Cheryl Van Pelt

542 posts

Cheryl Van Pelt banner
Cheryl Van Pelt

Cheryl Van Pelt

@cherylvanpelt

Virginia Beach diamond 💎 ready

Virginia beach Katılım Ağustos 2013
525 Takip Edilen348 Takipçiler
Cheryl Van Pelt retweetledi
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
ZXX
4.6K
16.5K
115.2K
29.3M
Publius
Publius@Publius4Liberty·
So many in the media and leftist circles are calling the TROs constitutional judicial review. This was not judicial review. The Constitution separates powers to prevent tyranny, not enable it. Judicial review, as established in Marbury v. Madison, allows courts to interpret the law, but it does not give judges the authority to seize executive powers or block a President from exercising core Article II functions like foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement, and military command. A single district judge issuing a nationwide injunction to stop a President from enforcing the law is not an example of checks and balances—it is judicial supremacy and it creates a constitutional crisis. Courts were never intended to act as a super-legislature or wield an unelected veto over the executive branch. The Constitution does not grant inferior courts (which exist at Congress's discretion under Article III) the power to impose nationwide policies, particularly those overriding the President’s explicit constitutional authority. Nationwide injunctions were virtually unheard of for most of American history. Their rise in the modern era represents a judicial overreach that violates the separation of powers and creates a “government by judiciary” scenario. The principle of separation of powers is the key check on judicial overreach. The judiciary is meant to be the weakest branch, as Hamilton explained in Federalist 78, because it has neither the power of the sword nor the purse. But when courts step beyond their role and dictate national policy, they violate that fundamental balance. The courts are not superior to the elected branches; they are co-equal and must respect the limits of their own authority. Article III courts resolve cases and controversies—they do not dictate national policy. The idea that a single unelected district judge can issue nationwide injunctions stopping the President from enforcing the law creates an imbalance in constitutional power. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii 585 U.S. 667 (2018), explicitly criticized nationwide injunctions, arguing that they lack historical precedent and pose a serious threat to democratic governance: “I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality...If district courts have any authority to issue universal injunctions, that authority must come from a statute or the Constitution.” Judicial review is not tyranny, but rule by judiciary is. The separation of powers exists to check all branches—including the courts. The Constitution does not permit lower courts to paralyze the executive branch by granting a single judge—who is neither elected nor directly accountable to the people—the ability to halt national policy. This unchecked judicial supremacy is antithetical to our republican system of government. Judicial supremacy is not a check on government; it is a threat to self-government. #SeparationOfPowers #JudicialOverreach #ChecksAndBalances #ArticleII #ConstitutionalLaw #ExecutiveAuthority #SCOTUS #FederalCourts #JudicialRestraint #RuleOfLaw #MarburyvMadison #Originalism #JudicialSupremacy #TrumpvHawaii @POTUS @elonmusk @RepLaMalfa @AdamSchiff @AGPamBondi @BasedMikeLee @tedcruz @marklevinshow
English
2
3
10
300
Mac Dougherty
Mac Dougherty@TMcKD·
@mattyglesias There are only three hard problems in computer science: naming things, and off by one errors.
English
1
0
2
293
Mark Buffington
Mark Buffington@MarkBuffBIP·
@MarioNawfal Can we use Federal Hate Crimes laws to prosecute those who vandalize Teslas and intimidate Tesla drivers?
English
2
0
5
322
Mario Nawfal
Mario Nawfal@MarioNawfal·
🚨🇺🇸 TESLA OWNERS DOXED: SELL YOUR CAR OR STAY ON THE LIST A website called “Dogequest” has reportedly published the names, addresses, and phone numbers of Tesla owners across the U.S., complete with an interactive map and a Molotov cocktail cursor. The site claims it will only remove personal data if owners prove they've sold their Teslas, in an apparent backlash to Elon’s ties with the Trump administration. This comes as Tesla dealerships face gunfire, arson attempts, and Cybertruck owners report harassment, while anti-Tesla protests ramp up nationwide. Source: New York Post
Mario Nawfal tweet mediaMario Nawfal tweet media
Elon Musk@elonmusk

The left is the party of violence & hate

English
10.5K
12.6K
57.6K
36.9M
Steve Carlson
Steve Carlson@stevenc04974823·
@ianmiles A good case study. Let’s find out if UK slander and defamation laws are two tier.
English
1
0
7
794
Paula White-Cain
Paula White-Cain@Paula_White·
There is nothing you have gone through that God cannot bring total deliverance and restoration!
English
129
506
4K
0
Paula White-Cain
Paula White-Cain@Paula_White·
God is sending the right people in your life for His purposes! He has covenant connections for your divine destiny, He is sending them NOW from the north, south, east and west! In the name of Jesus!
English
658
518
4.5K
0
P.Rice
P.Rice@Coach_Pat6·
Free Digg
English
2
5
8
0
Cheryl Van Pelt
Cheryl Van Pelt@cherylvanpelt·
God has written every page of your life in His book. Good news: Your book ends in victory! via @NeilVermillion
English
0
0
2
0