Posted on November 17, 2017 by Greg Penglis
Introduction:
Sponsor legislation to remove the power and practice of Judicial Review, to bring the Federal Judiciary back into constitutional compliance with Article III. Impeach and remove all judges including the Supreme Court who have practiced Judicial Review, and place Juries and State Courts back at the head of any constitutional challenge. Put all Legislatures back in charge of reviewing jury nullified law for possible rewrite or repeal. Empower and educate the citizenry that the Constitution is easily read and understood, and doesn’t need to be explained by lawyers, nor interpreted (changed) by judges, including Supreme Court Judges.
Judicial Review:
The power to “interpret” the Constitution was specifically left out of the Constitution, because the States who ratified the Constitution would never give over to the Judiciary, the power to overrule the State Legislatures, Courts, and Executives, by “interpreting” and therefore “controlling” the Constitution and all the issues surrounding it. Judicial Review makes the dangerous extension from “interpretation,” to “reparation.” If the Courts control the interpretations, why shouldn’t they also control the remedies? It is that logic by which the Federal Judiciary has further usurped and granted to themselves, more power than they can have if we are to remain a Republic. This artificially created remedy power is expressed in injunctions, where some tiny District Judge stops a law, regulation or policy of the entire Executive and the President; or issues orders, like requiring a President to maintain the unconstitutional powers of a previous President as in DACA: or they write national policies like Roe v Wade, which are pure legislation.
No government entity can give “themselves” power. No power not specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the States through the Constitution – exists. Therefore Judicial Review does not exist. All such Federal Court or Judicial actions based on Judicial Review are moot, as the authority to make them never existed.
Interpreting vs. Using the Constitution:
There is a fine line for all Courts — Federal, State and Local — between “interpreting” the Constitution, and “using” it. It is not the intention of this legislation to remove any legitimate, delegated power to any court. Rather, it is to remove any power the Courts have created for themselves, deemed permissible to create by themselves, and practiced as if such non-delegated powers were legal, which they are not. For example, Article III of the Constitution delegates to the Supreme Court the judicial power over all cases arising “under” the Constitution, which means the Courts are restricted in their authority to “only” the cases themselves.
Any power exercised beyond the cases before them using what is commonly defined as Judicial Review, is an extra-constitutional power and therefore illegal. In other words, the Supreme Court may rule in a case that a law, regulation or policy under dispute by parties to a case is unconstitutional, and use that as a basis for their rulings, but they may go no further. They can not strike down or abolish any law, regulation or policy. The repeal of any law, as with the creation of any law, is solely a legislative function, and therefore only for Congress to do.
The Judiciary can not create rights, make up rights, propose or implement remedies, rules, policies, nor require any action of any kind upon any other entity of government in the opinion of any particular case as they are limited by the Constitution to only the parties of that case. The State and Local Courts per the 14th Amendment shall be bound by this same Constitutional limitation for cases arising under the Constitution for State and Local jurisdictions.
The Tenth Amendment:
If this message were not clear enough, the Tenth Amendment explicitly declares that ANY power, NOT SPECIFICALLY delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution, is reserved to the States, or to the People. Therefore, any issue of constitutionality resulting from any Federal Government law, regulation or policy, should also be judged by the State Governments, individually, whether they are in fact under Federal Jurisdiction, whether they are Constitutional, and if not, whether the individual States will comply, or not. There is no duty or obligation to comply with unconstitutional acts of the Federal Government. There is however a duty to resist such acts so that the States maintain their superior position over the limited powers of the Federal Government.
Juries:
The other great reservoir of power superior to all Judiciaries, are JURIES. Juries are the representatives of the People, in a judicial system which is administered by the government. Since the government operates with the consent of the People, the Courts operate with the consent of Juries. All Juries shall be instructed that it is their duty to judge the fairness, efficacy, constitutionality, practicality, and any other criteria they choose, of any law, policy or regulation, that becomes part of their case. All Juries shall be instructed as to their power of Jury Nullification, whereby they can rule or nullify the law or laws applied or in question, and find not guilty or for the defendant, or for any party in a civil case, on that basis alone — and not deal only with the facts, which is the common yet criminal practice of the current Judiciary. Congress may want to expand the Federal Judiciary to include “constitutional juries” of the people to review policies, laws, and regulations which is their power under Article I, in lieu of Judicial Review.
Judicial Review Exclusions:
The Congress shall attach a rider to every new bill: “This Legislation shall not be subject to Judicial Review by any member of the Federal Judiciary, as this power was never delegated to the Judiciary by Article III of the Constitution.”
The President should do the same for executive orders with this statement: “This Executive Order shall not be subject to Judicial Review as this was never a delegated power under Article III of the Constitution.”
This statement can be added to any bill or executive order: “All such challenges to the constitutionality of any federal law or action of Congress shall reside with the States as the creators of the Constitution, and Juries as representatives of the People.”
