In a mere four pages, ratified in 1788, the Constitution of the United Sates of America became a body of fundamental law which guarantees the natural God given rights of the people to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.   

One hundred and forty one years later, the Great Depression began on Oct.  29, 1929 when the stock market crashed.  Suddenly, millions of people were out of work, bread lines formed to feed families, and the elderly could not support themselves.  A potential solution, like the one adopted in Germany in 1889, was a "social insurance" program run by the federal government which stressed the government's responsibility to provide for citizens' economic security.  In 1932, Franklin D.  Roosevelt was elected and he put forth such a plan where workers contributed to their future economic security through taxes paid while they worked and then paid out when they retired or became disabled.  

From the outset, Roosevelt's plan had a major stumbling block - - a plain reading of the Constitution finds absent the power of Congress to implement and run a federal social insurance program.  But, such legal limitation did not deter Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court to assume powers not found in the United States Constitution.  The day that the Constitution was changed without a vote of the people came on August 14, 1935, when President Roosevelt signed the 33 page Social Security Act of 1935 into law.  

This legislation indeed wove a new de facto constitutional thread into the United States constitutional fabric when the Congress and the President bypassed the Constitution Amendment process in Article V of the Constitution and ignored the limits of Congressional power stated in the “Enumerated Powers" in Article I of the Constitution.  Implicit with the avoidance of the required constitutional compliance process was that the several sovereign states were denied their right to deliberate, debate and ratify the law.  As a result, Congress and the President, on their own, raised everyone's taxes and created a new federal government run insurance program bearing upon all the states.  

Many have claimed over the years that the Social Security Act is unconstitutional which is the Constitutional right of the people to do so.  There is plenty of evidence to support the claim.  However, even if they are right and it is, the program is so deeply ingrained in the workings of Republic that such may be impossible to reasonably remove or replace it.  This constitutional precedent is now manifest as one of the largest financial burdens on the American taxpayer.  Along with the subsequently enacted federal social entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, these programs now collectively pose a significant financial threat to the very existence of the Republic as the question of irresponsible levels of deficit spending by the Congress, potentially causing a bankruptcy of the government, becomes part of the political narrative today.  

This evolving journey into the consequences of the Social Security Act began with its implementation in 1937 and its administration by the Congress.  The program started modestly with 60% of all wage earners, largely older Americans, being taxed about 2%.  According to the act, all tax revenue collected were to be deposited in a trust fund.  The fund, known as the Social Security Trust Fund, is technically comprised of two component funds in the original Social Security Act of 1935: Section 201, the Old-Age Survivors Insurance program; and Section 904, the Disability Insurance Trust Funds.  

The Republic's Social Security Act unsustainable financial dilemma came as a result of Congress converting what started as a self-funded program into an enormous de facto pay-as-you-go program by appropriating all “surplus” tax revenues [monies collected which exceed what was needed to pay benefits] to fund the annual federal budget.  With this process, Congress ignored its fundamental fiduciary responsibility to retain these assets in the Treasury to pay future benefits, and clearly ignored the word "trust" in the “Social Security Trust Fund.” Today, the Social Security Trust Fund contains only promises that the federal government will repay the fund.  

This deficit spending process was facilitated by the specific wording in sections 201 and 904 of the original 33 page Social Security Act of 1935.  Both sections state that all monies collected may only be invested “in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.” Congress was left to determine the nature of these “obligations”, which presumably could have included such tangible assets as gold, silver and the like.  Instead, Congress elected the option of “borrowing” the “surplus” taxes collected from the Social Security Trust Fund and spending the proceeds on other things.  From an accounting perspective, Congress created nothing more than a “Ponzi Scheme” because there is no guarantee that future tax payers can sustain the level of payments to current beneficiaries forever.  Such a system will eventually collapse, and could result in putting the federal government in default of its “obligations.”

By 1995, 95% of the American workforce, not subject to Congressional exclusions, were covered by the Social Security Act.  While many exemptions have been eliminated through 1990, six million government workers in the ten states of: Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio and Texas are still exempt from the act and it's taxation requirements.  

