DEEP STATE DID NOT WANT AMERICAN SUPREME COURT JUDGE JEWESS RUTH BADER GINSBURG TO DIE, WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT— Capt Ajit Vadakayil

THE INDIAN JUDICIARY HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY THE JEWISH DEEP STATE HIJACKED AMERICAN JUDICIARY.

SO FIRST THING TO DO,  IS TO REMOVE AMERICAN JUDICIARY FROM THE KOSHER SWAP.

THIS BLOG POST IS FOR DONALD TRUMP..   SO LISTEN UP..  AND LISTEN GOOD.    STOP MOANING WHEN THESE JUDGES KICK YOU ON YOUR BALLS.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THINKER IN USA

THERE IS NO EXPLICIT PROVISION IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  

THIS DOCTRINE WAS FIRST ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN MARBURY VS. MADISON CASE, 1803.   IN THIS CASE FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE LEGISLATURE HAD TO FACE A JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE UNITED STATES.

THE CASE OF MARBURY V. MADISON (1803) WAS THE FIRST TIME THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ILLEGALLY DECLARED AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

JUDICIAL REVIEW  OR THE ABILITY OF THE COURT TO DECLARE A LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION,  IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.   EVEN A HILLY BILLY YANK KNOWS THIS..

THE TEXT OF THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. RATHER, THE POWER TO DECLARE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL HAS BEEN DEEMED AN IMPLIED POWER, DERIVED IN A MINDLESS MANNER  FROM ARTICLE III AND ARTICLE VI.

THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER IN ARTICLE III STATE:-

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 JUDICIAL POWER SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY. ... 

IN ALL CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS AND CONSULS, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE A PARTY, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. 

IN ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI STATES:-

THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING. ... 

ALL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION.

ALL THESE JUDGES CAN DO IS TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION..THEY CANNOT RULE AMERICA.

WITH UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ACQUIRED JUDICIAL REVIEW POWERS THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY PLAYS GOD.. 

WHEN DONALD TRUMP TRIED TO STOP ILLEGAL MEXICAN ( DEMOCRAT VOTE BANK ) AND  MUSLIM ( TERRORIST ) IMMIGRANTS THE DEEP STATE CONTROLLED US  JUDICIATRY STOPPED HIM.

US JUDGES HAVE NO POWERS , ZERO POWERS OVER AMERICAN EXTERNAL SECURITY..  THESE ARE BASICS.

IN A DEMOCRACY , THE CONSTITUTION IS A DYNAMIC DOCUMENT ( TO BE RELEVANT WITH THE TIMES ), NOT ETCHED ON ROCK..  

WHEN THE BABY GROWS DO NOT CUT THE BABYS LEGS, MADE THE CRADLE BIGGER.. COMMONSENSE

AS OF 2014, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS HELD 176 ACTS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LOOKS LIKE THEY STOPPED COUNTING AFTER 2014.   MELORDS MAY GET ANGRY, RIGHT? 

THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW GIVES THE COURTS THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE THEIR OWN VIEWS OF THE LAW, WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE CHECK FROM ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.. NO DEMOCRACY CAN OPERATE THIS WAY..

AND MIND YOU THE NINE US SUPREME COURT JUDGES SERVE FOR LIFE..  NO OTHER DEMOCRACY  ON THIS PLANET HAD THIS BULLSHIT SYSTEM 

THE STUPID US COURTS HAVE BEEN USING THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW LOOSELY TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS ABOUT THE "SPIRIT" OF THE CONSTITUTION..

SINCE WHEN HAS THE OBJECTIVE US JUDGES BECOME SUBJECTIVE THINKERS? 

THE OPINIONS OF THE SENILE/ HIJACKED  SUPREME COURT, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, WILL HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW; BECAUSE THERE IS NO POWER PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION, THAT CAN CORRECT THEIR ERRORS, OR CONTROL THEIR ADJUDICATIONS. 

FROM THIS COURT THERE IS NO APPEAL .. TO CONSIDER THE JUDGES AS THE ULTIMATE ARBITERS OF ALL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS; A VERY DANGEROUS DOCTRINE INDEED, AND ONE WHICH WOULD PLACE AMERICANS  UNDER THE DESPOTISM OF AN OLIGARCHY 

THEIR POWER IS MORE DANGEROUS AS THESE JUDGES ARE IN OFFICE FOR LIFE, AND NOT RESPONSIBLE, AS THE OTHER FUNCTIONARIES ARE, TO THE ELECTIVE CONTROL, AS IS MANDATORY IN A DEMOCRACY.