This statement could also be added to either legislation and/or executive orders. “Only through cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, shall the Judiciary have any jurisdiction, and only to the boundaries of the parties involved in the case, as prescribed in Article III, Section 2. No law, suspension, injunction, or order of any kind shall be made through any Judicial action resulting from any interpretation of the Constitution, nor shall any opinion extend beyond the case itself.”
This is a new section to the bill to make it actual legislation. It was added 10/21/2025, and was written with Grok AI.
This legislation is groundbreaking for introducing two new and incredible legal structures and concepts, for the first time being put in federal law. Those are the Citizen Grand Jury, and the Citizen Constitutional Jury.
A BILL:
To abolish the unconstitutional power of Judicial Review, which is not delegated to the federal judiciary under Article III and violates the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states and the People, by limiting federal courts to case-specific rulings, prohibiting courts from striking down laws, establishing citizen constitutional juries to review the constitutionality of federal actions, and establishing citizen grand juries to investigate federal crimes, empowering the People to uphold the Constitution’s plain text as written.
Findings
- The Constitution does not delegate the power of Judicial Review to the federal judiciary under Article III, and per the Tenth Amendment, no branch may create its own powers.
- Judicial Review lacks reciprocal checks, as neither the President’s veto power (Article II) nor Congress’s legislative authority (Article I) extends to judicial rulings, violating the separation of powers.
- Article III, Section 2 provides sufficient authority for courts to resolve cases and controversies by applying the Constitution’s plain text, without invalidating laws.
- The authority of citizen constitutional and grand juries to review laws or investigate crimes derives from the People’s sovereignty, not from Marbury v. Madison (1803), which is not required to establish that unconstitutional acts are void.
- The People, through citizen constitutional juries and citizen grand juries, and states, through Tenth Amendment authority, can serve as effective checks on federal overreach, replacing the unauthorized practice of Judicial Review.
- Citizen jurors require protections akin to federal whistleblowers to ensure fearless participation in reviewing laws or investigating crimes, safeguarding their role as constitutional checks.
- The undefined nature of “good behavior” under Article III, Section 1, allows Congress to establish a broad standard for judicial removal, distinct from and easier to apply than the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard for executive officers under Article II, Section 4.
- The federal government’s selective exemption of certain laws, such as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d), from Judicial Review, while imposing it elsewhere, demonstrates the arbitrary and hypocritical application of an undelegated power, justifying its complete prohibition and replacement with citizen constitutional and grand juries as consistent, People-driven checks on federal overreach.
Section 1: Amendments to Title 28
28 U.S.C. § 1251 – Original Jurisdiction
Add subsection (c):
(c) Prohibition of Judicial Review. The Supreme Court and inferior federal courts are prohibited from exercising Judicial Review, defined as striking down, suspending, modifying, or issuing injunctions against federal or state laws, regulations, or executive actions, as this power is not delegated by Article III and violates the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of non-delegated powers. The Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, is limited to resolving cases and controversies by applying the Constitution’s plain text to the parties involved, without invalidating laws or creating rights beyond the case. Courts shall determine in their rulings whether laws applied to cases are constitutional and may declare such laws unconstitutional as the basis or part of their final judgments. Such rulings shall be forwarded to Congress and the President for legislative and executive action.
28 U.S.C. § 1659 – State Authority Under the Tenth Amendment
(a) State Authority. Per the Tenth Amendment, states are free to exercise any power not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states. States are not obligated to comply with federal actions they deem unconstitutional, as Judicial Review, prohibited under 28 U.S.C. § 1251, exceeds Article III authority.
(b) Judicial Limitation. Federal courts shall not preempt state determinations of unconstitutionality except when resolving a specific case or controversy under Article III, Section 2, limited to the parties involved, without broader effect.
(c) Congressional and Executive Action. Congress and the President shall consider court rulings or state determinations identifying unconstitutional federal actions for legislative or executive action.
28 U.S.C. § 1660 – Legislative and Executive Exemptions
(a) Legislative Exemption. Congress may include in legislation: “This legislation is exempt from Judicial Review, as this power is not delegated under Article III and violates the Tenth Amendment. Constitutional challenges shall be resolved by Congress, states (28 U.S.C. § 1659), or citizen constitutional juries (28 U.S.C. § 130).”
(b) Executive Exemption. The President may include in executive orders: “This executive order is exempt from Judicial Review, as this power is not delegated under Article III and violates the Tenth Amendment. Constitutional challenges shall be resolved by Congress, states, or citizen constitutional juries.”
(c) Alternative Checks. Constitutional challenges shall be resolved by Congress (Article I), states (28 U.S.C. § 1659), or citizen constitutional juries (28 U.S.C. § 130), with citizen grand juries addressing criminal violations (28 U.S.C. § 131).
(d) Judicial Limitation. Federal courts shall apply the Constitution as written in cases under Article III, Section 2, limited to the parties, and shall not issue orders or injunctions beyond the case.
28 U.S.C. § 1661 – Citizen Constitutional Juries
(a) Establishment. Congress shall establish citizen constitutional juries to review the constitutionality of federal laws, regulations, or executive actions, serving as a check on government overreach, pursuant to the People’s sovereignty under the Constitution’s preamble and Tenth Amendment.