By 2011, more than 56 million people were covered by the Social Security Act spending $731 billion or 20% of the federal budget.  The Social Security Trust Fund had about $2.6 trillion in assets on the books.  The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax rate was 6.2%, paid each by the employee and employer, for a total of 12.4%, for the first $106,800.00 of income.  There were no “surplus” revenues because payouts to beneficiaries exceeded the tax payments deposited in the Social Security Trust Fund.  Federal spending that year was $3.46 trillion and the Treasury posted a $1.3 trillion federal deficit.  

Today, the Social Security Act is now the largest government social insurance program in the world measured in dollars paid.  

Predictions are that the Disability Insurance Trust Fund [Section 904 of the Social Security Act] will exhaust in 2016.  After 2020, the United States Treasury will need to fund the entire program by redeeming the unfunded “obligations” Congress created to pay program beneficiaries.  From an accounting perspective, the Treasury will continue to use this process until the projected absolute exhaustion of the entire Social Security Trust Fund balance sheet in 2033.  

The problem is getting worse.  The current economic recession, world economic problems, and other matters are putting formidable upward pressures on future projections.  Evidence is that the 2012 projection from the “Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees” exhaustion date of 2033 comes 3 years earlier than 2036 exhaustion date projected in 2011, only one year earlier.  

Congress is well aware of the “ticking time bomb” aspect of the Social Security Trust Fund.  Printing money is not the solution – it causes inflation which every American suffers from.  "Kicking the can down the road” only passes the problem on to our children and grandchildren.  A “Balanced Budget” amendment to the Constitution pursuant to Article V of the Constitution would help.  But, Congress has consistently opposed it simply because balancing the books takes away the politically popular option of deficit spending.  This whole matter is plainly a “third-rail” issue because the people who funded the program through payroll taxes are not to be trifled with for fear that these people will reflect their outrage at the ballot box.  Getting reelected is indeed at risk.  Predictably, sustained legislative paralysis has ensued.  The fact is that the problem is real and it is being ignored by Congress and the President.  

The consequences of what started in 1935 are now overwhelming as a result of a mere 33 pages of unconstitutional legislation.  If Congress only had stuck with the framer's concept of a limited federal government, that is, without a federal government run insurance program, we would not be in this mess now.  

Let's look at this issue at the personal level to understand the problem in simple terms.  Commonly understood is that if somebody took your money with the intent to deprive you of said monies, this act would be called theft.  It is a crime.  Now comes Congress persistently collecting taxes for one thing, then “borrowing” the money to spend it on another thing, and putting forth no plan to repay the “borrowed” monies.  Did Congress steal the “surplus” money from the Social Security Trust Fund? It certainly looks like it.  

How can we solve the problem?

The first problem to solve is that Congress needs to stop stealing the “surplus” money from the Social Security Trust Fund and start putting back what it “borrowed.” As Will Rogers once said: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. "

The second problem to solve is cash flow.  When the “baby boomers” reach retirement age, the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to remain insufficient indefinably to satisfy the level of benefit payments compared to a smaller number of projected wage earners paying into it.  The only available long-term remedy is for Congress to either vote to raise Social Security Act taxes, or diminish Social Security Act benefits, or both.  

The third problem to solve is the lack of personal and fiduciary responsibility.  As Alexander Tyler said in 1787: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

During the eight years from January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001, the total public debt outstanding went from $4.1 trillion to $5.7 trillion for an increase of $1.6 trillion.  In the next eight years, it increased by $4.9 trillion to $10.6 trillion.  Today, less than four years later, it has increased by $5.3 trillion to $15.9 trillion.  Congress has not enacted a federal budget each year, as required by law, for the last 1,200 days.  The Senate majority leader has not allowed the budget from the House come to the Senate floor for a vote for three years.  The President's two budgets for fiscal 2011 and 2012 were both unanimously rejected, respectively, in the Senate by 0-97, and the next year in the house of representatives by 0-414 and by the Senate 0-99.  None of the President's four budgets included a plan to save Social Security.  There is no budget approved for the next fiscal year.  Why do we have this problem? The answer is simple.  Congress and the President embrace relentless deficit spending and they see themselves as responsible fiduciary actors.  Conversely, the Republic cannot continue to exist by “borrowing” 40 cents of every dollar it spends.  The fact is that we cannot spend our way out of debt!

