Replies

Their self-empowering contrived "living" constitution's doctrines, as if they were self-evident, puts these dictators outside OUR LAW OF OUR LAND, so declared within our ratified Constitution.

Our ratified Constitution is treated as if it were but a poorly worded, partial listing of broad agendas empowering centralized government to reward politically favored groups. This is true only because outlaw activists in and out of blackrobes can get away with it.

No court ruling at odds with what our Constitution actually says can be lawful. How could it be? Why bow to up to nine fellow citizens when they act above The Law? Why vote for their accomplices?

For 200 years to date, we have shrunk meekly acting as if unlawful statutes, regulations, and court and SCOTUS rulings may lawfully order and threaten us with the full force of the police powers of the State. Such officious outlaws, wrapping themselves in their convenient creation of "sovereign immunity", coerce We the People "under penalty of law" and death by full auto assault, sniping, or fire - as they create inferior bench law in direct violation of our ratified Constitution, THE "controlling legal authrority".

The very document which they freely usurp is the same document from which they derive ALL of their LAWFUL authority, created and granted, with stated reservations, only by the consent of We the People. SCOTUS and many elected officials are in clear breech of our precious social contract.

Are We the People the only ones to obey our Law of OUR Land?

Our Constitution proclaims that federal blackrobes have as their term of office, the period of "GOOD BEHAVIOR" which most certainly is NOT as a serial violator our Constitution with their rogue rulings, relying on cleverly invented, politically expedient "compelling State interests".

Our Bill of Rights' 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to We the People and the several states rights and powers not GRANTED (NOT WISHFULLY IMPLIED only for the convenience of elite activists and toadies) to our federal government ("...OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE...). Our 1st assures us that we may talk about what we're going to do about government; our 2nd affirms God-given rights that we can back up such talk.

What makes us think that SCOTUS, Congress, and presidents will honor our Bill of Rights and the 14th's "equal protection" of our rights when they so freely violate our, the RATIFIED Constitution? Because they have the temporary power?

If we are unwilling to dedicate our own lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, why then should we expect honor, much less sacred honor from our professional politicians, in or out of blackrobes?

Because failing to do so is condemning our children's children to living under some fascist rule...

These blackrobe outlaws must be replaced with law abiding men and women willing to obey our Constitution.

One of the notable factors is that the Bush Administration is non-commital in these high profile cases. I don't know who is influencing the President in his strategy on presenting these amicus curae filings. It seems the Justices, especially O'Conner, are very desirable of the Bush Administration take on these issues. They respect the President, Gonzalez and especially Ted Olson greatly, and I think Bush could be very influential if he made a passionate argument one way or the other. But, the Justices know he'll make a well considered and pragmatic recommendation that is founded solidly in law. That's Olsen and Gonzalez in action, and people like Kennedy and O'Conner give their arguments major consideration.

It seems that the Court rules pretty much right down the line with what Bush's legal recommendations are. I think that U of M case was pretty much what the White House argued and the outcome they recommended. Same with Campaign Finance Reform and other decisions. They like being in rhythm with the 8 year Executive team who'll be enforcing policy. Sodomy laws were history as soon as they hit the SCOTUS, that one didn't surprise me at all.

This Administration has a pretty solid record in winning challenges to their policies related to holding terror suspects and managing evidentiary security and other challenges to the prosecution of terror suspects. They trust the judgement and care of guys like Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge and Chertkoff.