ARTICLE VI REQUIRES FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICEHOLDERS TO BE BOUND "BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THE US  CONSTITUTION. 

THIS IMPLIES THAT THE US JUDICIARY IS NOT THE ONLY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT MAY INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. FOR COMPLICATED MATTERS IN THIS DIGITAL AGE AN EXPERT TRIBUNAL IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR.

TECH SAVVY CROOKS ARE MAKING AN ASS OF THE “GREASE AND TACKLE “ US JUDICIARY IN RECENT TIMES.

SUCH EXPERT OFFICIALS OF A TRIBUNAL MAY FOLLOW THEIR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION,  

PARAMOUNT :  THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE COURTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.. READ THIS LINE TWICE

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2020/06/nsa-must-form-military-courts-bypass.html

THE TENTH AMENDMENT RESERVES TO THE STATES (OR TO THE PEOPLE) THOSE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.   THE US STATES ALONE HAVE THE POWER TO RATIFY CHANGES TO THE "SUPREME LAW" (THE U.S. CONSTITUTION), AND THAT THE STATES SHOULD PLAY SOME ROLE IN INTERPRETING ITS MEANING.

ALLOWING ONLY FEDERAL COURTS TO DEFINITIVELY CONDUCT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO INTERPRET ITS OWN RESTRICTIONS AS IT SEES FIT, WITH NO MEANINGFUL INPUT FROM THE RATIFYING POWER.

THE US CONSTITUTION AT ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, GIVES CONGRESS POWER TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT'S APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS HISTORICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS DEFINED BY CONGRESS, AND THUS CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO MAKE SOME LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE ACTIONS UNREVIEWABLE.  

THIS IS KNOWN AS JURISDICTION STRIPPING.

IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE US CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO SHIELD CERTAIN LAWS FROM ILLEGAL US SUPREME COURT REVIEW  ARTICLE III AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO  DETERMINE WHAT CLASSES OF “CASES” AND “CONTROVERSIES” INFERIOR COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW.

ARTICLE III’S EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER TO MAKE “EXCEPTIONS” AND “REGULATIONS” TO THE SUPREME COURT’S APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE  THIS POWER BY “STRIPPING” FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR A CLASS OF CASES -LIKE HOMELAND SECURITY ( INTERNAL TERRORISM ) AND EXTERNAL SECURITY .. JUDGES ARE NOT SECRET KEEPERS OF AMERICA.

JURISDICTION-STRIPPING, IS THE LIMITING A COURT'S JURISDICTION BY US CONGRESS THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.

IN  MARBURY V. MADISON, THE SUPREME COURT ILLEGALLY ANNOUNCED THAT THE CONSTITUTION, BY GRANTING THE JUDICIAL  BRANCH THE POWER TO DECIDE “CASES” AND “CONTROVERSIES,” IN TURN GRANTS THE JUDICIARY THE POWER TO “SAY WHAT THE LAW IS ”.. BRRAAAAYYYYYYYYY.

TO A CLEAR THINKER, THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BRANCH—CONGRESS—TO DECIDE WHAT CLASSES OF CASES THE FEDERAL COURTS MAY REVIEW, AS WELL AS TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT COURTS MAY NEED TO  INTERPRET.

THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION “SEPARATION OF POWERS.”  BUT IT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED INHERENT IN THE CONSTITUTION’S TRIPARTITE DIVISION OF FEDERAL POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES THAT EACH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HAS DISCRETE POWERS THAT NO OTHER BRANCH CAN INVADE.

THE JEWISH COMMIE CONTROLLED  US  ‘COURT SYSTEM’ IS A  THREAT TO US NATIONAL SECURITY

THE DEEP STATE PAYROLL US JUDGES HAVE CAUSED FLOODING OF USA WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, WHO HIJACK THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

VOTE RIGGING WAS DONE BY JOHN F KENNEDY WITH THE MAFIA TO DEFEAT NIXON.

READ ALL 4 PARTS OF THE POST BELOW

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2020/06/good-riddance-to-most-evil-brothers-on_26.html

THE SUPREME COURT IS ITSELF BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION  AND THE PARLIAMENT CAN AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ANY TIME THEY WANT IN A DEMOCRACY

 JUDICIAL REVIEW EMPOWERS THE JUDICIARY (  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIFE TERM JUDGES ) TO DECIDE THE FATE OF LAWS PASSED BY THE ELECTED AND ACCOUNTABLE LEGISLATURE WHICH REPRESENTS THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

THE UNELECTED / UNACCOUNTABLE JUDICIARY CANNOT MAKE OR BREAK LAWS.. ALL THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IS TO INTERPRET EXISTING LAWS

THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES  DO NOT HAVE POWERS TO RULE AMERICA

THESE STUPID JUDGES DO NOT KNOW THAT US CONSTITUTION PROTECTS ONLY LAW ABIDING US CITIZENS NOT ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS OR WANNA BE DREAMERS.  