Let's set aside the details and get down to basic logic.  Congress doesn't want a balanced budget.  If Congress wanted a balanced budget, Congress could simply take a vote to make it so.  Since Congress doesn't want a balanced budget, “We the People” need to force the federal budget to be balanced.  Such will then force Congress every year to vote on what to fund, what not to fund, or to fund what is left over by raising taxes.  By these votes, the people will have a better measure to determine who in Congress is fiscally responsible, or not.  How do we make this happen? Start work on “Change” with a Constitutional amendment, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, which requires the federal budget to be balanced.  After reading the foregoing story, if you are convinced that we need to act now - call your Senator and Member of the House – make them do it.  

On January 20, 1961, John F.  Kennedy said “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Accordingly, “We the People” need to put the country first and stop voting for people who vote for deficit spending.  Let's vote for candidates who have read, understand, and will abide by the Constitution and the oath to defend it.  If not, we eventually will be left with Alexander Tyler proven right once again, as governments before us have fallen for the same reason.  

Political patronage is defined as the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. Progressives use this approach, culling people by race, sex, religion, income, class and/or political affiliation, then appealing to each group's specific wants and desires, with the overall goal to cobble together a majority vote to get their Progressive politicians elected. In process, Progressives promote and inculcate the need to band together with other Progressives and rebel against the "enemy" - the dastardly politicians, the rich, and the greedy corporations, who by no mere coincidence collectively represent a minority of the voting pool.

In practice, Progressives put forth the need for hasty "emergency" measures to combat the "enemy", and justify these "temporary" needs for setting aside the requirements of the Republic’s Constitution and laws, presumably for the "greater good". Fiscal restraint is a foreign concept to Progressives - there is rarely a mention of how the cost of their agenda bears upon the government's capacity to fund it. Often times the Progressive's process oriented "emergency" measures have lofty goals and promises for results, delayed long into the future. Most of these measures lack clear implementation details, especially the negative elements, before such is enacted. This gives the Progressive the initial opportunity to claim a measure of success with "change", then blame any failures on the "enemy", which gives rise to the need for even more "emergency" measures to sustain combat with the “enemy”. Claims by the "enemy" are often met with personal attacks against them when the "enemy" puts forth logical, sound and compelling evidence against the Progressive's measures.

Progressives prefer to focus on selecting "victims" to justify the expansion of the welfare state, rather than resolve issues using the traditional nature of people to provide charity. Progressives achieve the goal of producing an expanded government by promoting the confiscation of wealth from one group to benefit another group in order to curry political favor. Progressives rely heavily on redistribution of wealth as the key to success. However, the recipients of wealth redistribution often go not to the "victims", but to the expansion of Progressive machinery creating more and more government control over the people. The economy worsens. No matter, the Progressive presses on – such is the fault of the "enemy", world events or political opponents - not them.

Progressives have powerful tools in their toolbox - they foster hatred, envy, blame, grievance and demands for entitlements to "victims." Lost by Progressives is the American spirit embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution which encourages initiative, personal responsibility and the right to be free from an unlimited federal government. TEA Party patriots are the newest group of conservative "extremists" as defined by Progressives. This is entirely logical because Progressives oppose our Republic's fundamental founding principles and ignore the Constitutional requirements which are inconsistent with the Progressive agenda. The Progressive's philosophy is a paradox of values – it represents a body of political elements that collectively contradicts itself. One need look no further than our history books to learn that the Progressive march toward a utopian socialist state, facilitated by an expanded federal government, finds little respect for such as those, more or less fortunate, who lie outside of their political critical mass of potential voters, or for human life for such as the unborn.

