators. There is nothing wrong with this, except there can be conflict when a majority imposes its view on the minority. In this case it is liberal cities imposing their political beliefs and agendas on conservative counties.

What are the issues? A few are:

  • Gun control laws that restrict ownership of guns or ammunition.
  • Green energy laws that mandate certain percentages of energy be produced from wind power or solar power.
  • Restrictions on oil or natural gas exploration and production.
  • Laws requiring homosexuality be taught in schools.
  • High income tax rates (that may be used to pay for programs primarily benefiting residents of cities).
  • Restrictions on agricultural activities on farm land.

In America today, there are major cultural and economic differences between liberals and conservatives. A number of conservative counties are growing tired of having liberal city politicians dictate and mandate their government policy. They feel they are being denied their right to self-government.

America has had settled state boundaries for well over a century. But as the power of state government has grown and become more invasive in the lives of citizens, there are some who resent it. Sometimes those resenting the state government intrusion form a majority vote of a county. What options do residents of the county have if their concerns are being ignored by their state government? They cannot easily secede to form a new state; the Constitution makes that difficult.

There may be another alternative for these counties. The key wording is: “no new State shall be formed… without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” That language imposes a significant barrier, requiring both states and Congress to agree. This is most likely impossible, as the politicians of states like power and their power is greater with more constituents living under their jurisdiction.

In essence, since a new state will not be formed, groups of counties switching states have a much lower hurdle to clear. If a group of counties leaves state A to join state B, all that is required is an affirmative secession vote by the counties and acceptance by state B to let them join the state.

There is no question state A will sue to prevent the counties from leaving its jurisdiction, and the case will go to the Supreme Court, as it should. New law is being made. The author’s guess is that if the Court has a majority of originalist justices (Chapter 14), who interpret the Constitution as it was written, the ruling will confirm “a new state is not being formed” and the counties will be allowed to leave.

Shouldn’t counties have the right to choose the type of government that they desire? Isn’t this consistent with freedom?

 

Scot Wolf  has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788

 

Advertisements

#NeverRyan

 

 

Ryan-For-Real-2

What Catholic votes to spend taxpayer dollars to kill babies and sell their body parts?

Paul Ryan.

Every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker, he creates a single massive spending bill that Democrats love and support, then forces it through the House at the last second to “prevent a government shutdown.”

This latest bill was again Ryan’s doing. He chose to bypass his fellow GOP House members and write the bill with McConnell plus Democrats Pelosi & Schumer.

Conservative House Freedom Caucus member Mark Meadows summed up Ryan’s latest omnibus spending bill:

– Record spending levels

– No wall/border security

– ObamaCare intact

– Funds Planned Parenthood

– Sanctuary Cities funded

– Barely 24 hours to read a 2,300 page bill

This Omnibus is so far from what the forgotten men and women of America voted for. I will oppose it. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) March 22, 2018

Despite repeated promises from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Planned Parenthood would be defunded of taxpayer money once Republicans were in charge, the funding remains. Planned Parenthood has received over $500,000,000 every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker. During the last six years, Planned Parenthood performed more than 1,000,000 abortions of unborn babies, on average around 325,000 per year.

No conservative Republican should ever vote for a bill that funds abortion. A conservative Speaker would never let a bill containing abortion funding to even reach the House floor. It should be a given that a GOP House will never fund abortion. If Democrats wish to shutdown the government to fund abortion, let them.

Beyond the critical abortion issue, there is limited government – a Reagan-conservative staple. Has the Ryan/McConnell controlled Congress, eliminated a single federal government agency or department? No. (Solutions – Chapter 20 has numerous proposals for eliminating non-constitutional federal agencies.)

Where is the border wall funding in the bill? This was arguably the biggest promise candidate Trump made. Yet the Ryan/McConnell GOP Establishment continue to try their best to block Trump’s Wall. I do not recall ever seeing a party in power fighting against its own president!

Conservatives gave the GOP control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Yet, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell give Democrats most of what the Dems want. Maybe because they all want big government. The GOP leaders have shown themselves to be swamp creatures that need to be left high and dry.

“The American people didn’t elect Democrats to control the United States Congress. They elected Republicans.”@Jim_Jordan (Freedom Caucus).

As tempting as it would be to throw out all 145 House Republicans who voted for this disgusting omnibus spending bill, this would just put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House as Speaker.

Yes the Democrats would be even worse! That is why the Establishment doesn’t fear or respect conservatives. They think we have no other options but to keep voting for them. But we do have a way to hold party leaders accountable.

