Current debunk
Biden Bursts Through Door Into Despotism archive
Welcome to debunking theofficialurban substack
This site is a place to debunk any glaring issues on theofficialurban substack.
Judicial Review and Despotism
Claim: "In 1803, Thomas Jefferson opined that the courts granting themselves the power of Judicial Review could lead to despotism in America. I posit that this has finally occurred through the redefining of the word, “pardon” by our most Supreme Court."
Fact: The article suggests that Thomas Jefferson warned about the potential for despotism through judicial review. While Jefferson did express concerns about the judiciary's power, the concept of judicial review has been a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system since Marbury v. Madison (1803). This power allows the courts to interpret the Constitution and ensure that laws passed by Congress are constitutional.
Preemptive Pardons
Claim: Learn how the Preemptive Pardon Doesn't Exist, and What the American People Can Do to Stop It.
Fact: The article claims that President Biden issued "preemptive pardons," a term it argues has no legal basis. While the term "preemptive pardon" is not explicitly defined in legal dictionaries, the power of the president to pardon is broad and has been interpreted to include pardons issued before conviction. Notable examples include President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon and President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft evaders.
Redefining "Pardon":
Claim: I posit that this has finally occurred through the redefining of the word, “pardon” by our most Supreme Court.
Fact: The article argues that the definition of "pardon" has been redefined by the courts to include more than just punishment. The Supreme Court has indeed interpreted the pardon power broadly. In Ex parte Garland (1866), the Court held that a pardon can be granted at any time after the commission of an offense, whether before or after conviction. This interpretation is consistent with the broad language of the Constitution's pardon clause.
Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review
Claim: The courts unilaterally granted themselves the power of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison.
Fact: Marbury v. Madison established Judicial Review as part of the U.S. checks and balances system, ensuring that laws comply with the Constitution.
Black's Law Dictionary and the Constitution
Claim: The courts have redefined the Constitution through Black's Law Dictionary.
Fact: Black's Law Dictionary is a legal reference, not an authority that redefines the Constitution. Constitutional amendments require the formal process outlined in Article V.
Living Constitution
Claim: The courts have invented the notion of a "living Constitution" to redefine it for modern times.
Fact: The article criticizes the courts for engaging in judicial activism by redefining constitutional terms. While judicial activism is a subject of debate, the courts have the responsibility to interpret the Constitution in light of changing societal norms and legal precedents. This is often referred to as the "living Constitution" doctrine, which acknowledges that the Constitution's meaning can evolve over time.
Special Convention
Claim: The People should hold a Special Convention to address these issues.
Fact:The article suggests holding a Special Convention to address these issues. While the Constitution provides for a convention to propose amendments, this process is initiated by the states, not the federal government. The last (and only) time this method was used was for the original Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Conclusion: it would be helpful to consult legal experts and historical documents. The interpretations of the Constitution and the powers of the presidency are complex and often subject to debate among legal scholars.