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.
This tells me that most citizens have never understood the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Did you know that basically the only power that the Founders delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, to regulate an aspect of intrastate commerce is to decide policy for the US Mail Sevice (1.8.7).
In other words, the states have always had the 10th Amendment-protected power to establish their own social spending programs that so many voters are now dependent on the corrupt feds for, most of these federal spending programs unconstitutional imo.
In fact, here’s two excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions that express not only the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, but appropriately the fed’s limited power to tax and spend.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The Founding States had undoubtedly expected federal senators to protect their states by killing bills which not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steal state revenues associated with those powers.
So what government services were citizens demanding from the constitutionally humbled federal government that they couldn’t get from their constitutionally powerful states?
Also, I cannot figure out why, since FDR was evidently a popular president, he didn’t establish his social spending programs within the framework of the Constitution by first leading Congress to proprose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states. He instead made a fool out of himself by attempting to stack the Supreme Court with activist justices who shared his “great society” ideas.
Pfl
Even now, we still have one interim step available to us to effect the sort of change We The People want to see in Washington, and that is, massive, unrelenting, and sustained civil disobedience.
If a few million patriots showed up at the Capitol and loudly protested for weeks on end, it would force the MSM to pay attention to our grievances, and would force Congress to submit to our demands. Acts of civil disobedience (not violence) would have to be a major ingredient of such a protest. People would have to be willing to break some rules and go to jail for it.
They wouldn't have the capacity to arrest us all.
But it would take millions to make it happen, and as I said, it's only an opportunity to get the job done without bloodshed.
Wasn't it some Glen Beck or Tea Party thing in Washington DC somewhere in the past 5 years that 2 million people showed up for an the liberal lamestream media IGNORED it?
2 million Conservatives garnered ZERO network news coverage.
2 million (or more) pissed off patriots exercising their second amendment rights in Washington DC is gonna get some attention and make some eyes POP.
As I said earlier, we live in a tyranny. The only response tyranny is going to understand is the free, heavy, sustained and overwhelming demonstration why the Second Amendment exists.
Not that I wish for it, or hell not that I even want to see it happen --- to me it just feels like it's inevitable. I don't say that with any glee either.
“even if most Americans support it”.
30-some states went to the polls and overwhelmingly voted it down. Never believe some leftist poll that says the majority of Americans support this nonsense.
The RINOs will team up with democrats to try and ruin Ted Cruz.
Probably before the first debate. He’s a younger version of Ronald Reagan and they are scared to death of him.
Those people showed up to listen to impassioned speeches in the park, while peacefully waving banners and flags.
That's NOT what I'm talking about. Not even close.
Think more along the lines of the Arab Spring protests in Egypt. I'm talking Millions of angry, pissed off Americans, who are willing to break a few rules to get the attention of our elected reps and the rest of fedgov.
When MLK and his supporters marched through the South, that was civil disobedience. It caused a lot of friction. It got a lot of media attention. A lot of people went to jail, and some were even hurt.
But, it got the job done. Those people didn't bring guns, but they did bring their defiance and willingness to confront whatever brutality the state could deliver, in order to secure their rights.
And they changed a nation by doing so.
I think that most of us here have realized that the system is too corrupt to work within. Nothing but force, or a threat of force, is going to get them to move a muscle. But before we march on the Capitol with guns, we need to take next logical step, which is, unrelenting, massive protests, employing carefully crafted acts of civil disobedience.
If we don't take that next logical step, then we will find ourselves with no option BUT force to accomplish our ends. I'd rather get this done without bloodshed, and it is doable.
Why would you make such an asinine statement unless you intended to imply that I am suggesting attacking the White House??????
What I stated was simply an undeniable fact: lawless tyrants are not beholden to the law and will not be moved by more laws we attempt to restrain them with. Suddenly that statement means that I suggest attacking the White House????
With God’s help, and Cruz in the president’s seat, we have a chance to save this country.
God is not going to help save this country after we sat on our hands as the culture kicked Him out of it.
Saving the country is going to require this nation pull a II Chronicles 7:14 en masse, and I do not see that happening right now - especially considering I am a pastor.
As to Cruz - while he above all others appeals to me, I warn against putting faith in political messiahs. No man is going to save us from the consequences we have piled up. We have no monarch except Jesus and part of our problem has been to treat politicians as saviors in election cycles. That is a very real danger as this is how a people make government their God and create cults of personality in government.
The only coverage the Tea Party gets is the Left-Wing Plant that tries to make the TP look like a bunch of gun crazy racists.
And they usually succeed.