If party leaders, fail to deliver on their promises, make them pay the price at the next election. Make Paul Ryan lose his election. Losing one seat will have no effect on GOP control and will not hurt the conservative cause. (It will likely help it!) But, defeating Ryan will send shock waves through DC and make the GOP establishment pay attention! #NEVERRYAN.

#NEVERRYAN in 2018

Paul Nehlen is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP Primary. Conservatives and Christians should flock to his campaign to send Ryan packing. But the Establishment is strong. They often spend millions of dollars lying about their primary opponents. Often accusing them of not being “true conservatives”. What hypocrisy and chutzpah!

If RYAN wins the primary using all the benefits of an establishment incumbent, a solid conservative strategy is to continue to vote #NEVERRYAN. Christians and Conservatives need to vote for the Democrat in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District to defeat Ryan.

The GOP Establishment never shows any loyalty to conservative non-establishment candidates.

I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in a Oct. 10, 2016 conference call with House Republican members. House Speaker Paul Ryan abandoned GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump right before the 2016 election.

Time for conservatives to return the favor! If Ryan can be a NEVERTRUMP’er why can’t conservatives be #NEVERRYAN‘ers ?

Only 40,000 Conservatives Needed!

In 2014, the last non presidential election year, Ryan won over his challenger (Democrat Rob Zerban) 182,316 to 105,552. That’s ONLY a 76,764 vote margin. Half of those voters switching will defeat Ryan.

It takes 40,000 GOP conservative voters to vote for the Democrat and against Paul Ryan for the upset to occur. NO MORE SPEAKER RYAN working against conservative policies. End Ryan’s RINO reign as Speaker.

Calling for 40,000 #NEVERRYAN Conservatives in Wisconsin Congressional District 1

Ryan WI CD1

Mitch McConnell’s reckoning will come in 2020 when he is next up for reelection in the Senate.

Caveat: Ryan has one more chance – another government funding bill will be needed in October 2018 – right before the election. If Ryan finally produces a conservative bill (Fully funding Trump’s border wall, defunding Planned Parenthood and Sanctuary Cities, ….), then we should stop #NEVERRYAN. The choice is up to him, and us.

Scot Wolf is the author of: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com . Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Let the States Show it Works

America became an economic superpower because of freedom – specifically free markets. American citizens are able to provide and purchase products and services that they and their fellow citizens desire at very low prices thanks free markets. Free markets work throughout America, and will for health insurance if allowed to.

ObamaCare is the exact opposite of free markets. Government bureaucrats mandated the types of health insurance policies that could be sold, then mandated that citizens buy the policies under threats of jail time courtesy of the IRS. With no freedom on either the buy or sell side, ObamaCare forced government control onto our insurance system. The old Soviet Union aparatchiks would be proud.

As long as there is heavy handed government control, the health care insurance system is likely to remain largely dysfunctional and very expensive. That is the reason ObamaCare should be repealed.

The State Healthcare Challenge

Many Americans have been duped into believing that government control makes our healthcare system work better. So I have a challenge for you: Transfer all government involvement in healthcare to the state governments (Except Medicare, a specific national promise made to senior citizens). All healthcare regulations, mandates, taxes, and subsidies move to the state level of government. States want expanded Medicaid programs? No problem. Just raise the state payroll tax to pay for the increased Medicaid costs in the state.

If government makes it better, a state government can show us how. State governments should have the freedom to design their health systems ranging from full government control (single payer) to little government involvement, or anywhere in between. Let Texas, California, and the other states show us what really works.

ObamaCare is a one size fits all force-fit federal government program. It is constitutionally dubious given the Tenth Amendment limits on federal power. However the Tenth Amendment does not limit state governments. There is nothing stopping a state from instituting its own state-care system. As divided as America is today, states need flexibility to draft the best health care system for themselves.

Why is food cheap, but health care expensive? For an excellent summary of government interference in the health care system, and free market solutions, read or download the Free Chapter: Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution in The Bible and Constitution Made America Great by Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens.

 Book Cover 4 1000sq Links to receive:

PDF Chapter

Nook Book

Nook Chapter

Kindle Book

Kindle Chapter

Email: SGWBook@gmail.com

State control also rebuts the typical Democrat talking points: Health Care is a right, and politicians are heartless for not providing it. For Example: Take Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. When they begin ranting about heartless Republicans, ask them: Why won’t NY Gov. Coumo provide healthcare to New Yorkers? Why won’t CA Gov. Brown mandate single payer for Californians? Why are they letting their citizens and your constituents go without healthcare? Do they not care enough about their people? Are they heartless?

