Spinning From The Grave (Harry Blackmun's papers)

Citizen magazine ^ | August 2004 | Charles A. Donovan

[Ed Current]

The federal courts have become the law breaking branch of the federal government. Congress can remove appelate jurisdiction of the USSC and jurisdiction of lower federal courts We the People Act(HR 3893 IH) and leave this issue with the states.

Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

• Justice Brennan said in 1982: "[O]bviously we Americans must accept that . . . upon judges, and particularly justices of the Supreme Court, rests a great share of the delicate responsibility of deciding what must be preserved and what must be changed, what we shall protect and what we shall abandon."- William Brennan, Address at Park School, Baltimore, Maryland (Nov. 21, 1982)
• Most members of the Court seem to be gnostics, firmly believing they have access to wisdom denied the rest of us" (i.e., those citizens who are not justices on the Supreme Court). The question arises as Justice Antonin Scalia has said: "What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court? . . . Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." - Robert Bork, Our Judicial Oligarchy , First Things , Nov. 1996, at 21.
• The People's Constitution is no longer the "supreme law of the land" binding upon the judges, as well as the people. - Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
• Even Justice William O. Douglas admitted late in his career that "due process, to use the vernacular, is the wildcard that can be put to such use as the judges choose." William O. Douglas, quoted in W. Forrester, Are We Ready for Truth in Judging? 63 A.B.A. J. 1212 (1977)

1. If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to break as many laws as they have, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the law making process? Why did Marshall have to derive the doctrine of judicial review? Why wasn't it explicitly stated in the Constitution?
2. If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to amend the Constition, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the amendment process?
3. If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to enforce their own opinion, why does the Constitution leave that option with the President?
4. If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be equal to or above the written Constition, why does the Constitution state, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…. and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

• The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.

The Foundation for the National Archives states that, "The Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It later provided the foundation for the Bill of Rights."

The Virginia Declaration of Rights states, " That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life…."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged the source of Rights and expressed the fundamental purpose of government: "....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."

Robert C. Cannada writing in the The National Lawyers Association Review, Winter 1996, connected the Declaration of Independence to the U.S. Constitution: "The National Lawyers Association takes the position that the practical effect of the legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution is that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of the principles set forth in the Declaration.[...] The Preamble introduces and explains the purpose of The U.S. Constitution, and links it to The Declaration of Independence." The Preface to the United States Code - Annotated states that "this code is the official restatement in convenient form of the general and permanent laws of the United States in force December 7, 1925...."

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states," We the People of the United States, in Order to....secure the Blessings of Liberty to...our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...."

Amendment V - "No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law...."

In First Things, January 2003: Constitutional Persons, Robert H. Bork stated that, "Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception."

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.

It is past time to terminate the rule of broken law contained in the unconscionable and unconstitutional edicts of the U.S. Supreme court.

We the People Act needs to be reintroduced and passed by the 109th Congress and restore the rule of Law.

[Giant Conservative]

This is an amazing article. One minion of Hades, Blackmun, kept detailed records...including on how another, Kennedy, sold his very soul.

[Noachian]

His papers shed new light on how narrow that rescue was, turning on a late flip-flop by a single member of the Court.

If these papers show anything they show that 40-plus million souls have been murdered due to a single unelected human being who changed his mind at the last moment.

Blackmun's papers are compelling proof that appointing someone to a position of unaccountable power, from which they cannot be realistically removed for the remainder of their lives, is no way to run a free Republic.

It's time that the American people reevaluated the Constitutional role of the Judiciary in American politics.

[Cicero]

It doesn't surprise me about Kennedy at all.

Two "Catholic" justices were largely responsible for Roe v. Wade. One was Justice Brennan, who was the real author of Roe v. Wade and who used Blackmun, who was actually rather stupid, as his sock puppet. The other was Kennedy.

The bishops have a heavy burden on their consciences for not having dealt with these two Catholic justices as they should have been dealt with.

And let's not forget Sandra Day O'Connor, supposedly a Republican, and David Souter, also a Republican nominee, probably the worst mistake since Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren.

[Liberty Wins]

"If these papers show anything they show that 40-plus million souls have been murdered due to a single unelected human being who changed his mind at the last moment."

We need a constitutional amendment requiring that all judges be elected. It worries me that they are becoming more and more arrogant. Unbridled power corrupts.

[bubman]

I second that. Had I not gone to bus school, I would have gone into law. I wish I did!

[Thebaddog]

You have to remember that Nina Totenberg is a legal whore/groupie in the thrall of the radical left. Much of what you are reading is tainted.

[VOA]

bump

[Malesherbes]

Republican Presidents who appoined the Warrens-thru-Souters have the excuse that they had to get them through Dim controlled Senates. Bush will not have that excuse. We'll see.

[Darkwolf377]

"You have to remember that Nina Totenberg is a legal whore"

BLECH! The last whore with a puss like that was Babrbra Streisand in "Nuts".

Thanks for that image. I'm shuddering like Homer Simpson facing a fridge empty of beer.

[Thebaddog]

I missed the point. She didn't write the article, but she is trolling the papers. We have to wait for her book to take off on her directly.

[DeweyCA]

The Dems successfully lied about Bork, and that is when Anthony Kennedy was nominated. The Dems accomplished their mission of getting somebody who would be "flexible" and who would "grow". Their resistance is also why we got people like Souter and O'Connor. We desperately need people like Scalia and Thomas, and that is who the Dems will attack with all of their might because they know what the stakes are.

[Fatalis]

ping

[Torie]

Read it. Fascinating. Kennedy is clearly not "centered" to use a psychobabble term. Aside from the Roe fiasco, his pleading about language changes with the liberals, before caving in, was just so, well, pathetic. I am a Troglodyte when it comes to matters SCOTUS. That is one area where I fit right into this forum. Give me some red meat, and then give me some more.

[Cowboy Bob]

And let's not forget Sandra Day O'Connor, supposedly a Republican...

One of the few things that I've disagreed with Reagan about (another was amnesty for illegals). He appointed O'Connor simply because she was a woman. Not because she was the most qualified. He caved in to loud mouthed Feminists, and America has suffered because of it. When she finally leaves the bench, I hope that Bush nominates the best Judge, not the best Woman Judge.

[BenLurkin]

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), he [Justice Kennedy] wrote that the Constitution prohibited Congress from criminalizing computer-generated images of child pornography. In 2003, he took up his pen again to write the Court's opinion striking down state laws against homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas.

Such sterling service to America. How should he be rewarded for such service (assuming anyone can get close enough to deliver the reward)?

[BenLurkin]

The practice of law is no place for an honest and patriotic person. It would drive you nuts.

[KimmyJaye]

No truer words spoken...er...written.

[Ed Current]

How should he be rewarded for such service (assuming anyone can get close enough to deliver the reward)?

Federal judges increasingly cite foreign law in dicta, so give them some foreign punishment after impeachment/removal

WORLD CORPORAL PUNISHMENT RESEARCH: JUDICIAL CANING IN SINGAPORE

• Judicial corporal punishment by caning is in widespread use for males in Singapore.