← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 19639 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2005-08-14
2005-08-14 12:50 | User Profile
‘We the Judges’: How Judicial Activists Rewrite the Constitution
In our society today, there is a real and tangible concern about what is being called "judicial activism." Many conservative legal scholars say judges today are making absurd rulings based more on their liberal thinking than what the Constitution actually says. It is a fact that many court decisions are being made without any basis or case history or precedent. They are making laws from the bench, which is in itself unconstitutional! So how did we get to this point and what can be done about it?
The beginning of the United States Constitution reads, "We the People." But the way the courts have been ruling recently, many legal scholars say it could very easily read "We the Judges." These liberal activists judges act like they are God. They consider themselves, like Hillary Clinton, the elite and that they know better what is good for us than we do and we the people are all to dumb to make any decisions for ourselves or know what is best for us so they have to do it for us. So, they are cramming their immorality, their rejection of God and all that is hatred of God and His laws upon us and telling us we have to live by their laws and not God’s laws, making themselves above God.
"The problem is very grave because what you've done is take away democratic control of the culture," said former Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork.
Bork is leading the campaign against judicial activism. He is convinced that too many judges are making laws instead of interpreting them, and that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. "They are steadily enacting what you might call the liberal cultural agenda," he explained. And it is a godless agenda of immorality, of radical feminism that is hatred of authority, radical abortion that is nothing more than a sacrifice to the gods of free sex and pleasure, radical homosexuality which is a rejection of that which is natural for that which is perverse and radical environmentalism that is nothing more than nature worship of ‘mother earth’ rather than Father God.
That agenda is front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court where they recently ruled that Americans basically have a constitutional right to commit sodomy. Experts who believe in original intent say that is nowhere in the Constitution. The Constitution gives no right or freedom to do wickedness, to abortion or homosexuality or any other godless perversion.
And coming soon is the whole Pledge of Allegiance case where the words "under God" may be ruled unconstitutional as well. But perhaps the one case that still has legal scholars scratching their heads is the decision 30 years ago to legalize abortion.
Bork said, "Fifty-eight pages, no legal argument in it. You learn all about the Egyptians’ practice with respect to abortion. You learn about the English common law with respect to abortion. You learn about what the opinions of the American Medical Association are and all of a sudden, bang, there's a right to abortion." On what basis? Where is this constitutional? Where did this court give the right to do this? And the suit was based on all fraud and lies to begin with. But no precedent! No constitutional law, no nothing legal, just some judges making laws that belong to the Congress of the United Sates. Where was the uproar? Those judges are the ones who should have been thrown out of the court, not Judge Moore of Alabama.
These judicial activists have taken away all our real freedoms. The freedom of speech ends when it has to do with Christianity. The freedom of religion ends when it has to do with Christianity and the religions of humanism and evolution are pumped down our throat. The very things that the founders tried to prevent – government mandating religion. Evolution is not science! It is nothing but pure religion – the religion of those who reject God and want to say I can live like I want and no one has a right to say anything because there is no God to judge me when I die. That is their attitude and purpose in pushing it – freedom to live without a moral code.
In a way, conservative scholars say this climate of judicial activism has been building for awhile. They say go back to the early 1800's. The big case then was Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. The chief justice said at the time that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is.
Fast-forward 50 years later to the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court actually legitimized the spread of slavery. But it really was not until the 1960's that liberal judicial activism began to reach new heights. The Supreme Court chief justice was Earl Warren and under his court, prayer in schools was deemed unconstitutional. A year later, reading the Bible in public schools was gone too. The justices apparently thought that they both violated the First Amendment by establishing a certain religion. Yet they are making their own state religion and forcing it upon us.
"It's a titanic battle about the meaning and the interpretation of the Constitution," said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal group People for the American Way. He thinks the Warren court got it right in the 60's. It’s part of a philosophy that looks at the Constitution as a living, breathing document that needs to evolve with the times.
Neas said, "It's certainly not a stagnant document because the Founding Fathers could never have anticipated the changes in technology, the changes in the way of life and all the other things that have happened over our 200-plus years of history."
