The Supreme Court Could Deem the Constitution Insignificant

I don’t believe this President is a “Constitutional Lawyer” based on his recent public criticism of the Supreme Court’s potential decision in the healthcare case. He has either forgotten his lessons or he thinks the country is that stupid. There is also the theory from the “conspiracy” types that he has been tipped off by one of his two recent Supreme Court appointees, Sotomayor, and Kagan that the court is leaning toward the unconstitutionality of the law. I do not wish to believe that but anything is possible with this administration.

President Obama has stated that an unconstitutional ruling is equal to “judicial activism.” This is not the truth. Judicial activism is when the court creates legislation from the bench. If the court determines that there is no authority in the constitution for the Congress to mandate the purchase of healthcare and strikes it down, the Congress can simply re-structure and pass a new law without the mandate. That is simply the role the Supreme Court plays in the process.

President Obama has also said this law was passed with “overwhelming” support of the Congress. If I recall correctly, not a single Republican in the House voted for it, and maybe 1 Republican in the Senate. Seventy percent of the country wants the law repealed. The President seems to be setting the stage that no matter which way this goes it will be the deciding issue of the November election.

If the healthcare law is determined to be unconstitutional, the left with help from the President will make the argument those conservatives, Republicans, and the Supreme Court need to be replaced with people that support helping the “least capable” among us. They will invoke class warfare about how republicans want to help Wall Street not Main Street blah blah blah… If the law is deemed constitutional it is the end of the Republic as we know it and it is time to invoke the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Healthcare will become the intrusive power to which the federal government will have no bounds into the control of our lives. I have little confidence that even a change of political parties in November, Republicans will have the guts to repeal the law. The Tea Party will have to organize to reset the government to its original intent.

This President has forgotten that the three branches of government are independent and separate for a reason. Just because this President thinks something is a good idea doesn’t make it so or make it constitutional. As a constitutional student he has failed. Or he has a mission to destroy our founding principles. If he is threatening the Supreme Court my reply would be: The Supreme Court should show this president they can’t be intimidated because they are on equal footing according the constitution. A constitution in peril of being deemed insignificant by the justices of that same Supreme Court…

Walter Williams asks: Should we part company?

Walter Williams is the smartest Professor in the country. He makes an argument that needs to be considered. Is it time for America to admit we no longer share common goals or vision for the future, and go our seperate ways?

I believe like he does that the answer lies in our U.S. Constitution. The one our founders wrote; not the interpretation of it by the Supreme Court...

PLEASE READ THIS!

The Tenth Amendment and the Supreme Court…

As the Tenth Amendment becomes the platform to stop an over reaching federal government, do we trust the Supreme Court to be a fair arbiter?

The Supreme Court, according to many constitutionalists, has been delinquent in its responsibility to protect the intention of the U.S. Constitution. Many past Supreme Court decisions have become bad precedent, and that bad precedent continues to be the bases for big government advocates to site as a justification for a continued trampling of state, and individual rights.

People that believe the constitution is a “living document” historically have utilized the commerce clause to feed their insatiable quest to trample individual and state’s rights. The constitutional clause under section 8 of the powers delegated to Congress simply states; “To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The intention was not to be a conduit to suppress the rights and freedoms of the fifty states and their citizens. But that is exactly how the federal government gets its tentacles into places it has no right to be. If there was an intention to regulate internal state activity the word “among” would have been “within” the several states. The constitution is a document that protects individual rights by limiting the government’s role in our lives. It is not a document that was intended to grant unlimited rights which is what has happened through these poor precedents set by past Supreme Courts.

The commerce clause was intended to insure the fairness of trade and the ease of trade; period. If the states were left to their own, it would have been thirteen different policies on trade relations with foreign nations and chaos among the thirteen original colonies which could have resulted in many disputes, including civil war.

The commerce clause became the “Holy Grail” to big government advocates and has been twisted and molded into many forms. Much of this bad precedent can be traced to the administration of FDR, another big government advocate. FDR threatened the Supreme Court to successfully get his programs passed but the more important point is; if he could threaten the Supreme Court to change their opinion, can other administrations? That is why I ask; can we ever trust a Supreme Court to side with the people and the constitution? If not; what can be done?

Governors of the fifty states need to start challenging the federal government at every turn, and the way we must do it is through the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. But can we trust the Supreme Court to interpret the original intent or will they fall back on faulty precedent? Can the Supreme Court be unbiased in the argument to reduce the scope of the federal government they are a part of?

I am afraid that too many people don’t realize how important the Supreme Court is to our future. We could end up with two new justices which could be a blessing or disaster for our constitutional republic. We must continue to support our constitution by electing people that respect and understand how important abiding by the U.S. Constitution’s original intent is to a hopeful future. Governors need to start challenging the federal mandates but will the Supreme Court be able to judge these challenges fairly? The answer will only come as we continue our efforts to apply the constitution…

They Fawn as we Fail…

The press is acting as if we are living in a banana republic and we have a benevolent dictator as our leader. Unfortunately that sentence seems to be gaining some credibility mostly because we have a press and an electorate that is paying too little attention to what is really happening to this great nation.

While the press is covering “date night”, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela are all moving forward with nukes that threaten our allies and our existence but please tell me about Michelle’s black cocktail dress and the eco friendly Leer Jet.

The government is trampling the US Constitution by taking over private institutions with our tax dollars but please tell me more about the “eco friendly” restaurant (whatever that means) and the wine and martini’s they were drinking.

As the president jet sets around the country millions of people are watching their budgets because they have either lost a job or are about to lose it. I don’t care if he wants to take his wife out but he is no different from any other citizen and I would appreciate a little respect of the money he spends in these difficult economic times.

