Posted on 07/15/2015 2:20:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
"I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
We can't possibly save the republic without this understanding becoming fixed in the minds of those who call themselves conservative.
The judicial supremacist fallacy is destroying our country.
We can be a constitutional republic or we can be a judicial oligarchy. But we can't be both. Take your pick.
GK Chesterton, "The Everlasting Man"
Chesterton was a genius.
If the court is corrupted, law irrelevant per Obammy..
A HOuse all shook up
Can topple on top of ya.
When , The Articles??
The Supreme Court only rules on corporate law.
The Supreme Court only rules on corporate law.
The Supreme Court only rules on corporate law.
The Supreme Court only rules on corporate law.
The Supreme Court only rules on corporate law.
ping....
Our problem, even with those who call themselves conservative, is that not enough people love liberty. That’s the bottom line.
A la John Adams, they’ve traded liberty for (perceived) security, which is, a paycheck.
Spot on! Only when Americans realize that their home doesn't belong to them, their debt is binding them in slavery, and that big screen TV and booze to watch the game on isn't all that important, we will continue the descent into the abyss. Some folks are waiting for a "trigger event" - that's all I ever hear - we need something to happen to get them to wake up...well, that "trigger event" is never going to happen. We won't just be thrown into the pot. The heat will rise gradually until it's too late, and we're frog soup.
Please rethink your use of the future tense as your use of the word “will” might be construed by some to means that the process of becoming frog soup is merely prospective. In truth the soup is already aboil, as I am sure you will agree.
Agreed. It only gets hotter from here.
bump
bkmk
Even odder, his words, heeded, can now help deliver you and your state from a tyrannical judiciary.
Unfortunately, there are far fewer conservatives than we would care to admit.
Many who would label themselves conservative fail to understand the portion of Lincoln's speech where he spelled out in very precise terms that the Constitution contains no provision for states to secede.
Far too many people who identify as conservative feel that the answer to the latest act of tyranny is for government to no longer issue marriage licenses at all. This idea that "it's none of the government's business" flies in the face of the very essence of the Founding Father's pledge to "form a more perfect Union...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that suggests that SCOTUS is the sole and/or final arbiter of constitutionality, it simply isn't there. Yet for two centuries government has generally acquiesced to this position.
Ironically, in Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall notes that it is immoral for officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution to be forced to uphold unconstitutional law. Certainly Marbury was a power grab by the Court, but Marshall also made it clear that ALL branches of government are duty bound to uphold the Constitution:
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
We can be a constitutional republic or we can be a judicial oligarchy. But we can't be both. Take your pick.
The crux of the matter is that most people think we are a democracy rather than a republic. They believe any law or court ruling is fine if it has popular support.
I fear for our Republic at a base level because what we truly lack are leaders. However, I realize that in both the 1770s and the 1860s there were a handful of men who were prepared to sacrifice everything for the God-given rights of all; hopefully, a similar group will emerge today.
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.