Maybe the only way to fully repeal Obamacare, while blocking the liberal attacks that GOP Representatives fear, is to transfer ObamaCare’s taxes, regulation and mandates to the states. Then let each state adapt it to its needs.

Scot Wolf

Scot Wolf has B.S. in Chemical Engineering, graduating Magna Cum Laude with Honors, and an MBA. He is a lifelong Christian who believes science and faith should be integrated in forming a worldview. He has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at Amazon.com, or by contacting SGWBookPartners@gmail.com. Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788

Stalling a Rogue Court

2016-scotus-3

With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a critical issue in the 2016 presidential election. The next president will replace Scalia. It is documented and discussed in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, how the philosophy of the judicial nominees has differed greatly, depending on the nominating party. There are currently four liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court (one short of a majority). These judges usually vote as a block on issues favored by the political left. Issues such as ObamaCare, abortion “rights”, the “right” for homosexual marriage and removing religious acts/symbols from the public square.

The activist justices are rogue. Rogue justices ignore constitutional clauses that they dislike and create law to support their rulings. Courts are to enforce law, not create it. Their rulings are in fact illegal, violating the Constitution, the ultimate law of the nation. The next president will nominate at least one justice. Hillary has promised a liberal-activist. Trump has promised a constitutionalist.

The judicial philosophy of the current Supreme Court is dominated by liberal-activism. The justices by their philosophy:

4 Liberal-Activist: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These justices (all appointed by Democrat presidents) consistently rule in the liberal politically preferred way regardless of the constitutional text.

2 Swing: John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy. These justices move back and forth between constitutional and activist rulings. My opinion is that Roberts rules in a constitutional manner about 75% of the time, while Kennedy does so about 50% of the time.

2 Constitutional: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. These justices consistently rule according to the Constitution. The deceased Antonin Scalia was also a constitutionalist.

These latter four justices were all appointed by Republican presidents.

Three Supreme Court rulings illustrate the judicial activist philosophy in action. In each case the liberal-activists vote as a block for a political objective that a straightforward reading of the Constitution would not allow.

ObamaCare: In 2012, the four liberal-activist justices ruled to give Congress the power to control healthcare. They were joined by swing-justice Roberts to get the needed 5th vote. The ruling ignored the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, limits what Congress can do. A constitutionalist would rule that managing a national healthcare program is not a federal power/responsibility according to this amendment, therefore is illegal. It can be made constitutional by passing an amendment, as was done with Prohibition, where the 18th Amendment granted the federal government the power to ban alcohol.

Homosexual Marriage: In 2015 the Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. The four liberal-activist justices were this time joined by swing-justice Kennedy as the 5th deciding vote. The activist justices misused the 14th Amendment in their ruling. This amendment granted rights to newly freed black citizens after the Civil War. It did not mention sex or gender. The ruling also violated the 10th Amendment which leaves marriage law at the state level (where it resided for the first 225 years of America).

Liberal logic has already forced Christian bakers, photographers, restaurants, and florists to either participate in homosexual weddings, or close their businesses. It is very likely that a block of five liberal-activist Supreme Court justices will one day mandate churches either perform homosexual weddings or cease performing weddings. No one should be shocked if justices who make a practice of ignoring constitutional amendments they disagree with, will also ignore the 1st Amendment’s religious protections.

Mojave War Memorial Cross Case: In 2010 four liberal-activist justices ruled that a cross must be removed from a memorial on federal land. The cross had stood for 75 years, being erected after World War I by The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). In this case the two swing justices both went with the constitutionalists, foiling the liberal-activist block. The federal courts have no right to ban any cross or any religious symbol according to the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited). The owners of the land can decide whether a cross can be displayed (discussed in the book). In this case the landowner was the federal government, so decisions should have fallen to the President and/or Congress as the managers of the federal land. Both approved of the cross memorial. Our elected representatives decide what can be displayed or constructed on the land.

It is disturbing that Democrat presidents have been committed to placing liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court. Our Constitution was designed to be changed by amendment (requiring a super-majority of the nation), not through the vote of five unelected justices. In essence, the Supreme Court has been acting as an illegal ongoing constitutional convention that requires 5 votes for ratification. constitutionalist justices remove this power from the court.

The practical implications of presidential voting are easily deduced. Had Obama lost the election in 2008 (McCain won), two of the liberal activist Obama appointees would almost assuredly be constitutional or swing justices. If Hillary becomes President this year, there will most assuredly be a liberal-activist justice replacing Scalia.

