Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Supreme Court Mandate

The Founding Fathers were very intelligent people. They had a “blank slate” from which to draft a document that would allow us the most protection from tyrannical governments.

They knew that a King has too much power. Kings were known as the tyranny of the one.

They knew that a Democracy placed all of the power in the majority and therefore we would have a tyranny of the many.

They knew that a rule of “Judges” as in the Bible would once again place too much power in their hands and therefore we would have a tyranny of the few.

They were creating a government and granting the government powers. Notice the government was not granting rights to the citizens, the citizens always hold the power and the rights. They were just temporarily granting power to the new government.

They had seen first hand how "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton.

So, they decided that the best way to protect the individual was to separate the normal powers of the government into three different bodies. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches of the Government. That way the power that normally goes to men's heads, would be shared and would have "checks and balances" to prevent tyranny.

They next would spell out the rights that the citizens have and that no government should be able to trample upon. Those are found in the Bill of Rights.

They also spelled out how each branch is limited in their powers in the Constitution.

The Legislative Branch is to make the Laws. The Executive Branch is to enforce the laws and to protect our freedom from foreign and domestic threats. And finally the Judicial is to determine if the Laws that are made by the Legislative branch are within the scope of their powers granted them in the Constitution.

All powers not granted to the Federal Legislative branch were specifically left for the States to determine.

So, when a case is brought before the Supreme Court, its job is to determine if the Constitutional protections granted therein have been violated. After looking for the exact circumstance in the Constitution, their job is to say one of two things, “There is no such violation” or to say, "There is a violation."

Either way it is up to the Legislators to precede one way or the other. The people on either side of the case should petition their lawmakers to make a law granting their wishes, as long as those wishes don’t in turn trample upon others protections.

Instead what happens as in the case just recently where the Constitution was clear and had always been clear about “Eminent Domain”, the Judges should have said, “There is a violation. The Constitution says if the property is taken it must be for public use”, but instead said, "There is no violation, because what the Constitution really means is public good." This changing of the meaning is issued in an "Opinion."

This opinion has the effect of making new law.

This means the Judges are fulfilling the duties of the Legislature.

Now there are only two ways to fix their misinterpretation. One is to push through a Constitutional Amendment that in effect says, "only for public use." And then to define what public use means, since for some it must not be clear enough!

The next way is to appoint more "strict intrepretationists" to the court and get another similar case brought before them so they can issure the correct ruling, in effect, cancelling the previous error.

Since the Judges are appointed and not elected, they are not accountable to the people. The reason they are appointed is so they can be “strict interpreters” of original intent without fear of being cast out at the next election, since the whole intent is to not be swayed by public opinion. Intrepreting a document should not be based upon politics, but upon intent to protect our freedoms. They are never to change the Constitution, that is only done by Amendments.

But by making new law without fear of accountability, they have become tyrants. The very thing the Founding Fathers were trying so hard to avoid so we can keep our freedoms.

Let us fight for our Legislators to back appointments made by all Presidents that are “strict interpreters” of the Constitution and not Judges who bring agendas with them to make new law.



3 Comments:

At 10:45 AM, Blogger bhlogger said...

Whole-heartedly agree with you on this one, FAR.

 
At 5:18 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Thank You bhlogger, we have found common ground before and I am sure we will find it again.

 
At 8:55 PM, Blogger Roseville Conservative said...

BTW, FAR...

Please post more often. when you post, you are right on target.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home