Judicial Activism

John JayIt is instructive if you read the posts “Constitutional Resurrection” and “What did James Madison say?” prior to reading this post.

It is fitting that John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the three writers of the Federalist Papers, be pictured on this posting. If John Jay were alive today he would be appalled at what our justice system has done to the U.S. Constitution. By turning the Constitution into something it was never intended to be, the courts have constructed a scenario whereby the forces of tyranny are poised to install a dictatorship and take away your freedom.

“A law that is repugnant to the Constitution is void.”   JohnMarshall, Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803). It is important to remember this quote as we briefly discuss the case just cited and tell you why it is so important. Without going into a lot of detail, the case just cited set the precedent that courts have a right to judicial review. In other words, the courts have a right to determine if a law is within the bounds of the Constitution and is a proper application of the rules. So far there is no problem with this precedent – the courts do properly have a right to make such determinations. This precedent did not, however, give the courts the authority to contradict the Constitution nor approve a law that contradicted the Constitution.

About 100 years ago the forces of socialism realized that they had a problem. The United States Constitution and its limiting powers was blocking them from achieving what they required to succeed – namely, centralized political power. Socialism had to develop a way to overturn this feature of the Constitution and change it without going through the Amendment process. How they did this is an exercise in sophistry at its highest level.

The first thing that had to be done by the forces of socialism was to convince people that the Supreme Court alone was the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution. These forces expanded upon the Marbury v. Madison ruling and said, in effect, that the Supreme Court could contradict the Constitution itself since they were the sole and absolute judge of the meaning of that document. This notion is a complete falsehood but almost no one knew what Madison v. Marbury was about and, with the help of a compliant media, this idea was inculcated into the minds of the public. Any look at the organization chart of the United States Government shows that the U.S. Constitution sits above all three branches of government and the only way its meaning can be changed is by Amendment. In other words, no court in this land can issue a ruling that contradicts the Constitution, that ruling is void.

The second thing that had to be done by the forces of socialism was to convince the public that the Constitution was not specific, and therefore only a court could know its true meaning. While some parts of the Constitution are vague and can be interpreted differently, many parts of the Constitution are quite specific and no interpretation is required. The limiting powers documented in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution and buttressed by Amendment X (known as the enumerated powers) are quite specific and cannot be contradicted. The only way to alter the enumerated powers is by Amendment. The way the forces of socialism get around this specificity is to never refer to the supporting documents (Federalist Papers, writings of the founders, etc.). They want to throw the Constitution on the table as if there were no other writings associated with it. While the Ten Commandments had no supporting documents, this is not the case with the U.S. Constitution. The supporting documents give great specificity to the Constitution, the writers of that document told us exactly, in many cases, how it is to be interpreted and administered – this is the part the forces of socialism refuse to acknowledge or give credence to.

To buttress their ideas about the Constitution’s vagueness the forces of socialism came up with the “living document” idea. They stated that the Constitution is a “living document”, subject to the times in which we live. The “living document” idea is complete nonsense, drummed up by socialists to make it seem that the Constitution is a flexible document because of its supposed vagueness. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the rules are subject to change based upon the times in which one lives, this is just another socialist lie. The Constitution is in fact a set of rules and these rules can only be altered by Amendment (see Article V). The notion of a living document was conjured up by Woodrow Wilson and his media allies (Walter Lippmann, among others) who fundamentally disliked the Constitution because it interfered with their socialist requirements.

The third thing that had to be done by the forces of socialism was to inculcate in all law school graduates that their interpretation of how the Constitution was to operate was correct and that the Constitution itself had no meaning. In the 1920s in certain Ivy League law schools the concept of judicial precedent began to be taught. In other words judicial precedent was the determining factor in ascertaining the meaning of the Constitution – the words and writings of the authors of the Constitution did not matter. Like a giant cancer this system of teaching law has now spread to virtually all law schools in the nation. Law school graduates now know virtually nothing about the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly the way the forces of socialism want all lawyers to think and they have succeeded mightily in seducing our nation’s legal system into thinking in this way. No matter what anyone tells you, judicial precedent does not trump the Constitution itself.

All the elements were now in place for the “crucifixion” of the United States Constitution. All that was needed was to place the right people in the courts so the “crucifixion” could begin. Judges could now amend the Constitution and render it totally meaningless. Exactly when and how this has been done over time will be documented in the post entitled “Two Justices named Roberts.”





3 Responses to "Judicial Activism"

  1. You should look at my website, for my opinion of lawyers:

    I worked as a corporate paralegal for 20 years. I worked for Harvard lawyers and Presidential cabinet members with law degrees – all of them completely worthless when it came to defending the Constitution. Plenty of time and money for corporations, but absolutely no time or money to insure the stability of the United States for the American people. Put me in front of a crowd, and I will be more than happy to tell the truth.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *