The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was speaking
to the bar association in New Orleans. One of the more
potent remarks was, "It will not do to regard the Constitu-
tion signed in Philadelphia as . . immutable and unchal-
lengeable. Change is the law of life, in government as well
as in other matters."
His tone reflects thoughts which have been floating
around DC for a long time. Destroy the remnants of the
Constitution. It's only an ancient document which is no
longer relevant in the world as it is today. It was a good
idea in the time of the horse and buggy. The world today is
smaller due to electronics and weaponry. Restrictions which
were established in the old document cannot apply in this age
of instant mass destruction.
He also added, "There is no reason to treat our present
Constitution with an 'Ark of the Covenant' mentality." Isn't
that cute? What a brilliant mind came up with that!
What an attitude for a man whose position in life exists
solely because of the Constitution! That document created
his job. Now his intent is to change it to suit what he
feels is best for our country (and himself, I might add).
Here is a man paid to uphold the law. He pays no income tax
on his salary and says the Constitution does not mean what it
says. Can anyone imagine such arrogance? We often hear the
statement, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." What do you
suppose is his excuse?
What our new chief justice is preaching is judicial
supremacy! And he doesn't really care what you think about
it. After all, he has honor.
The judicial branch receives its authority from Article
III of our Constitution. There is nothing in that article
which gives the black robes permission to change our form of
The authorization for our government does NOT come from
the federal government. To verify this, look at the opening
statement in the document. In bold, fancy letters, we find
the words: WE THE PEOPLE. That's right . . . our Founding
Fathers established this form of government as the rule of
the people. It was a novel concept and is still as viable
and workable as it was over 200 years ago!
Let's take a look at that preamble:
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."
This states the purpose and goal of our government. All
the principles, values and ideals of the Declaration of
Independence are put together for the world to see our intent
. . .
Do you think the chief justice is aware of this
preamble? Does he know the meaning of the word 'justice'?
Isn't it clear to him that WE ordained and established the
constitution and created his job? How about the blessings of
liberty . . . will he now determine the limits of our
liberty? Buffalo chips.
By posterity is meant you and I and the generations
which are to follow us. That statement proves we are the
If our friend in the black robe doesn't have the power
to change our constitution, then how can it be changed?
Obviously only by going to the ones who gave the power for
government in the first place . . you and I through our state
representatives! Very often, the state will ask for our
consent through the ballot box. This is true when it's a
controversial subject. However, the fact remains . . . it
CANNOT be changed by any branch of the federal government!
It makes no difference what pretense they use to attempt a
change. (Art V)
When the document was being drafted, the men who were
sent to Philadelphia were intelligent and learned men. They
probably had no idea that the carriage would become horseless
and knew they couldn't foresee the future. This amendment
provision allows for changes which future generations might
feel necessary. This makes the document ageless.
The new boss of the high court says that it won't do to
regard the Constitution as unchangeable since change is the
law of life and government. Won't do for whom? Do you think
he was talking about the amendment procedure? The more
likely scenario is they are going to change it through
judicial interpretations. Is he really that stupid or is it
the country bumpkin syndrome again?
The amendment process is slow and unwieldy. That's
fine. It's supposed to be. They have tried to make over
3000 amendments to the document. We have only agreed to 26
of them. (27 now) You believe he was talking about the
Now, if that process weren't clear enough for those in
the government to understand, let's look at the Bill of
Rights. This addition really spells out the limit of their
power. The entire Bill of Rights is a restriction on the
government. There is not one restriction on the people.
Here is one amendment which the federales wish didn't exist
and it is the one they have most consistently ignored.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Simple and straight forward! It's obvious from this
amendment that anything to which we did not say OK is
denied. They CANNOT assume any power which we did not
delegate through the Constitution. Why do you suppose the
people who work for government can't understand this amend-
ment? Especially one who is supposedly trained in the law!
Two more points have to be verified before we take a
look at some of the older writings. The first is what is
called the supremacy clause of the basic document: (Art VI,
THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF . .
SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. . .
