“Most matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of the judiciary. So much for Alexander Hamilton's promise, in Federalist No. 78 (May 28, 1788), that the Judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches of his proposed government.”

—  Ilana Mercer

“Conned About Marriage, Constitution and States’ Rights” http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/conned-about-marriage-constitution-and-states-rights, WorldNetDaily.com, January 23, 2014.
2010s, 2014

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Most matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of the judiciary. So much for Ale…" by Ilana Mercer?
Ilana Mercer photo
Ilana Mercer 288
South African writer

Related quotes

Ilana Mercer photo

“If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. Put differently, matters previously subject to state jurisdiction have been pulled into the orbit of the judiciary.”

Ilana Mercer South African writer

"Whodunit? Who Meddled With Our Democracy?" Part 2 http://american-exceptionalism.org/whodunit-who-meddled-with-our-american-democracy/, The Heartland Institute, May 18, 2018.
2010s, 2018

Ebrahim Raisi photo

“Judiciary ready to help the new government in corruption fight.”

Ebrahim Raisi (1960) Iranian president

Source: 5 August 2021, Speech after oath taking ceremony in Tehran https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/463741/Raisi-officially-takes-oath-of-office-as-Iran-s-president

William H. Rehnquist photo

“The framers of our Constitution came up with two major contributions to the art of government. The first was the idea of an executive not dependent on the political support of the legislature. The second was the idea of the judiciary independent of the executive and legislative branches.”

William H. Rehnquist (1924–2005) Chief Justice of the United States

ibid.
Books, articles, and speeches

John Roberts photo

“By properly contenting itself with the decision of actual cases or controversies at the instance of someone suffering distinct and palpable injury, the judiciary leaves for the political branches the generalized grievances that are their responsibility under the Constitution. Far from an assault on the other branches, this is an insistence that they are supreme within their respective spheres, protected from intrusion — however welcome or invited — of the judiciary. Separation of powers is a zero-sum game. If one branch unconstitutionally aggrandizes itself, it is at the expense of one of the other branches.”

John Roberts (1955) Chief Justice of the United States

Article III Limits on Statutory Standing, Duke Law Journal (1993) http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3224&context=dlj; partially quoted in Judges Standing Upside-Down, Linda, Greenhouse, New York Times, September 3, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/opinion/judges-standing-upside-down.html?_r=0,

Ken Livingstone photo

“The British judiciary is one of the most corrupt in the world because of politically active judges.”

Ken Livingstone (1945) Mayor of London between 2000 and 2008

The Daily Telegraph (17 May, 1986)

Tawakkol Karman photo

“it has now become obvious that most of the state institutions, including the judiciary, the army, the security apparatus and most of the government departments, stood against him [Morsi]. They acted in a co-ordinated manner to foment a crisis aimed at impeding the president and forcing failure on him.”

Tawakkol Karman (1979) Yemeni journalist, politician, human rights activist, and Nobel Peace Prize recipient

2010s, Egypt's coup has crushed all the freedoms won in the revolution (2013)

Ketanji Brown Jackson photo

“The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution and federal law set the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct, and for this reason... when there is a dispute between the Legislature and the Executive branch over what the law requires about the circumstances under which government officials must act, the Judiciary has the authority, and the responsibility, to decide the issue.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson (1970) United States District Judge

Committee on the Judiary, United States House of Representatives, Plaintiff, v. Donald F. McGahn II, Defendant. (Nov 25, 2019)

Chris Hedges photo

“We live in an oligarchic state where we’ve been rendered utterly powerless. The judiciary, the legislative, the executive branch is all subservient to an oligarchic corporate elite. And the press is owned by an oligarchic corporate elite which makes sure that any critique of them is never broadcast over the airwaves.”

Chris Hedges (1956) American journalist

interviewed by Paul Jay, “The Pathology of the Super-Rich” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfmiCLYweTQ 4:45

Alberto Gonzales photo

“Of course, the power and authority of courts — whether to improperly take policymaking power for themselves or to engage in legitimate decision making — is dependent upon the weight of their judgment. That is, it depends on their credibility with the public and the other branches of government. Judicial decisions are obeyed, in large part, because the judgment of the federal Judiciary is respected. But it is perhaps underappreciated that when courts apply an activist philosophy that stretches the law to suit policy preferences, they actually reduce the credibility and authority of the Judiciary. In so doing, they undermine the rule of law that strengthens our democracy. In contrast, a judge who humbly understands the role of the courts in our tripartite system of government decides cases based on neutral principles. He generally defers to the judgment of the political branches, and respects precedent – the collective wisdom of those who have gone before. In so doing, that judge strengthens respect for the Judiciary, upholds the rule of law, and permits the people — through their elected representatives — to make choices about the issues of the day.”

Alberto Gonzales (1955) 80th United States Attorney General

Speech to American Enterprise Institute (January 17, 2007)

Thomas Jefferson photo

“That instrument(The Constitution) meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) 3rd President of the United States of America

Letter to Abigail Adams about the Sedition Acts (1804) https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-0348
1800s, First Presidential Administration (1801–1805)
Context: You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. but nothing in the constitution has given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independant in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution That instrument(The Constitution) meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.

Related topics