Bork said, "Well, that is one of the most preposterous tactics I've ever heard." Bork says you don't mess with the Constitution unless Congress and the American people want to change it. Amen! The Constitution is the rule of law. It is the basis for our society and it is not something that was meant for such men to just change at whim because they didn’t like it. Then you have no rule of law. But that is what they are trying to do – do away with the rule of law established by the Constitution. For all practical purposes today our judicial has rejected and is ignoring the constitution and making their own laws and legal system and giving themselves the right to ‘judicial fiat’. They are as dictators who have no accounting to the American people, not elected and on the bench for life, making laws by their decisions. That is not our constitution or what it was meant to be. These men are little more than traitors to the constitution and the oath of office they took.
"The only thing the court can point to is the actual principles in the Constitution. Now, if you say well, we'd like more Constitution principles added, we have the amendment process. You can add them by that means," Bork explained. Yes! That is the Constitutional means provided to make changes to it as time goes by, by constitutional amendment, passed by the states, not made up by the judges on their personal whims.
So what did the framers actually think? The answers are written down in history, in a collection of essays called "The Federalist Papers," where our Founding Fathers explained certain provisions in the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton expressed his belief that the courts would have the least power of the three branches of government when he wrote that, "The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution." And in 1820, Thomas Jefferson agreed with Hamilton on the judiciary's role, warning that, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed."
Though they were political enemies, Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this issue. That is significant to take note of. If they were alive today, they would surely call a press conference to clear all this up, but that is not possible. CBN News went to a cemetery in Forest Glen, Maryland for answers to this issue. They found the gravesite of Daniel Carroll, one of the original signers of the Constitution. And two of his direct descendents were able to shed some light on what he might think of all this today.
"He would have been I think incensed that people's choices were not being respected," said Adam Carter. Adam and his dad Charles Caroll Carter are the 5th and 6th generation great grandsons of Daniel Caroll. The research they have done shows that he believed that the power rested with the people, not the judges. He also was instrumental in helping pass the First Amendment which allows for people to express their religion.
"The overriding principle clearly is freedom. That is the overriding American principle and that is what Daniel Carroll was striving for — freedom to practice religion that they were not able to enjoy," the younger Carter said. And that freedom is being taken away from us by the liberal democrats.
Conservatives say that the freedom, and other principles outlined in the Constitution are in jeopardy today. That is why the battle in the Senate over President Bush's judicial nominees has become such a big deal. The President nominates a conservative, only to be held up, or filibustered by liberal Democrats. It is not something that the descendants of Daniel Caroll say he would have been a fan of.
This is not according to the way the system was designed to work by the framers of the Constitution. It is not the way our system of government operated for 250 years. But all of a sudden the enlightened, elite liberal democrats know better and what they want is what they deem we should all live by, whether we like it or not. They are destroying our form of government and democracy that made this nation the greatest on the earth and because of these things we will soon cease to be great as a nation. The wickedness of our nations leaders and the sins of the people are about to bring the judgment of God upon us and soon America will no longer be a great nation and the superpower of the world.
But the view that our founding father’s wouldn’t agree with what is happening today won't stop the debate over activism. The liberals say that all are activists, including those who just want the courts and congress to follow the constitution and not destroy it with their decisions.
"If we were all honest, we would probably say that both the conservatives and the liberals and everything in between were judicial activists," Neas said. That is deceit.
Judge Bork does not see it that way. He says it is about constitutional law being reinterpreted. "It's not intellectual, it's not the study of history, it's not the study of logic. What it is is politics. It's a left liberal version of politics," he said. Again, Amen! I couldn’t say it better or more accurately. The liberals don’t want fact or truth, just their way no matter what, at any cost, including trashing the constitution to have it their way.
And so will the future be more about "'We the people?" or "We the judges?" The answer to that question will very much define the moral direction of America and more. Will this nation become one ruled by judicial fiat! Already in many ways the judicial system, meant to be the least powerful branch of government has already become the most powerful branch of government. A few men, not elected by the people can make laws that no one can oppose or question, even the Congress, which was formed for the purpose of making laws. They are becoming unnecessary in our society of judicial activism when the most far-reaching and most important laws are not passed by the Congress, but dictated by judicial fiat.
