I wasn't going to write about this topic tonight. I was planning on dealing with a recent Peoria Journal Star editorial. It is so easy to find fault with so much of what they write about. Nevertheless, I'm changing direction for tonight since this deals with some of the things I have been saying in relation to the courts.
I was talking to someone today who at one time worked for Illinois State University. Often our conversations involve education. The conversation swung to our court system and specifically the United States Supreme Court. If I understood her correctly, we both agree that the Supreme Court is out of control. The question asked was: "What can we do about it?" (I just heard on the news tonight that a judge on the federal circuit court in California has ruled that the phrase "under GOD" in the Pledge of Allegiance is once again unconstitutional. The absolute arrogance of some of these judges!!!!!!!)
I said that there were three avenues of control and listed them. As I think about it now, there are actually at least six avenues available to rein in the Court and maybe even more.
The first one deals with passing laws to assist the courts in making a Constitutional decision. The petition that was presented here on the September 12, 2005 post is an example of how to do this. The Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision said that the Court was unable to determine when life began. So in a typical illegal decision, they decided it was alright to destroy a new life until birth actually occurred since they were uncertain. Of course, the logical decision would have been to error on the side of preserving a life and not allowing the murder of unborn babies. That would have been contrary to the set libertine agenda of some court members. In circumstances such as these, Congress can help the court by, in this case, defining the beginning of life as occurring at conception which, of course, it does. Congress by law can guide the Court through the "difficult" problems it some times encounters.
The second means of control is before the country today. Who is appointed to serve on the Supreme Court is tremendously important in relation to the decisions the Court reaches. The libertines know this. That, as I've said before, is why they do not want the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Libertine Democrats do not want Justices to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Following the Constitution would disallow many of the libertine decisions of the Supreme Court over the last forty-five years. The problem that develops is that the power the court has been granted through neglect does corrupt some members of the Court and they become activist Justices enticed by the power they possess.
Along these lines, if the Supreme Court errors in a decision; that decision can be corrected by Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court has been informally and illegally amending the Constitution for years with the unconstitutional decisions decided by the Court. The difficulty in this case is that with the Court it only takes five votes to rewrite the Constitution. With a Constitutional Amendment, it takes a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and then a 3/4 vote of all the states to approve the Amendment. It is much easier for the Supreme Court to illegally amend the Constitution than it is to follow the designated procedure.
A fourth possibility is one I have mentioned before. The Constitution does not provide a term of office for life. The Constitution specifically says for "good behavior." It is obviously not good behavior to violate the oath of office every judge and Justice takes to uphold the Constitution. I am confident that if Congress began using its Constitutional duty of impeachment and conviction, most judges and Justices would stop abusing their power. Congress has to develop the "backbone" necessary to keep the Court in check as provided by the Constitution. It is not easy and it was not intended to be. However, it obviously was intended as a method to be used or it would not have been included in the Constitution.
The fifth possibility has been used in the past but again has not been often used in this present situation. It is extremely simple in design but could generate a Constitutional crisis. Of course, we have been under a Constitutional crisis for the last forty-five years as we develop more and more into a Courtocracy rather than the democracy intended by the Constitution. Simply put, the President can and in the past has refused to obey the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement. The Justices must rely upon the other branches of government specifically the executive to enforce the decisions of the Court. No enforcement; the decision is moot!
Finally, when I mentioned this solution she said, "I didn't know that was in the Constitution." But, it is. In the first part of Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 it lists the areas where the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; then it states: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Consequently, as provided directly within the Constitution, Congress has the power and the authority to regulate how the Court handles cases and has the power and the authority not to allow the Court to get involved in a case. No involvement; no unconstitutional decision from the Court.
The other branches of the government have the Constitutional power and authority to control the abuses of the Supreme Court! The people need to demand that they use them! The people need to demand the end of our incremental plunge into a Courtocracy where a few dictate the direction of the government. The people need to demand: "Give us back our democracy!"
I was talking to someone today who at one time worked for Illinois State University. Often our conversations involve education. The conversation swung to our court system and specifically the United States Supreme Court. If I understood her correctly, we both agree that the Supreme Court is out of control. The question asked was: "What can we do about it?" (I just heard on the news tonight that a judge on the federal circuit court in California has ruled that the phrase "under GOD" in the Pledge of Allegiance is once again unconstitutional. The absolute arrogance of some of these judges!!!!!!!)
I said that there were three avenues of control and listed them. As I think about it now, there are actually at least six avenues available to rein in the Court and maybe even more.
The first one deals with passing laws to assist the courts in making a Constitutional decision. The petition that was presented here on the September 12, 2005 post is an example of how to do this. The Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision said that the Court was unable to determine when life began. So in a typical illegal decision, they decided it was alright to destroy a new life until birth actually occurred since they were uncertain. Of course, the logical decision would have been to error on the side of preserving a life and not allowing the murder of unborn babies. That would have been contrary to the set libertine agenda of some court members. In circumstances such as these, Congress can help the court by, in this case, defining the beginning of life as occurring at conception which, of course, it does. Congress by law can guide the Court through the "difficult" problems it some times encounters.
The second means of control is before the country today. Who is appointed to serve on the Supreme Court is tremendously important in relation to the decisions the Court reaches. The libertines know this. That, as I've said before, is why they do not want the appointment of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Libertine Democrats do not want Justices to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Following the Constitution would disallow many of the libertine decisions of the Supreme Court over the last forty-five years. The problem that develops is that the power the court has been granted through neglect does corrupt some members of the Court and they become activist Justices enticed by the power they possess.
Along these lines, if the Supreme Court errors in a decision; that decision can be corrected by Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court has been informally and illegally amending the Constitution for years with the unconstitutional decisions decided by the Court. The difficulty in this case is that with the Court it only takes five votes to rewrite the Constitution. With a Constitutional Amendment, it takes a 2/3 vote of each house of Congress and then a 3/4 vote of all the states to approve the Amendment. It is much easier for the Supreme Court to illegally amend the Constitution than it is to follow the designated procedure.
A fourth possibility is one I have mentioned before. The Constitution does not provide a term of office for life. The Constitution specifically says for "good behavior." It is obviously not good behavior to violate the oath of office every judge and Justice takes to uphold the Constitution. I am confident that if Congress began using its Constitutional duty of impeachment and conviction, most judges and Justices would stop abusing their power. Congress has to develop the "backbone" necessary to keep the Court in check as provided by the Constitution. It is not easy and it was not intended to be. However, it obviously was intended as a method to be used or it would not have been included in the Constitution.
The fifth possibility has been used in the past but again has not been often used in this present situation. It is extremely simple in design but could generate a Constitutional crisis. Of course, we have been under a Constitutional crisis for the last forty-five years as we develop more and more into a Courtocracy rather than the democracy intended by the Constitution. Simply put, the President can and in the past has refused to obey the decision of the Court. The Supreme Court has no power of enforcement. The Justices must rely upon the other branches of government specifically the executive to enforce the decisions of the Court. No enforcement; the decision is moot!
Finally, when I mentioned this solution she said, "I didn't know that was in the Constitution." But, it is. In the first part of Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 it lists the areas where the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; then it states: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Consequently, as provided directly within the Constitution, Congress has the power and the authority to regulate how the Court handles cases and has the power and the authority not to allow the Court to get involved in a case. No involvement; no unconstitutional decision from the Court.
The other branches of the government have the Constitutional power and authority to control the abuses of the Supreme Court! The people need to demand that they use them! The people need to demand the end of our incremental plunge into a Courtocracy where a few dictate the direction of the government. The people need to demand: "Give us back our democracy!"
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 11:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home