As the president waves to adoring crowds we have a Supreme Court nominee that has the most racist view of America and she is being hailed by the press for her “inspiring” story. Inspiring? Maybe if you are not on her target list of people that need to be discounted because they are white and male.

As the president stops traffic on the West Side highway in NY inconveniencing an entire city on a Saturday night, other businesses were losing customers due to the arrogance of this man and his need for adulation from crowds. Shame on New Yorker’s for acting like they were teenage girls at a Hollywood opening.

By all means let’s just not have the real debate on policy, spending, debt, and constitutional law breaking. Let’s just watch this adolescent we have in the White House ruin our country right under our noses. Shame on the press and shame on us…

Empathy Need Not Apply for the Supreme Court…

Justice is blind. Lady Justice does not care if we are Black, White, Hispanic, Chinese, Male, or Female, she only cares about the consistent and blind application of law to every individual American citizen. Justice Roberts at his nomination made the analogy of what a judge does to the role of an umpire.

An umpire at a baseball game does not care what the players look like, where they came from, whether they grew up rich or poor when calling balls or strikes. If the team that has more minorities than the other tries to steal second base during a game, the umpire does not need to show empathy to that team as he makes the call at second base because the call is the call. The rules are clear and must apply to every player the same.

To suggest that the traits of a judge need to include empathy, and understanding what it is like to be poor shows the ignorance of the president and media in selecting good judges for any court but especially the Supreme Court. Members of the Supreme Court are the ultimate umpires in legal disputes and understanding the constitution (the rules of the game), and applying them blindly is the only real qualifications needed.

If Major League Baseball started hiring umpires that made calls based on empathy and an understanding that the teams that always lose need special considerations to win the entire league would fold. No one would ever go to a game again because the rules are what make it fair, and if the application of the rules is not evenly applied then people watching will have no confidence in the integrity of the league.

By nominating a person like Sonia Sotomayor based on the “qualification” of empathy the integrity of the court is in question. Will she rule differently for Black people than Hispanic people? Will she be more empathetic to women than men? Will she favor the poor over the rich? If she does favor specific groups and you are not in the group being favored how will you feel?

There is a reason Lady Justice is blind; there is no reason a president should be…

Qualifications for the Supreme Court…

Why does the left believe that diversity on the Supreme Court is important? Because they don’t understand or care about the United States Constitution or the role of the Supreme Court in our government.

What the left cares about is changing our system of government so they can control your life. They don’t believe in your individual rights or true freedom. They hate that you can own a gun and can listen to talk radio. They hate that you can succeed without their help. They are the most racist people in the nation believing Blacks and Hispanics are inferior in intelligence so they shackle them in government programs they call “compassionate”. They hate that you love God and believe there is a creator greater than the men/woman they put their faith in.

That is why they believe putting diversity and ignorance of constitutional law on the Supreme Court is good for this country. Unfortunately most Americans don’t understand the role of the Supreme Court, mostly because the left has ruined the education system which permeates civic ignorance. Sonia Sotomayor is an enemy of the US Constitution. She believes the role of the Supreme Court is to overrule legislative decisions that she or her liberal left don’t like. For example; the people of California have voted twice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The court has overruled the people twice. This is an outrageous abuse of the California courts. Sotomayor believes that is the role of the courts; to decide like a dictator how we run our states. She knows better than you and I; a true elitist.

She believes white males need to be punished and pushed aside for the minorities because white males are bigots, all too powerful, and need to have any achievements they have accomplished taken away because they were earned unfairly. She is a bigot and radical woman that has a mission to ruin men, and our constitution.

She should be defeated, and exposed for what she is; unworthy of a place on any court…

Where is the outrage over McCain Feingold?

Presidential candidate John McCain suggested that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Habeas Corpus for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country”, I agree with George Will's assessment. I would also say the implications of the infringement on free political speech, as defined in McCain Feingold, is as concerning as the current Supreme Court decision. As George Will points out, we must always balance the governments power to detain people indefinitely. What George Will calls "The Most Fearsome Power".

Although I have faith in the military, like any government organization, there is an opportunity to over step their bounds. I don't believe these terrorists should have access to our civilian courts but I would like to see a military tribunal determine the status of each prisoner being held to quell the critics that suggest "innocent victims" are being held without just cause. My gut says that they are holding the most dangerous of our enemies. In that vein we need to make sure they don’t end up being brought here to stand trial. I am still gathering more details but I trust George Will’s instincts about having some oversight.

The point here is where is the outrage against McCain Feingold? He has sponsored and has passed legislation that limits our speech at the most critical time; during an election. I believe this needs to be pointed out. As for his presidential contender, Barrack Obama, he has not shown he deserves his Harvard Law degree. He actually compared the Nuremberg trials to support this decision, not understanding it was an International Tribunal, not a trial conducted in an American court.

Obama stated that Nuremburg showed that we as Americans are above others for having the sense to put the Nazis on trial. As if the US was the place they were tried and it was a US court. It was an international military tribunal and they were hung. There is no comparison and it highlights his ignorance as an individual. Now I am not saying that I would know everything about history, but I am smart enough to keep my mouth shut when I don’t know a subject. There is huge intelligence in knowing when not to speak. Unfortunately, Obama is not that smart.

Terrorism can not be fought through the criminal justice system; period. We tried that and the result was 911. Let's learn from history and not repeat it. That would probably be good advice for the Obama campaign.

We need better choices in candidates; period... You get the government you ignore. Rich Hand Author…