The Supreme Court
"The Supreme Court of the United States of America has but one primary obligation to the American people, and that obligation is to use the power afforded it under Article III – Section I of the Constitution, to uphold, protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, the Charters of Freedom, and provide equal justice for all, without regard to personal political leanings or ambitions."
It doesn't matter whether a Supreme Court Judge is a Republican appointment or a Democrat appointment, his or her purpose is to uphold the Constitution: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”
The Supreme Court is to interpret laws and exercise judicial restraint of its own unreviewable power to give a 'yea' or 'nay.' When the Supreme Court engages in self-indulgence or judicial activism, it is stepping outside its bounds.
Philip K. Howard, author of The Death of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers effectively writes about the purpose of the Court, that it is not to promote a culture in which "law is wielded as a weapon of intimidation rather than as an instrument of protection" which would lead to "a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to assume responsibility, both overly reliant on authority and distrustful of it."
He criticizes a society in which the "rights" of "whoever might disagree" with mainstream traditions have trumped common sense. Specifically, Howard criticized the Earl Warren court for too much "sympathy for the little man." opening "the floodgates to abusive litigation." The Warren Court is now considered most influential (radically liberal) in the use of judicial power to effect social progressivism (reform) in America.
The Constitution
Original intent is the most pure way of upholding the Constitution. The Framers had a clear and valid vision for the nation, which is well documented in its original intent. That vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question. Judges are able to research several sources to determine intent such as contemporary writings, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and notes from the Constitutional Convention itself. Historical background and context at the foundational level is important for our country to maintain.
The Framers recognized that, over time, changes to the Constitution might be warranted, and that possibility was addressed. The Constitution prescribes in Article V the only method by which it can be changed, which is through the deliberately time-consuming process of amendment.
ARTICLE V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Judicial Activism
Modernism holds to the idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document and therefore means whatever a group of judges says it means. Since modernists do not revere the Founders of this nation and believe that their political philosophy is superior to that of the Founders, they want their Supreme Court to be able to rule accordingly. They want to go beyond what the Constitution says in plain English and beyond the "Original Intent" of the authors.
Modernists contrive the Constitution to be an ever-changing document in order to deceive people into believing that the Constitution must address every person's individual need rather than to protect rights of all individuals and limit government intrusion into each individual's life. Through this idea is how the left imposes their ideas on us.
No branch of government was meant to have the power to dictate new law without consent of other branches of government.
No one could possibly believe that when the Constitution was approved that there was even the slightest hope from amongst our Founders that society would be able to force abortion or gay marriage on the country without even being given the chance to vote it down.
No matter to the modernists. They would just as soon scrap the Constitution and render it obsolete, and that is what they are working toward. If modernism continues to distort the original intention of the Constitution, we end up with an illegitimate form of government. Our country will be unrecognizable.
If we want to avoid a perverted and subverted Constitution, we must keep leftist liberal modernists away from positions of power or influence. This is done at the voting booth by citizens enlightened about our history and who make sure that such knowledge is passed on to our children.
In the words of James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, major force in drafting the Constitution, and one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States:
"Why should we not teach our children those principles, upon which we ourselves have thought and acted? Ought we to instil into their tender minds a theory, especially if unfounded, which is contradictory to our own practice, built on the most solid foundation? Why should we reduce them to the cruel dilemma of condemning, either those principles which they have been taught to believe, or those persons whom they have been taught to revere?"
See original article
No comments:
Post a Comment