The plain fact is that government is the actual "enemy" of the engine of growth and prosperity because it does not create wealth - it consumes it. Applying the Progressive's goal to expand government results in incrementally punishing achievement and rewarding failure. Interference into business by a government, which would confiscate business profits, enslaves producers of goods and services. Liberty and freedom become casualties. Plainly, jobs are reduced when government makes it more difficult for employers to earn success in a diminished level of free market opportunities. Big government has a compelling and sustained historical record of inefficiency in using resources and producing politically driven regulations. These factors stand to undercut the tenets that the country was founded upon: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. An so it is that the more that an economy is centrally planned by government, the further we move away from our founding principles which have kept us safe, free and economically stable.

And there we have it – the Progressive movement today in America is a quest to affect broader governmental powers over the individual; it is based on an insidious and deceptive process which constantly seeks out "victims", then divides the "victims" into discrete groups of voters, with focused promises to each group of their "fair share" level of largesse from the public treasury, or from such wealth confiscated from the "enemy", in exchange for their vote for Progressive politicians. The cycle continues with Progressives promising more largesse and blaming all promised failures on the dastardly "enemy" which accordingly justifies the need to vote for more Progressives. The cycle ends in bankruptcy - that is, when the treasury of the government can no longer support the levels of largesse demanded by the Progressives and their "victims."

Conclusion: A politician who is committed to telling the truth in an election campaign will almost always be defeated by a clever and resourceful purveyor of deception. That is why Progressives are so successful and that is why governments collapse.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"   Rahm Emanuel, Nov 19, 2008

"In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale,transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices."   Senator Feinstein, December 17, 2012

Senator Feinstein's statement above, on her web site, is not exactly the full and honest truth.   After reading the bill, one can only conclude that her gun ban objective is not about banning fully automatic machine guns used by the military as the thrust of her words seem to imply.

And, it is hard to imagine that her legislation will actually result in effectively addressing the underlying issues associated with preventing mass killings.  In fact, such intuitively may rise as more law abiding citizens are disarmed.

And, her bill is not just a renewal of the 1994 assault weapons ban.  Instead, her bill is an extremely far-reaching and unprecedented expansion of that now defunct law. 

Read the bill directly from her web site:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

THE FACTS:

Senator Feinstein is not trying to ban machine guns or take guns away from criminals.  Machine guns are already banned from manufacture, import and the like.  Criminals have guns because criminals ignore laws, and this is just another one they will ignore.

Senator Feinstein's bill is so extreme and expansive, that ordinary small caliber target rifles need to be specifically exempted because such gets caught up in her new liberal definition of a "Military Style Assault Weapon." 

For example, the small caliber target rifle shown below needs an exemption.  This gun clearly is not "Military Style", but it is included in her narrative definition!  Is such just misspoken political rhetoric in her quote above, or just a deliberate lie to sell the bill to the uninformed citizenry?

You must decide this for yourself by reading the bill.



THE POLITICAL CALCULUS:

The politics of the bill are fairly obvious.  The pervasive progressive media propagates the bill as a tool to end the proliferation of "assault weapons", presumably to prevent or minimize future mass killings.

Rarely of mention in the press is that the narrative definition of this bill is ambiguous and contradictory.  As a result, the bill needs to exempt over 2,200 weapons because they are clearly not assault weapons.  But they fit the narrative!  Hello?

Accordingly, there is little doubt that an underlying Saul Alinsky process is in play: (a) obscure the full thrust, intent and negative aspects of the legislation; and (b) give more liberty and freedoms to the government, without any credible proof.  The game plan: a lie told often enough may eventually be accepted as a truth.

THE CONSTITUTION:

Then, there is the fact that this bill is unconstitutional.  If Senator Feinstein wanted to do this according to the Constitution, and be loyal to the oath of office she took to uphold the Constitution, she should have filed a Constitutional amendment modifying the Second Amendment via Article V.   see: https://constitution.com/

Why did she avoid what is prescribed by the Constitution?

The answer is simple - it would never get ratified.

