Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall would be disgusted with these people

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #78 wrote the following;

This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies,3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community. This is part of what we are up against. A complacent judicial branch, that has failed in their duties, a legislative branch and political party that would increase their voters to abolish the law and secure their means, and the executive branch as corrupt as the other two.

In the Federalist 78; “A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.”

“Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

Again in Federalist 78  “But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.”

Faithful guardins do not re-invent the Founding Fathers intent and meaning, by attempting to change water into wine, making a purse out of a sow’s ear, or an illegal undocumented questionable ‘native’ into a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States.

Let us look into the Federalist 68 also states the following;

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Would judges like to be reminded of the following as stated by SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg;

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.

Again; ‘ How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

The words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v.Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever
difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”

So why is it that FEDERAL JUDGES CONTINUE TO FLAGRANTLY FLOUT THE CONSTITUTION, denying the citizens of this nation due process that is guaranteed under the United States Constitution to protect their rights and liberty. That elected officials refuse to do their sworn duty and obligation under the ‘Oath of Office’ they swore to uphold and protect.

Kerchner et al v. Obama & Congress, et al was again dismissed, not on the merits, but on standing. The Department of Justice is refusing to prosecute legitimate criminal cases like the ‘New Black Panther Party voter intimidation Case’ and refusing citizens of the United States their Constitutional rights. Unbelieveable!