That is how abortion became legal. That is how homosexuality just became legal. That is how prayer and the Ten Commandments were taken out of school and it is forbidden. Yes, by all means no let the little kids know that there is a God that says, “Thou shalt not steal” and so look at the business world today, the Enron’s, the MCI’s and Wall Street and the corruption and fraud and theft. Don’t let them know “Thou shalt not kill” and so we have killing in schools. I remember when you were sent to the office for things like talking, passing notes. Wake up America! You are headed for loss of all freedoms and dictatorship. Those who don’t cherish freedom will ultimately loose it. Today the only freedoms in America are to do that which is evil before God in defiance of Him.
[url]http://theshepherdsvoice.org/politics/how%20judicial%20activists%20rewrite%20the%20constitution.html[/url]
2005-08-14 12:54 | User Profile
Already posted [url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=125977#post125977]here[/url], G.
2005-08-14 12:55 | User Profile
Trespassing Dismissed Against Immigrants
By ANNE SAUNDERS Associated Press Writer
August 12, 2005, 4:45 PM EDT
CONCORD, N.H. --** A judge on Friday dismissed trespassing charges against a group of illegal immigrants arrested by two small-town police chiefs who said they were frustrated by lax federal enforcement. **
Judge L. Phillips Runyon III agreed with defense lawyers that the police chiefs in New Ipswich and Hudson had violated the Constitution by trying to enforce federal laws.
Law enforcement officers from around the country praised the local police chiefs for their novel approach to homeland security.
The immigrants, most of whom were from Mexico, were cited with trespassing after being stopped this spring on traffic violations and then admitting they were in the United States illegally, police said.
The trespassing law defines guilt as knowingly entering or staying where they are not licensed or privileged to be. The citation -- akin to a parking ticket -- carries a fine and no jail time upon conviction. The immigrants had pleaded innocent.
Some of the eight still face motor vehicle charges.
Randall Drew, a lawyer for three of the eight defendants, said his clients were ready "to get out of the limelight."
"We believe that we were in the right and that our clients have been vindicated," he said.
Hudson Chief Richard Gendron and New Ipswich Chief Garrett Chamberlain both said they were disappointed but would respect the ruling.
"I feel, given the situation, I did what I had to do to protect the citizens of my community," Chamberlain said.
Chamberlain said he is frustrated that federal authorities don't pursue more illegal immigrants and hopes Congress will act to improve the situation.
"It's unfortunate that the federal government has allowed our immigration situation to get to this point," he said.
[url]http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-immigrants-trespassing,0,1410140.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines[/url]
2005-08-14 13:01 | User Profile
**Sen. Sam Ervin said a judicial activist is "a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he instead of the Founding Fathers had written it." The recent ruling of the Supreme Court that allows the government to seize private property to make room for more 'tax friendly' structures like strip malls and other business developments should have Americans up in Arms, before the Supreme Court decides the 2nd amendment right to bear arms pertains to your actual limbs and not your Smith and Wesson. **
If you believe that judges are beyond political activism, think again. A bi-partisan Bill to save the life of Terri Schaivo passed the house and Senate. The courts decided to ignore that. I guess they can do that now. They decided that abortion was a constitutional right, why not death by starvation for the mentally disabled?
Even Democrats have been unhappy with the judiciary, though they use judiciary activism often enough to get what they want. They complained for 4 years over President Bush's election over Al Gore. "Selected not Elected" they claimed. Where is their outrage now? Here's something we can actually agree on. The courts have too much power and not enough culpability.
The courts have decided they are ABOVE the law. And they have gone beyond interpreting law to making law. This trend of legislating from the bench has got to stop. There is no accountability to the people for which these judges are presuming to 'represent.' They have decided, like the pigs on Animal Farm, that some arms of government are more equal than others.
Checks and Balances? What are those?
[url]http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32956.asp[/url]