Instead, Senator Feinstein simply ignored the Constitution as progressive Democrats have done since Roosevelt.  Acts that, over a long period, have plunged us into unsustainable debt and insidiously striped citizens of their God given rights to freedom and liberty.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.  It is about government tyranny and a citizen's right to self defense.

All one needs to do is to look at the history of the Constitution or at the founders discussions of the Second Amendment in the Federalist papers for a start.  There is no mention of hunting or a requirement to get a license to exercise a right.

The Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the only right with the qualifier "which shall not be infringed."  The intent of such words is unmistakeable.

If one were from another planet upon actually reading the Constitution, one might logically conclude that the Senator does not even suspect we have a Constitution which indeed limits the powers of Congress in this regard.

Did you ever wonder why Congress has a low approval rating? Look no further than this unconstitutional legislation, notwithstanding the fact that it makes absolutely no claim to actually solving the gun violence problem created by criminals. 

Instead, Senator Feinstein wants to disarm law abiding citizens and abuse their Second Amendment rights, and further expand the potential for criminals to take advantage of a potential new paradigm of "killing fields" created by disarming only law abiding citizens.

MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1994 EXPIRED GUN BAN:

By changing the "TWO" metric, which was in the 1994 "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" definition, to "ONE", thousands of guns are added to the list of "Military Style Assault Weapon"s.

The "forward grip" which Senator Feinstein added, made virtually every hunting rifle a "Military Style Assault Weapon."  The purpose of which is undoubtedly to establish a list of guns that the Congress needs to approve of every time a new gun tries to make it to the marketplace. 

This predictably will be the genesis of the progressive's plan to eventually ban all rifles, except those in the hands of the government, or those that Congress will let you have.  The Second Amendment becomes a casualty of politics.

If you own a "grandfathered" weapon, you will also need to pay a federal fee established by the Attorney General, not Congress, to give your gun to a family member.

"Military Style Assault Weapon"s with the "threaded barrel" and/or "barrel shroud" typically supports the use of perfectly legal flash/noise suppressors that are used at many target ranges to reduce noise to the neighbors.  This adversely affects target and hunting clubs and likely will drive up complaints from neighbors of gun clubs.  If you only had this feature on your pistol, the previous ban would not have applied. This ban would include these pistols.

IN SUMMARY:

Senator Feinstein wants to ban guns - as many as possible, and ultimately put gun manufacturers out of business, and attack gun clubs, and further depreciate the gun rights guaranteed to citizens by the United States Constitution.

Whether or not you own a gun, want to own a gun or don't even consider getting one is irrelevant to this discussion.  If you want to prevent Congress from abusing the Bill of Rights for a class of citizens, gun owners in this case, then stand up now and be heard.  Otherwise, you, I or your neighbor will be next to lose a little liberty and freedom, one step at a time, when gun owners don't care after you tacitly helped take their rights away.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."     Benjamin Franklin

 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN of 2013:

Senator Feinstein's own words are the best proof of the foregoing remarks.  The following words are from bill, pages 2 through 4:

"The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following,
regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

  (A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable
        magazine and any two one of the following:
      (i)   A pistol grip.
      (ii)  A forward grip.
      (iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
      (iv)  A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
      (v)   A barrel shroud.
      (vi)  A threaded barrel.
 
  (B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to
       accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device
       designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber
       rim fire ammunition.

  (C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or
        accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire
        of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into
        a machine gun.

  (D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable
        magazine and any any two one of the following:
      (i)   A threaded barrel.
      (ii)  A second pistol grip.

      (iii) A barrel shroud.
      (iv)  The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
             outside of the pistol grip.
      (v)   A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

  (E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity
       to accept more than 10 rounds.

  (F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any of the following:
      (i)   A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
      (ii)  A pistol grip.
      (iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.
      (iv)  The ability to accept a detachable magazine.
      (v)   A forward grip.
      (vi)  A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

  (G) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder."

