A change of names from Sean to Rush, and you would have the bases covered.
Posted on 10/08/2005 3:32:48 AM PDT by JOHN W K
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
The SCOTUS: what is its Fundamental Duty?
10-06-05
Our President has recently announced Harriet Miers as his nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. In making this nomination, president Bush has stated:
"In selecting a nominee, I've sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person. I've known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart, I know her character. I know that Harriet's mother is proud of her today, and I know her father would be proud of her, too. I'm confident that Harriet Miers will add to the wisdom and character of our judiciary when she is confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court."--President George W. Bush, October 3, 2005
It is sad to report that our politically controlled big media in its extensive coverage of our President’s nomination, has neglected to expound to the public the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Our media, and especially our “talking heads” on TV, appear to be quite comfortable in speculating as to this nominee’s political ideology, unearthing her past and predicting how she may rule in certain cases. Of course, this type of reporting creates a wonderful distraction from a productive and informative discussion as to just what is the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the SCOTUS, and, is she aware of what that duty is?
So, let us explore what is the most fundamental duty of those appointed to the SCOTUS.
Thomas Jefferson informs us that:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Indeed, this is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law___ carrying out the intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Even Congress is aware of this rule although Congress ignores it on a regular basis:
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967).
Although there is over three hundred years of American history documenting the most fundamental principle of constitutional law requires an adherence to the “intent of the framers and ratifiers” of a constitution, it is quite fashionable these days for law students, political pundits, and especially the subjugators of our constitutional system, to question this rule and even attack it on a number of inapplicable and/or thoughtless grounds. For example, one may question:
“Which framer's intent, and at what time? The framers had tons of different views on the law and the Constitution. They were far from being in agreement, so there is no clearly defined "intent of the framers and those who ratified our Constitution."
As a matter of fact, the above misconceptions are merely a reflection of what law professors have been indoctrinating their students with for many years. Whether it is done out of sheer ignorance, or as part of a conspiracy to intentional undermine the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system in order to subjugate the protections afforded the American People under it, is insignificant at this time. What is import, however, is to rely upon historical facts, documentation, and always use the rules of common sense in arriving at one’s conclusions, especially when determining what our written constitution was intended to accomplish.
We do know the constitution did not suddenly appear out of thin air; there is a history behind it and a wealth of recorded evidence documenting its day-to-day framing See Madison’s Notes on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; see the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and, also see Elliot’s Debates, the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and, in many instances, it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the constitutional convention!
Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by We the People.
Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
So, two of the most important questions to be answered with regard to Harriet Miers are:
1. Does she understand the most fundamental rule of constitutional law?
2. And, will she support every one of her decisions, if appointed to the SCOTUS, with documentation from the words of those who framed and ratified our Constitution, showing their intent of any article, section or clause of the Constitution which has been asked to be reviewed by the Court?
In closing, another glib remark made by the subjugators of our constitutional system is:
“It is stupid for us to be ruled by the dead hand of our founding fathers.” But this comment merely shows an intentional misapplication of our Constitutional system to support an allowance for judges to make law to accommodate changing times. But the wise framers of our Constitution provided the amendment process allowing future generations to make changes to their Constitution to accommodate changing times, and not be subjected to open ended judge made law “to accommodate changing times“. It is this amendment process, in which the reason and choice of the people is intended to prevail, rather than those who would re-write our Constitution via judicial opinions, which the subjugators of our Constitution hate with a passion, and wish to overrule with judge made law.
Let us put an end to this subjugation and demand the intent of our Constitution, as contemplated by those who framed and ratified it, and is found in the historical records, be made the cornerstone of every decision handed down by the SCOTUS!
John William Kurowski, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service
[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]
Sean could start by quoting James Madison from Federalist Paper No. 45 which outlines the limited power being granted to Congress:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
He could then document what the people of the various states declared when framing their own state constitutions, and the particular powers they intended to grant to their state legislatures and not the federal government. As an example, Sean could cite what the People of Maryland agreed to in their State Constitution, in which they intentionally delegated the power for a state funded and regulated educational system to their state elected officials, and not to the folks in Washington.___, the wording being as follows:
“The General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shall by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools; and shall provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance.”
The Maryland Constitutional also states, in emphatic terms: “the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”
And, under Art. 3, of Maryland’s Constitution, the command is for local regulation, as opposed to federal regulation of education which is ignored by The No Child Left Behind Act. The Maryland Constitution states in emphatic words:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.”
This very provision of Maryland’s Declaration of Rights is also agreed to by the People of the United States in their ratification of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States!
