Replies

Case law is a firewall that protects our rights. As a nation we formally accepted the English Common Law, so far as not repugnant to the Constitution. (Google what is called the reception statutes.) The common law originated in ancient case law. It was not a law written down until the Normans. It was a traditional oral law, originally memorized by “best men” and recited in manorial courts. It was a law known by studying the body of decisions, not a body of statutes. Stare decisis - “let the decision stand,” ensured that the rights of English freemen were maintained.

You can look at modern decisions and trace them back to their roots in the 13th century. The principals of law are consistent. The rights of Englishmen from government that you see partially captured in the Bill of Rights existed long before in the historic thread of English case law. It was carried forward in American law.

Currently we have all sorts of self-proclaimed interpreters of the Constitution. One says a phrase means one thing, another says it means somethings else. Joe Blow says federal law doesn't apply outside of D.C. Jane Doe says she doesn't have to pay federal taxes under her interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution. It is constrained by stare decisis so it can't just go off and interpret the way it feels today. Thanks goodness for that.

You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

Each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

If the Constitution is/means what the Supreme Court says then the above oath is nothing than an agreement to agree with oneself (when that self is in agreement with the majority of the supreme court). But, in addition, *any* dissenting opinion to the decision [of the majority] is possibly seditious because it presents a view contrary to the Constitution (by the definition of the USSC as-a-whole defining the Constitution) and an encouragement for other inferior courts to act contrary to the Constitution.

Furthermore, any decision rendered by the USSC based upon such dissenting information is null-and-void because it is based on something that is [again by the working-definition] contrary to the Constitution.

So, either the Supreme Court is acting outside/contrary-to the Constitution by this definitional-understanding; or this definition is incorrect. If it is incorrect, then by presenting themselves as High Lords above and beyond the Constitution it is obvious that they are both usurping authority that was not given to them by the Constitution and violating their oath of office.

Besides the above, why would we need a body whose purpose *is* the making & alteration of laws if the Supreme Court has such powers already? Know you not that the Roe v. Wade decision was proof that the Supreme Court can make new law, of whole cloth ,without any action upon the part of the legislature? Know you not that the prohibition against the either the uncompensated or under-compensated contained in the 5th amendment was utterly abolished by the Supreme Court in the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London case? Know you not that the inaction of the Supreme Court in the AIG/Bailout retroactive taxation and their inaction in the regard of the GM-bondholders is the defacto repudiation of the 4th, 5th, (6th xor 7th), and 8th Amendments in addition to the repudiation of the Constitutional prohibitions against both ex post facto law AND bills of attainder?

And you want me to "bend over and take" it because "the Supreme Court says they have the authority, so thy MUST have the authority"?
Isn't that at least a little bit circular? Do I not have inherent, God-given rights? Who are you, or even they, to tell me I have no right to Liberty?

Here is a relevant legal document,it was passed by Congress, along with word definitions; a straightforward reading of these (keeping the previously cited USSC decisions in mind) would undermine your claim that Stare decisis protects our liberties by constraining the USSC; most especially the Roe v Wade decision.

Liberty	Right [Legal]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. - Declaration of Independence [Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776]
freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism. at liberty, —Idiom free from captivity or restraint. unemployed; out of work. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.	qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval something that is morally just right something to which one has a just claim; as a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law a legally enforceable claim against another that the other will do or will not do a given act the interest that one has in property : a claim or title to property —often used in pl. rights plural : the interest in property possessed (as under copyright law) in an intangible thing and esp. an item of intellectual property a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price as an absolute right demandable or enforceable under the law
Unalienable	Repudiate
law. -a variant of inalienable not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated	to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
Consent
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented. Archaic . to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate. Archaic . accord; concord; harmony.