The Supreme Court philosophy and power is indeed a major factor in the 2016 presidential election.

 

http://constitution.com/stalling-dangerously-rogue-court/

What Will Liberals Do Now That Muslims Are Targeting Homosexuals?

1465845942599This time Muslims targeted homosexuals.

First, my sincere condolences to those killed and hurt in the latest terror attack, and especially to their grieving families. It has become way too common in America for citizens to grieve after loved ones are killed by Muslims. How many Muslim attacks do we need in America before we deal with the problem? Fort Hood Texas, Boston Marathon Bombing, Chattanooga TN, San Bernardino CA, … The lengthy list continues to grow.

In the latest attack, Omar Mateen opened fire early Sunday morning in Pulse, “the hottest gay bar” in Orlando, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more. Omar was a Muslim U.S. citizen, born in New York to Afghan parents. Mateen lived in Florida. Omar’s Muslim parents immigrated to America and gave us a faith-based radical terrorist.

Omar’s attack illustrates the differences between Christianity and Islam. Jesus clearly teaches His followers to not go around wantonly killing sinners in His name. What did Mohamed teach? A sizable number of Muslims believe he taught killing infidels pleases Allah. And they act on it. Not all Muslims of course, but if it only 1 in 1000 are killers, and you bring in 1000, the odds are you are going to get a Muslim terrorist killer among them.

The tragic attack of Omar tells us that radical Muslims do not assimilate into American culture with time. Omar was born here, yet he was still following the radical Muslim teaching of killing homosexuals. What mosque did Omar study at? Who taught him his radical Islam? Did he listen to this Muslim cleric in Orlando who advocated a “death sentence for homosexuals” as being “compassionate” earlier this year? A government serious about protecting its citizens would investigate and find out. In America, freedom of religion does not include the right to kill or terrorize others.

To protect law-abiding citizens, the federal government should immediately:

  1. Stop the importation of Muslims (immigration and refugee)
  2. De-radicalize Islamic teaching on American soil

A great place to start the de-radicalization would be mandatory “sensitivity” classes for Muslims where they are taught about the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, and respecting the right of every citizen to follow their own religion of choice, including atheism.

Supposedly, affluent homosexuals are big supporters of, and donors to, Democrats. After the Pulse Massacre, maybe it is time for them to have a talk with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about homosexual hate crimes, radical Islam, and the importation of more Muslims into America.

On Constitution.com

This Is Why I Will Not Be Casting a “Protest” Vote in November

donald-trump

Americans have always compromised when the issue is important.

The Presidency is such an issue.

 

 

 

 

Constitutional Convention and Slavery Compromise

When America formed her current government, they were facing an incredibly divisive issue: slavery. Slavery is an abomination. It takes away every aspect of freedom from a fellow human being. Northern states followed the teachings of the Declaration of Independence, and ended slavery. Yet a number of southern states depended on slavery to run their plantation agrarian economies. They refused to join a nation that would not allow slavery, and their current economic system, to continue. Finally, a compromise was reached. The new national government would be allowed to stop the importation of new slaves, but slavery was to be allowed to continue if a state wanted it. (Read more about slavery in America in Chapter 17.) Compromise was used to achieve the greater good of forming the nation, even if an evil was allowed to continue.

My Perspective: Immigration Dominates in GOP Nomination

Every voter has the free will and the right to use their personal criteria in selecting a candidate. In my view, immigration is the most important issue facing the nation today. We have at least 45 millionpeople (14% of the population) in our nation that were not born here. NOT including 10-30 million illegals in America that most politicians dream of granting amnesty too. If we continue to import this number of poor 3rd world people, having no knowledge of self-government under a representative Republic, our Constitution is doomed. America will become a 3rd world nation just like those nations the masses she has imported came from.

In light of this, there were only two candidates I could support. Ted Cruz , who fought the DC “Gang of 8” amnesty effort in 2013, and Donald Trump, who promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, and to halt Muslim refugees. I viewed Cruz as more reliable and trustworthy, with Trump being more likely to crush Hillary and win the general election. (This is my perspective. You may disagree.)

However, if needed, I would have compromised my beliefs for a greater good. I would have voted for Jeb or Marco Rubio had they won the GOP nomination rather than protest vote. Even with the knowledge that conservatives would likely have to fight either of them on amnesty just as we fought G. W. Bush during his presidency. Sometimes compromise is needed to achieve a greater good. In this case keeping the entire executive branch, and the judicial branch (through appointment) out of the control of liberal activists.

