Since Dec 29, 2000

view home page, enter name:

Please be sure to take a quick look at my website

"Conservatives Today, Thinking Right"

     In anything I post here on Free Republic, I always try to apply common sense, logic, and factual content in my posts. Although I am only human, and sometimes I may make a mistake. There are a few things that I stand steadfast on in regard to Country, Individual Rights, and Personal Responsibility.

Sean Hannity, in his book, "Let Freedom Ring" states,

"The Constitution stands for neither slavery nor abortion and yet in order to reach their conclusions, the justices in both cases had to treat human life as if it were something else."

The Courts of The Land:

     I also maintain that several decisions handed down by some of our Courts have been legislation, and not interpretations of our Laws, as is required of our Judicial Branch in their role of Government, to interpret existing law, not to invent new law, or legislate from the Bench. The Judicial Branch can correct inconsistencies in existing law, but cannot, according to the Constitution, dictate law based on "discoveries through hypothetical postulation" using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to arrive at a totally new theory based upon a Judges interpretation of what "he thinks" the Constitution actually was trying to say as he sees fit.

The United States Constitution:

     Many in today's political and social arenas view the Constitution as a "living document" with the need to change/reinterpret it's worded meaning to fit with today's modernistic societal trends and fashion. I strongly oppose and disagree with this flawed view of liberal extremism that supports this erroneous view. Why would our Founding Fathers take so much care in writing a document with precise wording and not put in a clause to say as much to let this document adjust to the changing times of the Country if the need arose? Actually, they did, they called it adding Amendments, and left it up to Congress, who was entitled in the first place to establish and make new law, certainly not the Judicial Branch! Because the Congress is controlled by the People, unlike the Judicial Branch, who is responsible and answers to no one.

This was all set up on a very excellent system of balance.

1) Congress (Legislative Branch)

...was appointed to make and establish new law, duly appointed by the People. and vested that power in the States, and the People, who ultimatly decide the members of Congress and therefore have great influence on American Law, certainly not the Judicial Branch! Because the Congress is controlled by the People.

2) Courts (Judicial Branch)

...was appointed by the Constitution to "interpret", not discover, new law from decisions agreed upon in Congress, who are chosen by "We the People".

To Sum Up:

Our Country was not meant to be controlled by an elite few, but rather by a system that was...

1) Controlled by the voters (the people)
2) Balanced by the Legislature (Congress)
3) All led by the President and his Cabinet (Executive Branch) and

     Governed by laws made by Congress, who were elected by We the People, which are meant to be Enforced and reinforced by the Judiciary. And the entire system protected by the President and his Cabinet (Executive) most of the time all working together for the good of the people, the voters. And to him given power through the Congress if need be to the Nation's Military to protect the entire circle that encompasses and protects what we all too often take for granted, and that is our LIBERTY, our FREEDOM. And that in and of itself defines us as who we are as a people to the rest of the World.

     But much too often the Judical Branch has taken on the role of activists, inventing law where non ever existed and ignoring law when it doesn't fit their political leanings. In some cases justifying their decisions by almost saying that "since it doesn't say specifically that it isn't against the law, then it cannot be proclaimed in the Court of law as illegal." This is Judicial Extremism, and I have seen most of it carried out on the left hand side of the Political Arena.

Here are a few examples of Judicial Extremism that I have witnessed in my lifetime:

1) Great diminishment of rights to the First Amendment concerning freedom of relilgious expression. And in the second part: freedom of speech has been greatly expanded to an all inclusive clause from "speech" to also include certain "actions" that require no speech at all.

2) A great decrease in rights concerning the Second Amendment.

3) Government has steadily used the latter part of the Fifth Amendment to it's advantage, especially when it comes to building new highways, etc. When one has to pay taxes to County and State governments their land is of great worth; but when the land is needed for a new highway, well, it just isn't worth that much anymore. I would like someone to explain that one...

4) In the Eighth Amendment the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" has taken on a whole new meaning since the late 60's, to include that prisoners must be afforded weight rooms, cable tv, the right to a college education, I could go on...

     Granted some of this has been done by the Congress; but when did you ever hear of a member of the Judicial Branch overturning any of these radical viewpoints as it pertains to past law or Court decisions?

     On the flip-side of the coin, how many times can you recall the "fanatical right's" point of view being smashed due to their "non-understanding about not taking someone else's feelings into account on such issues"?

     Does only the minority few in this country have emotional feelings about what they believe in? Whether it be religion, abortion, sex-ed in schools, teaching evolution and not creation science, etc...
Just where do the rights of others come into play?

     The so-called "Seperation of Church and State" issue is a bit of a misnomer. If one has studied early American historical development and Colonial settlement and growth, one would clearly see that the Church/religion played an integral role in the early American establishment, including our Historic Documents, and the way the Founder's conducted themselves in both their everyday and political lifestyles. Anyone who would try and suggest otherwise is only trying to kid his/herself.

     If we take faith of a Higher Being out of the American lifestyle, it only leads us to another type of religion, one of either secularism or atheism. Either way we end up with an ism. An ism is simply another form of doctrines or beliefs. Why should Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., be forced to accept the beliefs of these isms when we have our own that we whole heartedly accept with great passion?

     If this is allowed to be carried out, will this not make the Government (all branches inclusive), through collusion with the Courts, whether it be through action or inaction, in direct violation with the first phrase of the First Amendment;

And I quote:

"Congress shall made no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

Many debaters on this subject like to stop short on quoting the first amendment there, leaving off the second part of the sentence which clearly states the governments intended purpose in phrasing the first part in the way that they did...

...or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;...

     The First Amendment gives limitations on what CONGRESS can do with the citizens rights as a whole, NOT on what the restrictions of the PEOPLE are in what they can do with thier freedoms mentioned in the First Amendment...

     If they allow the abolishment of diety worshiping religious symbols, sayings, and actions from the public arena, yet allow the secularist movement to prevail with spreading their belief that secularism is better for America, have they not in essence after all "respected an establishment of a religion"? One that recognizes a total rejection of any type of religion and religious considerations that are favorable to, to use the words of the Framers of our Constitution, A CREATOR.

     This type of thinking by the Courts is known as secularism, and as the word is defined it is essentially the first step into Atheism. This in essence would be exactly AGAINST what the First Amendment was originally intended and worded to protect Americans citizens FROM...