Civil Rights, Scotus, and Article V

ArticleVBlog ^ | November 26th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Who or what is the source of civil rights? What are civil rights? They must be important or there wouldn’t be a US Commission on Civil Rights, a Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, or several Civil Rights Acts. How can the meaning of such a common term remain so hazy and ill-defined? Despite the confusion, one thing is certain. The Supreme Court has no business creating civil rights.

[snip]

Through their state and US Constitutions, the sovereign people are entitled to occupy the high ground above the governments of their creation. Scotus obviously did not participate in the drafting or ratification of society’s will, the US and various state Constitutions, so from what source does Scotus assert authority to define societal rights? Upon what clause in the US Constitution does the Scotus feed, that it is grown so great?

There is no such clause. As envisioned by our Framers, Scotus was a defensive instrument of society rather than a bludgeon against society. Scotus’ duty is to protect Natural, Civil, and Political rights. Is the nation to believe a government that famously divides the three natural powers (legislative, executive, judicial) among three distinct institutions would empower one of them to both create and judge the rights of its creation? Who, as a defendant, wouldn’t prefer to be the jury in his own trial? Scotus does just that when it judges cases involving rights of its own creation.

An institution that believes it can cast aside the Sixth Commandment, “though shalt not murder,” as a silly annoyance and re-label murder a right will have no reservation whatsoever when it comes to upturning mere societal traditions, such as those surrounding marriage.

Having commandeered the power to define all rights Natural, Civil, and Political, recall Obergefell v. Hodges . . .