Note: I personally AM willing to strategically protest vote for less important races like Congress. A Congressional seat’s power pales in comparison to the presidency. A representative should earn your support with their actions in my opinion.

The Cost of President Hillary (or Bernie, or Biden)

Anyone wishing to protest vote should consider the harm that a Democrat will do to the nation. Hillary Clinton will fill the federal bureaucracy with the same type of people as Obama – dedicated big government liberals. Do you like the recent trans-bathroom edicts from the feds? Expect more. Hillary will replace recently deceased Justice Scalia with a dedicated liberal-activist judge. Enjoy the “new” constitutional right for homosexuals to marry? Expect way more as a Hillary judge will give the activists a solid 5-judge majority to control the top-court in the land.

Note: Some argue that a Hillary justice will finally expose the corrupt activist courts. But does it really matter if every state governor accepts the ruling? Going to court to fight will NOT work, as the case is predetermined against you by the 5 activist judges. A governor must be willing to tell the courts to go pound-sand by ignoring the unconstitutional ruling. Not a single governor did this on homosexual-marriage. They bowed to the court’s decree. Why would you think governors will offer opposition to judicial tyranny in the future?

3rd Party vs 3rd Person

A third party is a legitimate party running candidates at every level of office. The last example of this was the Republican Party forming in the 1850’s and 60’s. It succeeded in replacing the Whig Party. A third party does not begin with the presidency; it should begin at the state or congressional level. A third person is someone (usually popular) running for president outside of the two main parties. Two examples of this are Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992. Neither of these candidates had a broad slate behind them in the ticket. They were one man shows. Both 3rd person efforts resulted in the opposing party (Democrat) winning the presidency. This may or may not have been the intent of the third person, but it was the result.

A vote for a 3rd person presidential candidate is a protest vote. This will always be true unless there is polling data within a week of the election, showing a legitimate chance for the 3rd person to win. Protest votes for President carry enormous costs as detailed above.

Not voting is a protest vote where the voter sends the message that they do not care about the future of the nation at all. That is how a politician will read the inaction.

To conclude, every vote cast in America is a compromise. The only candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time is YOU. So unless you write in your own name (protest vote) you are compromising when voting.

 

On Constitution.com

 

Courts Need their Power Checked on Bathroom Issue

Recent court ruling bans bathroom gender-segregation

 

Our Constitution is based on checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government. The President (Executive), the Congress (Legislative) and the Supreme Court (Judicial) are all supposed to have their power limited by checks/opposition from the other two branches. All three branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals overturned a Virginia high school bathroom policy. The common-sense policy was: only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students.

The three judge panel ruled that “transgender students in public schools must be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender identity.” The ruling cited a regulation issued by the Obama Administration Department of Education. The ruling was determined by Judge Henry F. Floyd and Judge Andre M. Davis, both appointees of Democrat President Barack Obama. The remaining judge Paul V. Niemeyer, was appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The ruling means that a high school boy claiming to be trans-gendered has a “right” to enter the girl’s locker rooms and restrooms in school. A girl claiming to be a boy must also be allowed in the boy’s areas. Separate areas for transgender-thinking students are not equal or acceptable in the eyes of the judges.

A side note: Presidential elections have consequences. As discussed at length in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, Democrat presidents have consistently placed liberal activist judges on the federal courts that give us ridiculous rulings such as this, while Republican presidents do not. This case further validates that premise.

The liberal Obama judges are trying to equate race rights with gender rights. Three constitutional amendments were passed after the Civil War that prohibit government (federal and state) from discriminating based on race. These amendments say nothing about gender or sex. Thus the need for a later amendment (XIX) granting women the right to vote. The federal government has no authority to intervene unless a gender amendment is added to the Constitution. Do we really want an amendment that states segregation of restrooms (men/women) is illegal and must be abolished? Do we want a common restroom for everybody?

So are gender-neutral bathrooms now the law of the land? No. The Courts have no authority to pass any laws. So where are the checks and balances on the Courts?

The President: Obviously Democrats support open bathrooms, but a future Republican president administration could simply state they will not enforce un-constitutional court rulings like this one.

Congress: Congress is constitutionally the most powerful branch of government. Congress can declare the federal courts have no jurisdiction in this area. (Article III and 10th Amendment) Congress could also impeach the two lawless judges. Even an unsuccessful Senate trial should reign in future rulings.

State and local governments can refuse to uphold unconstitutional rulings. The Constitution trumps judicial fiat.

These checks must be used with care. In the early years of the nation they were never needed. But recent decades have seen judges ignoring the Constitution in their rulings. This abuse of power needs to be checked.