DREAMERS MY ASS. !!

AND WHAT IS THIS GOOD BEHAVIOR THINGY WHICH EMPOWERS A OLD JUDGE AFFLCITED BY ALZHIEMERS  TO SERVE TILL HE KICKS THE BUCKET ?

THE US CONSTITUTION MERELY STATES THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES MUST EXHIBIT GOOD BEHAVIOR. THEY CAN BE IMPEACHED, BUT NOBODY HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE OF THAT TILL TODAY

IF A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTE TO IMPEACH A US SUPREME COURT JUDGE , THE IMPEACHMENT IS REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE FOR TRIAL. A CONVICTION REQUIRES A TWO-THIRDS VOTE IN THE SENATE

IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLE OF JEWESS RUTH BADER    GINSBURG ( AFFLICTED BY DEMENTIA ) TO HOLD ONTO HER SEAT FOR SO LONG. SHE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO STEP ASIDE WHEN DEMOCRAT AND ROTHSCHILD’A AGENT OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT .. 

THIS WAY SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSURED OF BEING REPLACED WITH A LIKE-MINDED COMMIE LIBERAL  JUSTICE COMMITTED TO THE TRAITOR VALUES GINSBURG CLAIMED TO UPHOLD.   

INSTEAD, BY CLINGING TO HER SEAT BEYOND HER ABILITY TO REASONABLY DO THE JOB, SHE HAS GIVEN TRUMP A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CEMENT A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY FOR A PERIOD LONG AFTER HE HAS LEFT OFFICE.

IT IS ON VIDEO RECORD THAT JEWESS GINSBERG WAS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THE JOB: FALLING ASLEEP DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS AND ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS THAT SHOWED SHE WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCEEDINGS PROPERLY.   

SHE COULD HAVE RESIGNED IN 2014 OR 2015, BEEN HONOURED AND BEEN ASSURED OF A QUALITY COMMIE JEW REPLACEMENT CHOSEN BY PRESIDENT OBAMA. INSTEAD, SHE MAY HAVE SET BACK THE CAUSES SHE BELIEVED IN FOR DECADES.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8749599/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburgs-wish-NOT-replaced-new-president-installed.html

SO SO SO WHAT IS GOOD BEHAVIOR FOR JUDGES WHICH QUARANTEES A LIFETERM TENURE ?

THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY GIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. READ THIS LINE TWICE

ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS POWER TO THE SUPREME COURT, STATING THAT JUSTICES "SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.” HEY HOW ABOUT GOOD MENTAL HEALTH? 

GOOD BEHAVIOR CLAUSE SIMPLY INDICATES THAT JUDGES ARE NOT APPOINTED TO THEIR SEATS FOR SET TERMS AND CANNOT BE REMOVED AT WILL; REMOVING A FEDERAL JUDGE REQUIRES IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTION FOR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.( LIKE JERKING OFF ON HIS GAVEL IN COURT ? ) 

THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT JUSTICES "SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOUR." THIS MEANS THAT THE JUSTICES HOLD OFFICE AS LONG AS THEY CHOOSE AND CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY IMPEACHMENT. ...

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THAT FEDERAL JUDGES SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY CANNOT BE DISCHARGED BUT CAN BE IMPEACHED FOR MISCONDUCT. ...HEY HOW ABOUT SENILITY?

GOOD BEHAVIOR CLAUSE SIMPLY INDICATES THAT JUDGES ARE NOT APPOINTED TO THEIR SEATS FOR SET TERMS AND CANNOT BE REMOVED AT WILL; REMOVING A FEDERAL JUDGE REQUIRES IMPEACHMENT AND CONVICTION FOR A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR.  HEY WHAT ABOUT ALZHIEMERS

THE US CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY GIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS.

ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS POWER TO THE SUPREME COURT, STATING THAT JUSTICES "SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR.”

UNDER ENGLISH COMMON LAW, IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED  BY DEEP STATE PAYROLL JUDGES AS ALLOWING US JUSTICES TO SERVE AS LONG AS THEY CHOOSE, ONLY TO BE REMOVED THROUGH IMPEACHMENT.  

CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL SAYS-  BALLS !   FUCK OFF YOU CUNTS !!

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THINKER IN INDIA

TO BE CONTINUED-

CAPT AJIT VADAKAYIL

..