This is also clear enough for any of us to understand.
All laws MUST conform to the authority which we granted by
the document. There is no other way to read it! If laws
made do not agree with this clause, they are NOT the supreme
law of the land. They are unconstitutional and NO ONE need
obey them! Can't be any simpler than that.
The second point is everyone who works for the national
government must take an oath to support the Constitution.
(Art VI, cl 3) We have allowed NO exceptions to this
requirement. Nor were there any changes allowed through the
amendment process. Public officials have made a joke of
Federal judges have not taken an oath to support the
Constitution although we ordered it. All his oath says is he
will perform his duties to the best of his abilities and
understanding. Also that his performance be agreeable to the
Constitution and the laws of the United States. (Title 28
United States Code, Sec 453.)
Yet the oath requirement specifically points out that
judicial officers must swear or affirm to GOD to support it!
This is how they get away with making changes to our basic
law. By swearing to God to do his duty to the best of his
understanding means they can claim flexibility to how they
understand it. Why don't they swear to support it?
Let's check out some of the old writings on our
government. The first we'll look at are The Federalist
Papers. Alexander Hamilton, in Paper No. 78 points out
clearly that a constitution is, in fact, the fundamental law.
Judges must regard it as such! And, in the same paper, he
remarks that is their duty to declare all acts contrary to
authority of the Constitution void. Without the performance
of this duty, he adds, all the talk of about rights or
privileges would amount to nothing. How true!
Another important point in the same paper is that the
judicial branch of the government will have neither force nor
will. They will merely exercise judgment. It's a good thing
he isn't alive today to see how wrong that statement turned
out. The Founders expected the judicial branch to be the
weakest of the three branches.
Judges were intended and expected to be protectors of
the citizens from the government and its agents. It hasn't
worked out that way. After all, judges are part of the
government. Since they no longer believe that the power for
governing comes from the people, they are now protectors of
the bureaucracy. The new chief justice is just getting ready
to carry out that duty!
This dereliction of judicial duties is the greatest
danger to the survival of our republic! Were they performing
their duties according to the mandate for judges, Congress
couldn't legislate beyond the restriction of the supremacy
clause. Without qualms, judges should declare such actions
unconstitutional. By the same token, the executive branch
couldn't issue an 'order' or regulation with the force of
law! Judges must declare those illegal also!
Let's look at some of the arguments and discussions
which went on at the Convention during the formulation of our
new government. We find the consensus was that judges had no
right to make law or revise law.
One proposal was made to form a "Council of Revision".
It would have consisted of federal judges and the executive
branch to check the laws passed by the legislative branch.
This came during the debate of whether the executive branch
should veto laws. Mr. Gerry, the delegate from Massachusetts
was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the
Articles of Confederation. He said: "It was quite foreign
from the nature of their office to make them judges of the
policy of public measures."
Statements came from many delegates that the "associa-
tion of judges with the executive was a dangerous innovation"
and "Judges of all men [are] the most unfit to be in the
revisionary council." "Judges should not be meddling in
politics and parties and they should never be admitted into
the business of legislation . . . The Council would make
statesmen out of Judges . . . that interpreters of the law
could never be involved in legislative duties." This can be
found in a book called "Documents Illustrative of the
Formation of the Union of the American States," (House
Document No. 398, 69th Congress, 1st Session 1965).
Is the new chief justice unaware of the intent of our
Founding Fathers? Perhaps he just believes that we are so
ignorant of our Constitution and its intended method of
operation that we couldn't question their actions. Probably
true. We see federal judges issue orders and edicts all the
time which have the full force of law. How can this be when
clearly judges are not to make laws?
We are now at a point in time where five people of the
nine on the Supreme Court can decide a controversy. After-
ward they issue a decision which in effect amends our Consti-
tution. This is a violation of the amendment article! Five
people, mind you, not elected, who represent no one and who
are not directly responsible to us. Can they change our
government by simply saying, "This is how it is to be."?
