It isn't just the consent of the governed where people cede power to government - it is the MUTUAL consent of the governed. In my mind, it isn't so much the production of laws with unequal impacts that is the problem, like the segregation laws of the Reconstruction Era, those are obvious.
We now face the unequal application of law.
Does anyone think the political left who want a "popular constitution" would want to apply that theory in the case of a solid majority of Americans disapproving of these prosecutions of President Trump?
Of course not.
They would make up a definition of the law to continue forward – because that is how they roll.
They weren't worried at all about the Supreme Court until RBG's refusal to retire when Obama could appoint her replacement and Cocaine Mitch torpedoed Merrick Garland (and thank God he did), giving Trump the opening to nominate three traditionalist leaning justices. They essentially had a "popular" Supreme Court that agreed with them.
Justice Elana Kagan, one of the liberal block and someone considered to have the intellectual heft to serve on the Court, came out, it was Thursday I think, saying "Why sure, Congress has the right to regulate the Supreme Court", yet later saying "yeah, but only on some things" - even though she never said what those things are.
Sotomayor has proven herself unfit and ill equipped to even be seated on the Court – and KJB has challenged Sotomayor in a race for the bottom. Look at how far outside the Constitution our government operates now and just imagine what a circus it would be if a majority of the Court thought like Kagan and Congress was allowed to regulate it. My guess is that Sotomayor and Jackson share Kagan’s perspective.
If you don’t think leftist tyrant wannabes like Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, AOC and the rest of the Squad would not blackmail SCOTUS to influence decisions, you are nuts. They already do it, but thanks to the Constitution, they are all bark and no bite.
If you don’t believe we are in extra-constitutional territory, set aside what unprecedented actions this rogue DOJ has taken against an ex-president and just look at how far afield the Democrats and the DOJ has gone to stretch the definitions of “sedition” and “insurrection”, using those words to establish the basis for harsh sentences for actions prior to January 6, 2021, would have been misdemeanors at most.
Some people have used the examples of how Congress has regulated the lower courts - but those courts, called “inferior courts” by the Constitution, were created by Congress under enumerated constitutional authority, where the Supreme Court was created directly by Article III of the Constitution at the same time it created the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Justice Samuel Alito was on concrete solid constitutional grounds when he said, "I know this is a controversial view, but I'm willing to say it. "No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court - period."
Yes, Congress may change the number of justices on the Court, but it cannot control the actions of the court.
If you assume that any policy proposal by the Democrats is rooted in increasing the scope, size, and power of government, and as the party of government, their power as well, you won't be far wrong.
Spot on, and for the Dems it has always been about Power, which also guarantee $$$ for their continued election campaigns, which then almost further guarantees that they get re-elected and continue to stay in power. And their circle of life continues!
So, let's hash this out with the potato on the bench:
The court cedes authority to the legislative...
The legislative cedes authority to the executive...
Such is the food chain of tyranny.