(b) Composition and Selection. Juries shall consist of 12–23 U.S. citizens, randomly selected from voter rolls, with citizenship verified by birth certificate, passport, or naturalization records. No legal expertise is required, as the Constitution is written in clear language and designed to be applied as written.
(c) Initiation. Challenges shall be initiated by:
(1) A petition signed by at least 10,000 verified U.S. citizens, with at least 2,000 signatures from across at least 5 states, verified by a federal elections clerk;
(2) A state legislature resolution, automatically convening a jury;
(3) A congressional request, automatically convening a jury;
(4) Any federal court ruling declaring a law unconstitutional, per 28 U.S.C. § 1251(c), automatically convening a jury.
(d) Powers and Process. Juries shall:
(1) Receive the Constitution, the challenged law/action, historical context (e.g., Federalist Papers), and judicial/scholarly works on relevant constitutional provisions;
(2) Ask questions of court officials, legal experts, or relevant parties and request evidence to assess constitutionality;
(3) Apply the Constitution’s plain text to determine if the action is unconstitutional;
(4) Issue citizen judicial opinions to Congress or the President for legislative/executive action, with opinions included in official court records.
(e) Transparency and Education. Proceedings shall be public, with findings and opinions published to educate citizens on their constitutional authority.
(f) Protections for Jurors.
(1) Anti-Retaliation. No person shall take adverse action (e.g., harassment, threats, employment discrimination, civil suits) against a juror for good-faith participation, including asking questions, requesting evidence, or issuing opinions.
(2) Confidentiality. Jurors may request anonymity in public records, subject to court approval, to prevent retaliation.
(3) Legal Remedies. Jurors facing retaliation may seek damages, attorney fees, or injunctive relief in federal court, modeled on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
(4) Immunity. Jurors shall have qualified immunity from civil liability (e.g., defamation) for good-faith participation, including questions and opinions.
(g) Limitations. Juries shall not strike down laws, as this is reserved to Congress under Article I. Findings may inform citizen grand juries under 28 U.S.C. § 1662.
28 U.S.C. § 1662 – Citizen Grand Juries
(a) Establishment. Congress shall authorize citizen grand juries to investigate violations of federal criminal law, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, serving as a check reserved to the People under the Tenth Amendment.
(b) Composition and Selection. Juries shall consist of 16–23 U.S. citizens, randomly selected from voter rolls, with citizenship verified by birth certificate, passport, or naturalization records. No legal expertise is required.
(c) Initiation. Investigations shall be initiated by:
(1) A petition signed by at least 10,000 verified U.S. citizens, with at least 2,000 signatures from across at least 5 states, verified by a federal elections clerk;
(2) A state legislature resolution, automatically convening a jury;
(3) A congressional request, automatically convening a jury.
(d) Powers and Process. Juries shall:
(1) Hear testimony and evidence, with jurors authorized to ask questions of witnesses, judges, prosecutors, defendants, or investigators to clarify evidence or establish probable cause;
(2) Request evidence relevant to the investigation;
(3) Issue citizen indictments, defined as non-binding findings of probable cause for federal crimes that trigger mandatory review by the Department of Justice within 60 days and by Congress for potential legislative action, if 12 jurors find probable cause;
(4) Submit citizen indictments and written opinions to the Department of Justice or Congress for further action, with indictments and opinions included in official court records.
(e) Transparency and Education. Proceedings shall be public to the extent practicable, with findings, questions, citizen indictments, and opinions published to educate citizens on their constitutional authority.
(f) Protections for Jurors.
(1) Anti-Retaliation. No person shall take adverse action (e.g., harassment, threats, employment discrimination, civil suits) against a juror for good-faith participation, including asking questions, requesting evidence, or issuing citizen indictments or opinions.
(2) Confidentiality. Jurors may request anonymity for their questions, evidence requests, citizen indictments, and identities in public records, subject to court approval.
(3) Legal Remedies. Jurors facing retaliation may seek damages, attorney fees, or injunctive relief in federal court, modeled on 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
(4) Immunity. Jurors shall have qualified immunity from civil liability (e.g., defamation) for good-faith questions, evidence requests, citizen indictments, or opinions.
(g) Limitations. Citizen indictments are non-binding and subject to review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Juries shall not interfere with prosecutorial discretion, and courts may quash bad-faith proceedings.
(h) Cross-Reference. Findings may inform citizen constitutional juries under 28 U.S.C. § 1661.
28 U.S.C. § 455 – Disqualification of Judges
Add subsection (g):
(g) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge attempting to exercise the illegal power of Judicial Review by writing into any court proceeding the striking down, suspending, or modifying of a law, regulation, or policy beyond the scope of a specific case fails to uphold good behavior under Article III, Section 1, and shall be subject to disqualification and removal by Congress, per its authority to ordain and establish courts under Article III, Section 1, and the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of non-delegated powers.
ENDORSEMENTS:
BILL STATUS:
COMMENTS: