[Bigun]

"The Framers deliberately rejected the idea that any equivalent of the Council of Revision should be part of the US Constitution. Yet in our day, the Court has become exactly such a creature, in the grip of Justices who do not obey their oath of office to respect and defend the Constitution.

Hear Here! I agree entirely but would quickly point out that judges are not the only ones who fail to adhere to their oaths and that the only ones with the ability to correct that deficiency is US!

[Bigun]

Addendum to 133.

If we had lawmakers and a chief executive who all upheld THEIR oaths the judges would not have nearly so much opportunity for their mischief would they? (I refer to a recent case in which our chief executive was quoted in the press as beliving parts of a proposed new law to be unconstitutional but signed it into law anyway!)

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right, my friend,

The Framers wrote at the time that the balance of powers they put in the Constitution would be upset "if two branches of the government conspired to usurp the power of the other." They did not anticipate that all three branches of the government would conspire to usurp the Constitution itself, which happened in the passage and then upholding of the McCane-Feingold CFR law.

John / Billybob