Coming Next Season
- From: "Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 04:45:18 GMT
THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY
By Larry Pratt
December 3, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
Does the Constitution provide for judicial supremacy through the process of
judicial review? Attorney Edwin Vieira, J.D. answers with an emphatic "No!"
in his book _Imperial Judiciary_
(http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm) .
Vieira makes a convincing argument that the Supreme Court (and other courts
as well) have pulled off the equivalent of a coup d'etat. They believe, and
too many Americans believe with them, that an opinion of the Supreme Court
is
a part of the Constitution. If the opinion contradicts the Constitution,
then
the Constitution, according to this view, has been amended. Overlooked is
the
simple fact that an unconstitutional decision of the Supreme Court is not
worthy of respect and should be ignored by all other officials who have
taken
the same oath of office taken by the judges.
If there are competing interpretations of the Constitution among officials
in different branches of government, "We the People" are to decide the issue
at the ballot box.
Consider that the Supreme Court has the authority to make decisions only in
those areas We the People have delegated. A look at Article III of the
Constitution does not reveal a heavy work load for the Supremes: the court
has
original jurisdiction in cases involving states as well as diplomats. All
other
cases are brought on appeals, and if the lower courts are eliminated by
Congress which has that authority, that ends the discussion.
The Congress does not need to send a constitutional amendment to the states
when the Court makes an unconstitutional decision. There is nothing to
amend,
just correct by legislation (or impeachment) removing jurisdiction.
No jurisdiction, no cases, no bad decisions. What is stopping that from
happening? The Congress. They have not used the power they have. Why? Well,
two
reasons. One is that "We the People" have not demanded that the members of
Congress act. A second reason is that until We the People act, the Congress
enjoys passing the buck to the Supreme Court saying, "We have to do this
because the Court said so." This charade will continue until We the People
make it
happen.
If the Court can indeed amend the Constitution with a five-to-four majority,
are we to believe that the Court can re-amend by the same vote of five
judges on the court? You have to agree that, even though this is not in the
Constitution, such power is more efficient than getting two-thirds of the
Congress
and three-fourths of the state legislatures to concur. The only problem
seems to be that the Supremes are acting outside the law. No wonder they
want us
to believe in an evolving Constitution (as long as they are the agents of
evolution).
One of the excuses for the audacious claim to amending the Constitution by
judicial fiat is reference to foreign law and international morality. This,
of
course, can mean anything a judge wishes to say it means. Who is to
interpret what foreign law? That of Cuba? France? Iran? Whose morality? Kofi
Anan and
the UN kleptocrats? Or perhaps the thugs ruling China? Yet the Supreme Court
has used this fiction to attack the capital punishment laws of the states
with absolutely no authority to rule in this area. Again, the Congress needs
to
strip the ability to bring such cases to the lower courts (if not
eliminating those courts altogether!).
If foreign law can be used to legalize sexual behavior that has been illegal
in the states and progressively eliminate capital punishment, it is only a
matter of time until the Court decides that:
* euthanasia is legal (after all, the Dutch think it's great),
* search and seizure protections are replaced by the greater interests
of the state to invade our privacy (works for the Chinese Communists),
* political dissent is stifled (Castro tolerates none of that), and
* firearms ownership is reserved for those working for the government
or who belong to select hunting clubs (just like England and most other
countries of the world).
Second Amendment supporters should be aware that the 1997 Brady Law decision
by the Supreme Court (Printz v. U.S.) includes a minority opinion by Justice
Stephen Breyer. He argued that the Court should have decided the case by
looking at the comparative experiences of other countries. In other words,
the
thought that foreign law could trump the Second Amendment is already being
polished by the foreign-law loving members of the Court.
Vieira puts gun control in an interesting perspective by comparing the
notion that "gun control" is permitted by the Second Amendment the same way
as "
occupational control" is permitted by the Thirteenth Amendment which
abolishes
slavery.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Liberals: No shame, no guilt, no conscience
- Next by Date: Re: Liberal democrats : " Saddam's really A Nice Guy"
- Previous by thread: Re: Liberals: No shame, no guilt, no conscience
- Next by thread: Need your online news experience (Survey help! - $10 reward possible)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