In 1935, they showed their true impudence. The Supreme
Court decided not to consider constitutionality of an issue
if it could avoid it. (Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authori-
ty, 297 US 288). If a controversy could be disposed of on
some grounds, other than constitutionality, that was the
path they would follow. They have simplified their job. If
constitutionality is to be contested, they simply refuse to
consider it. It does not get onto the docket. Every court
from the High Court on down now follows that decision!
Protectors of the people? Does this fit the description of
One of their favorite words is frivolous. If forced
into a decision they prefer not to make, they say, "It is
frivolous!" The issue is then denied and thrown out of
court. It's the judicial way of invoking the 'privilege' of
not incriminating themselves. After all, why face the
The new chief justice is certain he has more wisdom and
intelligence than all those men who attended the convention
in 1787. The attitude of these people is that they all feel
they personally have come down off the mountain carrying
tablets of stone. Yet we all know they are only human with
all the faults, prejudices and frailties as the rest of us.
There has been much rhetoric through the years about Supreme
Court Justices being conservative or liberal. Drivel!
Were they following the dictates of our basic law under
the authority we granted, we couldn't put a label on their
actions. Do you know there is no requirement in our
Constitution that a judge be a lawyer? This is probably the
root of our problem! What we need is Americans in these
positions who will truly support the document as required.
The Constitution is immutable and can only be changed through
the prescribed method!
When the proposed constitution went to the various
states for ratification, each state requested a bill of
rights. All states feared the powers that were being granted
for the business of the new government. Several of the
states specifically pointed out that all power is naturally
invested in and consequently derived from the people.
Magistrates, [Judges] therefore, are their trustees and
agents and at all times amendable to them. New York state
made a special request. All Judicial officers shall be bound
by Oath not to infringe or violate the Constitution or Rights
of the respective States.
Alexander Hamilton, in Paper No. 83 reiterated that the
Constitution confines the authority of all federal courts.
If the Founders had considered giving greater powers, that
limited authority would only have been excess words.
Are we now at the point in our history where might and
power make right? Can they say to hell with the Constitution
and the power of the people? Is the land of the free and the
home of the brave now the land of regimented masses? Or the
home of wimps? Are we going to allow these people to dictate
to us when their limited power of government comes from us?
Are WE the real endangered species they talk about?
All federal judges hold their positions during good
behavior. (Art III, Sec 1) Violation of the Constitution
cannot be good behavior! Even a moron would have to agree
with that! Hamilton (speaking of federal judges) points out
further in Paper No. 79, "They are liable to be impeached
for malconduct by the House of Representatives and tried by
the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office
and disqualified from holding any other."
Malconduct is "Ill conduct, especially dishonest
conduct, maladministration, or, as applied to officers,
official misconduct." (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed.)
Exactly what we have been discussing! The violating of
constitutional restrictions or amending the document in any
manner not authorized is dishonest conduct and therefore,
How long are we going to sit still and allow our rights
to disappear down the toilet? Until we are all slaves?
Until we all have to carry national ID cards or have our
numbers tattooed on our arms? For this to happen, all good
people have to do is nothing! What will you tell your
children someday when this comes to pass? What will you say
when they ask, "Why didn't you do something about it while
there was still time?"
The problem is the American people are so apathetic and
simply don't give a damn anymore! We must wake them! The
alternative is frightening!
We need determined people to get after our 'friends' in
Congress. Demand that they establish confining rules and a
proper oath for federal judges. All activities must conform
with the edicts we agreed to in the Constitution. The rules
and regulation of the court system is the responsibility of
Congress. (Art III, Sec 2)
They have to be aware that we are going to return the
power of government back to the people. Both houses of
Congress must be buried with millions of phone calls, letters
and petitions for redress of grievances. We must challenge
them at face to face confrontations. Demand that federal
judges who feel they can do whatever they desire under the
guise of law be impeached. They must be denied any further
position with the government.
We all should heed the words of Cicero who warned Rome
just before its collapse, "Beware of the traitor within the
gates." Our traitors are not only within the gates, they
have their hands on the latches.
Ignorance on our part is no excuse either!