Judicial Tyranny

Stand To Reason ^ | 2003 | Gregory Koukl

[Matchett-PI]

Excerpts from a related article:

"...Non-establishment was intended and this is why I believe in non-establishment; but I do not believe in separation of church and state if we take by separation that view of hostility of government towards, specifically in this case, Christian religion that is being practiced now.

How do I know that separation was not intended?

Because they didn't write separation, they wrote non-establishment.

That's what the First Amendment says so there is no illegitimacy here in religious people, or religious institutions, or religious convictions informing public policy. ...

What's really curious to me is that we have a radicalizing here in our culture, but the radicalizing is not coming from the right. The loss is not coming from the right, the radicalizing of the culture and the loss of freedom is coming from the left."

Click on link to read more: Culture Wars II - by Gregory Koukl http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/misc_topics/cul-war2.htm

[Ff--150]

Until it is somewhat slightly understood the judges are royalty and therefore above the Constitution of the United States, all this is barber-shop politics and nail-parlor religion.

A brief trip to Google would make one curious whether or not there was a "missing" 13th Amendment prior to the one we accept today?

[savedbygrace]

Sir Thomas More, not Sir Thomas Moore.

[MayDay72]

...Bump...

[Matchett-PI]

"..there was a "missing" 13th Amendment prior to the one we accept today?" ~ Ff--150

The Titles of Nobility Amendment does not have an illustrious history.

The reason for its proposal are obscure; what we know of them suggests partisan politics or xenophobia, neither an admirable nor worthy motive for amending the Constitution.

The amendment's history is likewise obscure; scholars have almost universally failed to portray it accurately, amplifying the confusion about the amendment.

Today, it is virtually forgotten, meriting at most a few lines in even the most detailed tomes on the Constitution.

If the amendment had remained a footnote to history, its obscurity might not be of great significance. But even before the 1990's, the amendment carried two important messages: that concern about diversions in society in the United States is a historic problem, and that the legal community, both in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, has not invested sufficient effort into accurately communicating the law to the profession, as well as to the public.

Further, these messages now have manifested themselves in a new, disturbing guise: that of extremists who have taken advantage of the amendment's obscure history to mislead the public as to its validity and purpose, driven by their anti-lawyer agenda and alienation.

These misrepresentations should be taken seriously and countered, both for the good of the profession and of the public.

Too often, legal scholarship has been and continues to be guilty of "scholarly defects of the most elementary kind."

Law cannot have- and does not deserve- the public trust if the law is itself untrustworthy.

But past failures should not lead lawyers to withdraw from the field and leave it to extremists.

One should remember that the oft-misquoted line from Shakespeare, "[t]he firth thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," actually speaks to the vital role that lawyers historically have played in society; only if all of the King's learned advisors were vanquished would rebels be able to install a tyrant.

If there is any nobility in being a lawyer, it is because of the roles and responsibility of protecting society from those who seek to create and exploit divisions.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/13/page4.html

[Matchett-PI]

Thanks!

[thoughtomator]

[tpaine]

"It is their job to determine whether the law, in this case the Constitution, has been violated. That's all. That's it. End of issue.

-- It only matters what the Constitution says. That's what the Supreme Court is all about. That's what any court really is all about. It adjudicates the law as written."


_____________________________________


True enough.
- However, all of our rights are not enumerated in the Constitution/BOR's..
Thus, the Justices must use their judgment as to the constitutional intent of the framers, when they make decisions based on these unlisted rights, such as our right to privacy.

Bork was questioned as to his judgement, and found wanting.
The more I read him, the more I understand why.

[Ff--150]

The amendment's history is likewise obscure; scholars have almost universally failed to portray it accurately, amplifying the confusion about the amendment.

Well maybe the scholars ought to dig into this obscure history to quiet the extremists, xenophobes, and radical politicians.

[nothingnew]

Excellent and thanks for the post.

FMCDH

[gitmo]

If the foundations are destroyed, how can the righteous survive?

The inability or unwillingness of courts to rely upon the Constitution is the single biggest threat to the United States of America.

[Matchett-PI]

Thanks! You're welcome!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Missing 13th Amendment ping to ff150's post!

Plus, we're apparently supposed to take the article author seriously when he puts phrases like this in his article (try not to gag on the militia grammar):

"...to resolve a disputation."

[quidnunc]

In my experience the people who complain loudest about the federal courts are those same wingnut cranks who regularly vote for some lunatic-fringe crackpot on 'principle' in preference to an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed.

These wankers deserve to get the flat of every thinking person's blade.

[Matchett-PI]

"The inability or unwillingness of courts to rely upon the Constitution is the single biggest threat to the United States of America." ~ gitmo

The Constitution provides the solution -- it is the Congress. We need to apply the pressure and MAKE THEM take care of that situation with new legislation.

Here's an interesting excerpt from Rush Limbaugh's Closing Statement on Judge Roy Moore Thursday, August 28, 2003

"..Nobody, by the way, would argue that Judge Moore is required to display the Ten Commandment monument under the law.

I don't think the Founding Fathers would make him move the monument, but that doesn't mean we pick and choose what laws we obey - especially not if you're an officer of the court. Moore can resign in protest, but he can't ignore the law.

"...Now, what's upsetting most people is that the Supreme Court, as well as lower federal courts, have used their powers to impose aspects of the liberal agenda on the American people without any constitutional basis whatsoever.

This is a huge problem, and there are only limited ways to respond to this.

Congress has the constitutional power to deny the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction over a given matter. They have to have the courage to act, but they can do it.

They could pass legislation. They could say that the Supreme Court no longer has judicial review over law. They could do that; they could try it. There's a process by which the process could be amended, a very difficult one.

There are steps that can be taken - and you never know, we may be getting to the point where enough people will demand those steps do be taken. ..."

[Ff--150]

The inability or unwillingness of courts to rely upon the Constitution is the single biggest threat to the United States of America

Bump! The judges are above the Constitution for they are literally royal--Nobility!

[joesnuffy]

an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed.

[elbucko]

But you may ask what if the law is a immoral?

My answer is that the *courts* have no right to strike it down.

If a law is immoral, no one has the duty to obey it. Negating the need for the courts to be at all concerned with its applicability. Legal, moral or otherwise. Likewise, if a law is "Un-Constitutional", it is as if the law did not exist.

However, justice is the result of a moral society. I wonder what is the authors definition of "justice".

[Matchett-PI]

"In my experience the people who complain loudest about the federal courts are those same wingnut cranks who regularly vote for some lunatic-fringe crackpot on 'principle' in preference to an electable Republican who actually might be able to get conservative judges appointed and confirmed."

One-issue voters cut our throats right along with theirs.

For instance, when an anti-abortionist votes for an unelectable person in their own party, or votes third party, they are actually helping Marxist DemocRATS get into office guaranteeing the fact that even more babies will be slaughtered.

Stupidity is called "principle".

But in reality, they are just another catagory of useful idiots that play right into the DemocRAT hands.

But at least the self-righteous have one consolation when they see more and more babies getting slaughtered --- they can call themselves "principled useful idiots"

It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

[Matchett-PI]

"If a law is immoral.."

Who gets to decide what is "immoral" in a society full of relativists?

I see you didn't read the commentary very carefully, or thoughtfully.