The Constitution was adopted by a convention of the States on September 17, 1787.  It was ratified by nine States pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina and New Hampshire.  Ratification was completed on June 21, 1788.  

The Constitution “ ... shall be the supreme law of the land ... ” pursuant to Article VI.  It represents a body of fundamental law put forth under the authority of the people, which guarantees the people their God given rights and establishes the government of the United States of America.  In it, the founding fathers of the Republic detailed the scope of federal powers to affect a limited federal government, and it conversely empowers the sovereign states or the people with all other powers.  Specifically, the Constitution defines the three co-equal branches of the federal government in Article I, II and III; each delineating their respective roles and powers within the federal government.  Article IV defines the role of the sovereign states.  

The sole process to amend the Constitution is found in Article V.  When a proposed law is put forth for passage by Congress, or to be signed by the President, that fails the test of constitutionality, Article V is the only authoritative path available to make such law constitutional.  To ensure this process trigger, the President is subject to an oath of office pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 8, to “ ... preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Other parts of the Constitution impose similar requirements on other federal office holders.  There are now twenty seven amendments to the Constitution, including the "Bill of Rights", which rights were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the First Congress on September 25, 1789.  Ten of the twelve submitted were ratified by the eleven States of: New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.  Ratification was completed on December 15, 1791.  The last amendment to the Constitution was ratified on May 7, 1992, more than 202 years after being first proposed.  

The first branch of the federal government, the legislative branch, is set forth pursuant to Article I, Section 1, of the Constitution: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I, Section 8, details eighteen clauses known as the "Enumerated Powers" of Congress which identifies the bounds of Congressional legislative power.  The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " This amendment, as part of the "Bill of Rights", sets forth the Constitutional mandate that all other legislative powers, outside of the eighteen "Enumerated Powers" assigned to Congress belong to the sovereign states or to the people.  Accordingly, such limits the breadth of federal powers.  

The second branch of the federal government, the executive branch, is set forth pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, Section 1, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” In summary of Section 2, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, ….and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment … and … with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, … appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, … and … fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate … .” The President has no legislative or judicial powers.  Pursuant to Article II, Section 3, “ ... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ... ”.  

The third branch of the federal government, the judicial branch, is set forth pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ... " whose decisions serve to adjudicate certain Constitutional controversies.  The Supreme Court has no legislative or executive powers, nor the power to interpret the Constitution, or to amend it, or to create new constitutional rights, or to destroy old ones.  Although, the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy is not contained in the Constitution, the court expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v.  Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), whereby the court claimed the authority to evaluate challenged legislation and other matters to determine its constitutionality, and to nullify any laws the court found to be unconstitutional.  Pursuant to Article III, Section 1, justices “ ... shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”.  Accordingly, abuses of Judicial Supremacy or other act proven to be other than “good Behaviour” could result in articles of impeachment voted by the House of Representatives, and, if impeached, the Senate would conduct a trial to determine the party's guilt or innocence.  

[Legislative Powers of Congress -and- the Enumerated Powers of Congress]

Article I.   [Ten (10) Sections in total – Section 1 and 8.in their entirety]

Section 1.   [Legislative Powers of Congress]

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.  

Section.  8.   [Enumerated Powers of Congress]

Clause 1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3:  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4:  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5:  To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6:  To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7:  To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8:  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9:  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12:  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13:  To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14:  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16:  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17:  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18:  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.  

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    Abraham Lincoln

Why are Conservatives called extremists by Progressives, Liberals and Socialists?
And conversely, why are Progressives, Liberals and Socialists called exteremeists by Conservatives?

The answer is simple - it depends on the base from which one views the power of the government.

Conservatives support following the Constitution and putting forth amendments to the sovereign states to address any required changes, pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, for ratification by three quarters of the states. In short, the Conservative's desire is to conserve the Constitution and all of its requirements.

Progressives, Liberals and Socialists prefer to simply skip the ratification process required by Article V of the Constitution, and instead grant unwritten powers to Congress to act as if the Constitution was already amended. This avoids the possibility that their desired changes would fail to survive the ratification process.