The Robert's Court's controversies occur around States Rights.

July 3, 2019
By Robert Longley

In American government, (click here) states’ rights are the rights and powers reserved by the state governments rather than the national government according to the U.S. Constitution. From the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to the Civil War in 1861 to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, to today’s marijuana legalization movement, the question of the rights of the states to govern themselves has been the focus of the American political landscape for well over two centuries....

They are methodically removing federal authority. Quite interesting to me even today was the Robert's Court giving protections to Trump during a Congressional investigation. Trump was impeached twice and may yet stand for a third or more in the future as more of his underhanded administration carried on with it's corruption.

There are plenty reasons for the Robert's Court to be reviewed in it's decisions and the American people to be skepitical of it's agenda. Yes, agenda. Roe v. Wade was settled law, and rightfully so, until this court decided it had power to overturn the decision. That is a political decision ideology and not Rule of Law.

The decisions of the Robert's Court must be reviewed for the agenda they carry forward. There are underlying rules they are playing by that are not within the scope of American law.

When one examines the dissolving of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was all based in States Rights over that of the citizen(s).

The Court’s Decision (click here) After describing the history of how subpoena-based disputes between Congress and various presidents have been resolved, the Court discussed the basis for—and limits to—Congress’s subpoena power. Specifically, the Court affirmed that Congress’s subpoena power cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. In other words, Congress cannot use its subpoena authority to put someone on trial for a crime or wrongdoing, nor does Congress have the “power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Slip Op. at 12. Indeed, the Court confirmed that congressional investigations used solely to “punish” those investigated would be “indefensible.” Not only that, the Court reinforced the limitations to the subpoena power, including that the subpoena must serve a “valid legislative purpose,” and is proper only if it is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.” Slip Op. at 11. In addition, the Court reaffirmed that those subject to a congressional subpoena have both constitutional However, the Court, at the same time, reaffirmed Congress’s broad subpoena power, which aids “Congress’s important interest in conducting inquiries to obtain the information it needs to legislate effectively.” Slip Op. at 14. The Court stressed the concept that the subpoena power is a “power of inquiry,” which is “essential” to serve the “legislative function.” Slip Op. at 11....