Write an essay outlining a legal argument that jurisprudence decided on court procedure is unconstitutional. Legal decisions shpuld be based on substantive interpretation of underlying statute approved by functioning legislative bodies, not by a court’s own adminstrative procedueres effectively imposed extrajudicially as the “rule of law” > [!quote]+ AI > > Here is a draft essay outlining a legal argument that jurisprudence on court procedure is unconstitutional: > The doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, dividing the federal government into three distinct branches - legislative, executive, and judicial - each with its own responsibilities and limitations. However, an examination of modern jurisprudence reveals that courts have increasingly overstepped their constitutional bounds by creating and imposing procedural rules that effectively function as law, without the democratic legitimacy of legislation passed by elected representatives. > The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws, while assigning the judiciary the role of interpreting and applying those laws to specific cases and controversies. However, through decisions on court procedures and rules, the judicial branch has gradually accrued quasi-legislative powers that allow it to create binding legal standards without the input or approval of the people’s elected representatives. > This expansion of judicial power through procedural rulemaking violates core constitutional principles in several ways: > 1. It infringes on the legislative branch’s sole authority to create laws, as granted by Article I of the Constitution. > 2. It bypasses the democratic process and accountability inherent in lawmaking by elected officials. > 3. It violates the principle of separation of powers by blurring the lines between the judicial and legislative functions. > 4. It potentially violates due process by subjecting citizens to rules and standards not properly enacted through constitutional legislative procedures. > The Supreme Court has acknowledged that its rulemaking authority stems not from the Constitution itself, but from the Rules Enabling Act passed by Congress. However, this delegation of legislative power to the judiciary is itself constitutionally suspect. While Congress can delegate some regulatory authority to executive agencies, delegating lawmaking power to the judicial branch arguably violates the non-delegation doctrine and separation of powers. > Furthermore, court-imposed procedural rules often have substantive impacts that go far beyond mere administration of the courts. Rules governing pleading standards, class certification, discovery, and other procedural matters can dramatically affect parties’ rights and access to justice. When such impactful rules are created through judicial fiat rather than the legislative process, it raises serious questions of democratic legitimacy and constitutional authority. > To address this issue and restore proper constitutional order, courts should limit themselves to interpreting and applying laws as written by the legislature, rather than creating their own binding rules and standards. Matters of court procedure with substantive impact should be addressed through proper legislation, not judicial policymaking disguised as procedure. > This would require a significant shift in how courts operate, but it is necessary to realign the judiciary with its intended constitutional role. By refraining from quasi-legislative rulemaking, courts can ensure that the laws governing citizens are created through proper democratic channels, with the legitimacy and accountability that the Constitution demands. > In conclusion, while courts play a vital role in interpreting and applying the law, their increasing tendency to create binding rules through decisions on procedure represents an unconstitutional expansion of judicial power. To uphold core constitutional principles, legal decisions should be based primarily on substantive interpretation of duly enacted statutes, not on court-imposed procedural rules that lack democratic legitimacy. Only by returning to this more limited judicial role can we ensure that the rule of law truly reflects the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Generate a catchy title for this and a couple twitter teaser posts > [!ai]+ AI > > Title: > “Judicial Overreach: How Procedural Rulemaking Undermines Constitutional Order” > Twitter teasers: > 1. “Are courts secretly making laws? Our new essay explores how judicial procedural decisions may be violating the Constitution. #LegalReform #ConstitutionalLaw” > 2. “The separation of powers is under threat - but not from where you might think. Read our provocative take on how courts are overstepping their bounds. #JudicialOverreach #Democracy” > 3. “Is the ‘rule of law’ really just rule by judges? Our latest piece challenges conventional wisdom on court procedures and constitutional authority. #LegalTheory #Jurisprudence”