Posted on 06/26/2015 4:00:53 PM PDT by Isara
This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths. Yesterday, the justices rewrote Obamacare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government.
Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple. Both were lawless.
As Justice Scalia put it regarding Obamacare, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ . . . We should start calling this law SCOTUSCare.” And as he observed regarding marriage, “Today’s decree says that . . . the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing.
That is unacceptable. On the substantive front, I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage. And the 2016 election has now been transformed into a referendum on Obamacare; in 2017, I believe, a Republican president will sign legislation finally repealing that disastrous law.
But there is a broader problem: The Court’s brazen action undermines its very legitimacy. As Justice Scalia powerfully explained,
Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall. . . . With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
This must stop. Liberty is in the balance.
Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.
This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great. During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court.
Enough is enough.
Over the last several decades, many attempts have been made to compel the Court to abide by the Constitution. But, as Justice Alito put it, “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”
In the case of marriage, a majority of states passed laws or state constitutional amendments to affirm the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. At the federal level, the Congress and President Clinton enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. When it comes to marriage, the Court has clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to remain constrained by the Constitution.
Similarly, the Court has now twice engaged in constitutional contortionism in order to preserve Obamacare. If the Court is unwilling to abide by the specific language of our laws as written, and if it is unhindered by the clear intent of the people’s elected representatives, our constitutional options for reasserting our authority over our government are limited.
The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”
The Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it.
But the Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “not even a scarecrow” to the justices. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all. A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.
The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself. The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary. A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.
Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings. The courts in these states have not been politicized by this check on their power, nor have judges been removed indiscriminately or wholesale. Americans are a patient, forgiving people. We do not pass judgment rashly.
Yet we are a people who believe, in the words of our Declaration of Independence that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” In California, the people said enough is enough in 1986, and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment, no matter how savage the crime. The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state’s constitution to overturn the people’s decision to subject state legislators to term limits. And in 2010, the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had, like the Supreme Court in Obergefell, invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist — one of our nation’s greatest chief justices — and I have spent over a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at what has befallen our highest court.
The Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
But, sadly, the Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.
As we prepare to celebrate next week the 239th anniversary of the birth of our country, our Constitution finds itself under sustained attack from an arrogant judicial elite. Yet the words of Daniel Webster ring as true today as they did over 150 years ago: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” We must hold fast to the miracle that is our Constitution and our republic; we must not submit our constitutional freedoms, and the promise of our nation, to judicial tyranny.
— Ted Cruz represents Texas in the United States Senate.
Cruz does not go far enough.
Puh-lease. Civil war? Americans are too busy watching Dancing With The Stars and the Kardashians to do anything. Get out of the echo chamber of your immediate peers and this forum and you will see. The last time Americans were motivated and agreed on anything was right after 9/11/2001 when we were all joined by a common tragedy and elusive enemy (elusive because it wasn’t a country attacking us as we’ve been preparing for forever).
“You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral.”
Well put.
We moved to a rural, conservative, armed area to be ready for what come what may.
And to quit feeding the fascist beast. The best way to show civil disobedience is to quit financially supporting this government.
Unfortunately, no matter how mad most people are, they don’t want to disturb their comfortable lifestyle. Or, I’m also guessing that many here are either elderly or not in the best of health, and that makes them reluctant to take a financial risk. But unless we ALL do so or are willing to go to even the next step after this, the future we leave to our kids and grandkids will be hopeless.
There’s an ancient concept constructed in Medicine that is called ‘homeostasis’. It’s still a large component of medicine today.
Homeostasis can be easily understood by the example of how a body adapts to hot water in a tub when taking a bath. Put a toe in, let it get comfortable, then put another toe in and so on. Pretty soon the whole body is in and that hot water which was so shocking at first feels real comfortable.
Similar process happens in metallurgical engineering with a metal undergoing the process of annealing.
When we change the Constitution, we have to go slow and avoid knee-jerk reactions and curb our passions, avoid being all over the map.
You see as soon as JUST ONE Article V amendment crosses the finish line, the federal government knows their game is changed forever because we have set a precedent. They will then look at the Constitution differently.
And the people will then know they have power and will look to their Article V facilitators as well as their representatives in Congress who are changed in their nature and views, and they will demand that the 14th Amendment be examined and that necessary remedies for its abuses be prepared, The remedy may be legislation or a simple resolution or possibly as large as a full repeal.
Let’s focus on getting JUST ONE done first. My preference is THE ONE should address the flaws in the 17th, the power between the States and the federal government.
