As to your second paragraph, I would readily acknowledge that we must be eternally vigilant against the corruption and abuses of the left. Who claims otherwise?
"In short, any suggestion that 100% of the court's opinions are consistent with the actual written 'law of the land' may amount to seeing "the world the way you would like it to be, not the way it is"."
I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.
The real question is: do you believe that the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the arbiter of our laws with the Supreme Court as the highest court? Apparently kalamata does not (at least when corrected he chose to deflect by changing the subject).
Perhaps the question might be ‘fine-tuned’ a bit: do we believe the Constitution designates the Judiciary as the ‘final’ arbiter of our laws, with the Supreme Court as the highest court (and therefore, the ‘last word’ when it comes to the Constitution)?
Given that the SCOTUS is not infallible – what resort might there be, should the court err in some way that fatally undermines the Constitution? No resort, whatsoever, because the federal judiciary alone is the arbiter of our laws? Most will quickly suggest that the other branches of the federal government will balance or limit federal judicial excesses – but as James Madison observed, it is not impossible that the entire federal government might support certain unconstitutional actions. (Indeed, we may have had glimpses of such circumstances, during the Obama administration.)
Some might then suggest that in any such case, the people should immediately invoke their God-given ‘right of revolution’. That is certainly a possibility, but hardly a desirable approach, since it could easily destroy the republic, in an effort to save it.
Obviously, there is a third alternative, to both the anemic and unreliable federal ‘checks & balances’ system, and the people’s right to revolt. One well-established point of view, dating from the early years of the republic, was that the individual States, as parties to the constitutional compact, should interpose themselves between any ‘out-of-control’ federal government and their people – in other words, that the States should have the final word, in extremis, when it comes to the Constitution.
Food for thought, perhaps, given the recent behavior of one of our largest political parties…
I suppose that you intended this as some sort of rebuttal to what I wrote. If so it is a silly strawman argument.
Not so much a rebuttal, as an example highlighting the foolishness of those who simply declare that any high court edict (no matter how perverse) somehow automatically over-rides the specific written terms of the United States Constitution. In essence, “the Supreme Court said [fill in the blank], so that’s what the Constitution says!” Unfortunately, we’ve probably all seen that kind of nonsense suggested, repeatedly, even here at FreeRepublic…
Please ping me if you mention me in your posts.
And yes, it would be the dumbest move imaginable for the founding fathers to fight a long war against an oppressive, cronyistic monarchy; and then spend countless hours drafting a Constitution designed to protect the liberties of the states and the people, only to turn over the interpretation of the Constitution to five politically-appointed lawyers. Frankly, that would be insanity.
The Constitution Convention specifically rejected giving the federal government veto power over state courts. Nowhere in the Constitution can judicial review be found, nor in the debates leading up to the ratification, nor in any of the rulings of the first court under John Jay. It was created out of thin air by the Adam's appointed Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison, 1805. John Taylor explained the convention process, and the later tyranny, in this manner:
"Now this very case is that under consideration. The proposals for a national government and its negative over the state acts, were really made. They were opposed by the state deputies, who had a knowledge of them. They were rejected. A different form of government was promulgated. It contained no such negative. The states expounded its meaning to be federal, by a positive reservation of rights not delegated. And now they are told that the devil, thus repeatedly exorcised, still remains in the church." [John Taylor, "New Views of the Constitution of the United States." Way and Gideon, 1823, pp.35-36]
The founding father of substance outspokenly in favor of that kind of treachery was the merchantilist Alexander Hamilton, who, ironically, just happened to be a hero of future cronyists such as John Marshall, Joseph Story, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln, as well as the cronyists of today, including every political Marxist, of course. In the Federalists Papers Hamilton expressed his desire for an all-powerful federal government, controlled by a judicial dictatorship; and he eventually got his wish -- but not without a bloody civil war. Woodrow Wilson explained the timing of the change of the guard:
"The old theory of the sovereignty of the States, which used so to engage our passions, has lost its vitality. The war between the States established at least this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers. Since that stern arbitrament it would be idle, in any practical argument, to ask by what law of abstract principle the federal government is bound and restrained." [Woodrow Wilson, "Constitutional Government in the United States." Columbia University Press, 1908, p.178]
Mr. Kalamata