Sadly, the left owns the media. Own the media, own the message.
On top of that, they own the schools and can start in with their Indoctrination at an early age.
If anyone knows how to counter the media and academia, let me know.
Time and circumstance. It’s a hard cob, and survivable.
In a tyranny, all one needs to do is refuse to comply, defy and resist what they demand, and the Beast will go and make public examples of us in order to create a climate of fear.
Simply refusing to comply will engender the same results of getting attention without risk of getting mowed down with a mob by tyrants who have already declared us to be terrorists in government documents worthy of military response.
I do agree with you and that is a big reason why I am leaning more and more towards Trump. The rest of the field and the media are going to savage Sen. Cruz and his message simply will not get out, what little that does will be mocked. While Cruz has released some excellent statements this week, what is the media image I have for this week? A picture of Cruz leaning forward with a gun to his head. Not his excellent rebuttal to the embarrassment to the law, but a gun to his head. Trump cannot be bought, he can play the media like a fiddle, is the only one who can use the media and blow past them. He will have the ability to tap into a populist movement for American jobs and prestige once again. I love Ted Cruz and donate to him but he needs to get to the debates where people can hear him but I fear by the time we get to that point at least half of his own party will have turned on him. Truly a lone voice in the wilderness.
So waiting for the right time under the right circumstances?
It might be a long wait.
We need something more pro-active, like parents attending school board meetings and telling them that they will not allow their children to be indoctrinated.
As for media, we have a nation of idiots that think every sitcom resembles real life, complete with the homo neighbor that is just the greatest guy in the world, but the Father figure character is an inept boob.
And that’s the way the homo’s in Hollywood have planned it.
Ward Cleaver is long gone from TV - IDK much about sitcoms these days, but their is usually a homo couple that are just swell, and the Father of the family is an incompetent boob that is the butt of most of the jokes.
And the schools are pushing the homo agenda on 5 year olds.
The media will “Palinize” Trump.
And he will most likely give them perfect opportunities to do so.
> “So what government services were citizens demanding from the constitutionally humbled federal government that they couldn’t get from their constitutionally powerful states?”
Mark Levin mentions the relevant factor is the large money creation machine via the Federal Reserve. The States have no such machine.
> “Also, I cannot figure out why, since FDR was evidently a popular president, he didn’t establish his social spending programs within the framework of the Constitution by first leading Congress to propose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states.”
FDR was not popular into his 2nd term. He swung to the right. And then the wars came. He had no mandate for amendments.
> “He instead made a fool out of himself by attempting to stack the Supreme Court with activist justices who shared his “great society” ideas.””
He threatened to stack the Supreme Court because they were declaring many of his New Deal Programs unconstitutional.
Obama and the democrats used the FDR playbook for Social Security nearly verbatim when they initially defended the PPACA Obamacare before the Supreme Court. They used FDR’s gameplan as a template for their own.
FDR had been selling his Social Security as just an old age pensioner program that was voluntary. But the Supreme Court was looking to strike it down but his lawyers argued in court that the Old Age Pension program (Social Security) was a tax. FDR knew and he remarked that he knew Congress and the courts would never reverse it if it was a tax. But he kept saying in public that it was not a tax.
Also FDR had social healthcare in the works to be launched but it was shelved because it became clear that FDR was pushing his luck. The democrats waited 75 years to get their social healthcare forced on Americans. The lesson to be learned is that the progressives never give up and are constantly looking for an opportunity to move their agenda forward.
I’m fully aware that a convention of states is very unlikely to fix the problem. It is a big hurdle to overcome. However, every peaceful method must be tried.
*********************************
I disagree slightly ..... it's not that a homosexual refuses to be aware they are sinners. A declared and impenitent homosexual is a person who, through an act of the vermiculate will, has identified his person with a sin. I do agree that the homosexual demands the declaration of spiritual authority that there is nothing objectively disordered about this binding of man to sin, and assurance that this monstrous amalgam can indeed enter the kingdom of heaven. This can never happen among Christians until they abandon Christianity, which is at war with every sin.
The time for involvement of that sort was 40 years, past. And, at that- it was still almost too late. The functioning family has been under direct assault, since the early ‘60s. Where we are now, is underwater for a while and a piece.
Great! And, I’ll bet Cruz didn’t have to spend time to put together that critique of the SCOTUS. He has the ability to quickly formulate his thoughts and facts and then communicate them extemporaneously. ....This is a keeper, for me!
Mere words - that’s all these are, so don’t get too excited. Both of us know nothing is going to happen, even if he is president.
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.