According to the DHS terrorism assessment and many major federal documents to law enforcement - White, Christian Southern Men who are veterans and gun owners are to be considered domestic terrorists.
That was authored in 2009. I assume you agree with Obama and Holder?
Of course not. Money is more important than liberty, sovereignty or the rule of law when push comes to shove in this country, which is why we continue to watch any opposition to overt tyranny melt like brown sugar in boiling water when the Beast comes to enforce it's will.
I’m amazed at how many don’t understand or maybe don’t care that this is a fight for freedom. IMO, the fight doesn’t go anywhere else. It’s up to the states, now or never.
A society of people who are no longer governed by God, will be ruled by the tyranny of men.
Constitutional amendments are useless.
Cruz pretends to be incensed, and then plans to do absolutely nothing.
What a hypocrite.
It certainly doesn't happen by voting.
Revolts aren't won by votes.
may the Lord bless and protect Ted Cruz and his family.
Yeah, bought more ammo today. Everything is available again, market’s saturated with goodies. I’m going with the premise window will be gradually closing and it all disappears once festivities start.
“Agreed. The best way to control power in Washington is to give that power to someone else. Amendments really can’t do that.”
An Amendment can do that if it creates or empowers anther party at odds with the Centralization of power to hold the Federal court accountable and veto its lawless self-serving edicts.
You said: “The LAWLESS will not be moved by MORE LAWS. You cannot restrain tyrants via civil means in a society that is no longer civil, or religious or moral.”
Then you said: “According to the DHS terrorism assessment and many major federal documents to law enforcement - White, Christian Southern Men who are veterans and gun owners are to be considered domestic terrorists. I assume you agree with Obama and Holder?”
After your first statement, I asked if you were going to attack the white house (since you said the lawless would not be moved by more laws). That has nothing to do with the DHS.
I, too, as a prepper, am suspected by the DHS of being a domestic terrorist (by DHS definition). But, I’ll stay with Cruz and support getting control of government, including the supreme court, by lawful means - and kicking out every Democrat/Muslim connected to the DHS when Cruz is president.
You are not going to go off half cocked and start shooting even if what you say sounds like that. With God’s help, and Cruz in the president’s seat, we have a chance to save this country.
Constitutional remedies for this lawlessness is the second amendment. Cruz should just come out and say it. Legal means will not stop the insanity.
As stated, most people don’t care or have the time to care, even though they don’t realize that this PC BS is ruining our country. Obama ran on Traditional Marriage in 2008, but is now Pro Homo Marriage and I bet 80% of the voting public even remember.
Most will vote the same party they’ve always voted, or will just stay home instead.
As far as Homo marriage, that ship has sailed. Once something has been legalized it will stay that way.
But I don’t want to hear another word about “gun crime” and “Common-sense gun laws” unless those laws are aimed at criminals that use guns in commission of a crime.
10 years, first offense. No time off for “good behavior” or early parole.
25 years, second offense. Same conditions as above.
50 years, third offense. Same conditions as above.
The current “Catch & Release” program that takes place mostly in liberal run cities doesn’t seem to work, so it’s time to target the 0.0001% that is responsible for 99.9999% of crime involving firearms, not the other way around.
Very true. It's important to realize that the present crowd making policy in Washington are the youthful hippies of the late '60s and early '70s, and everything they do is based on the concerns of that era: drug legalization, black power, sexual liberation, etc. What these people are saying and doing today would be right at home in an All in the Family rerun. It's all they know.
But coming up quickly are the kids of the Reagan era and the dotcom boom. Their priorities are completely different. That's why I feel we must get Ted Cruz across the finish line in first place. He understands, and can represent, the up-and-coming leaders who can save the nation.
Ted Cruz at his finest, proving that he has no political equal. I will crawl across broken glass to vote for this man.
Can he be the President of the United States? Can he, by himself, correct the damage done in the last 30 years? He will be alone.
That's exactly what needs to happen first.
The Governors of the red states must rise and dare Justice Roberts to enforce his dictatorial edict. Nothing less is acceptable, or we have truly relegated the Constitution and the republic to the dustbin of history.
On the heels of such a unified statement, it's just as important that The People rise as one voice to back up their elected state leaders.
And I am disappointed by that.
Did you not notice that Senator Cruz all but threatened that an Article V Convention will happen if Congress doesn't follow his advice?
That's as close to a full-out endorsement as you can expect from anyone running for president at this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.