Sean could then asked, “Why do we have a federal department of education?” And then Sean could answer his own question by saying, “Because the creation of a federal department of education also allows the creation of countless political plum jobs, many of which have six figure salaries and are jobs involving nothing more than an OFFICIAL at the Department of Education redistributing wealth taxed away from hard working Americans for functions not authorized by our federal Constitution!”
And what do these political appointee OFFICIALS really do at the Department of Education? Surprise, they pilfer money from the Department’s budget into their own pockets See: The Department of Embezzlement
And, just what are some of the plum jobs at the Department of Education? For a partial list see: Officials—U.S. Department of Education
Sean could then conclude___ “Having identified the intended functions of the federal government, intended to operate on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, here is a current A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, click on any particular listing to find the countless plum jobs created in that department, most of which are not authorized by the powers delegated to Congress by our Constitution!
Fact is, our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population with a national debt which exceeds $50 Trillion.
Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who have created a servant, and the new servant pays tribute to a gangster government which ignores our most basic law…our Constitution, and ignores this supreme law with the approval of the SCOTUS, which also ignores the intent of our Constitution as it was contemplated by those who framed it and the people who adopted it!
That would be great! Pity they have to spend so much time talking about themselves instead.
A change of names from Sean to Rush, and you would have the bases covered.
The U.S. federal government is out of control. How to tame the beast and return it to constitutional enumerated powers is the question of the ages. With Trillions of dollars at stake it seems an impossible task. The SCOTUS however a good place to at least start.
BTW, what ever happened to the enumerated powers act? The one that would require congress to show the constutionality of each piece of legislation. I seem to remember it being introduced into congress a ways back. Died on the vine I suppose.
My thanks.
I don't believe a radio host such as Sean Hannity could pull it off.
And like any addictive drug habit the more one ingests that
drug the greater the tolerance and more of the drug is required to achieve the desired affect on anotherwise free and independant system -the end result being heightened
likelihood of accidental or intentional overdose as one
imballanced by the affect the drug of choice realizes in moments of lucidity they have become enslaved and no longer can see a way out of their house of mirrors.(except in death) Of couse the logical response to any addiction is to
break the cycle and abort the habit.
I do agree it is a most excellent post. ANd it is maddening that our mere politicians seem caught in the web of their own devise. WOuld I be happier -could I trust G.W.Bush to
make the best decision possible--One that would assure the
Court would be restored to it'sintended purpose?Yes-- AM
I confident that he has made the best choice to affect that purpose?-NO.I fear he is a man like many others and it seems he has been affected by the global addiction to extra
constitutional governance that wa simpressed upon us after WW II by FDR. via formation of the Soviet style global debating society the UN. In that I fear G.W.Bush is no more
Constitututional or under the Constitution than Kennedy,Souter, Breyer, or Ginsburg.Only time can tell if his stealth pick in Meirs will prove to understand and uphold our Constitution.But the point is moot all any need do is obey those laws that clearly are Constituional -and ignore the rest-- but be ready for the consequences from the one holding the bayonet.
From our Constitution of the United States:
“Article III.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
AMENDMENT XI
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
The phrase, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, … between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;… seems pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court is the appellate Court for Federal laws and disputes between States. It would appear it is not authorized to rule on cases affecting the internal cases of the States. The 11th Amendment further restricted the Supreme Court of the United States from interfering with the individual States.
The 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause is used as the excuse to interfere with the individual State’s affairs. I believe this is as much a stretch as using the interstate commerce clause (Article I Section 8 “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”) as an excuse to pass innumerable laws affecting the States and the citizens.
I’m still trying to find the excuse used to establish the plethora of federal laws and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. Article II Section 2 enumerates the powers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government – “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States… He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties… The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate…”
Our Executive Branch is actually rather limited in power. Nothing about heading up a law enforcement branch that is larger and better armed than most countries.
BTW, what ever happened to the enumerated powers act?
An excellent article that fully satisfies it's grandiose sounding title!
Perhaps every senator should get a copy too.
On May 29, 2001, seven justices of the Supreme Court of the United States [Stevens, J., Rehnquist, C.J., OConnor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ.], in delivering their ruling in the case PGA Tour, Inc., v. Martin, violated their oath to support the Constitution of the United States; engaged in a flagrant act of subjugation; ignored the intent with which the People adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; and, as Justice Scalia and Thomas noted in their dissenting opinion, “exercised a benevolent compassion”--- something which is not within the authorized duties of the Supreme Court.
In this case, the above mentioned Justices ruled that the ADA requires the PGA Tour to allow Casey Martin, a professional golfer, to ride in a golf cart between shots at tour events. Keep in mind, if the ADA does require what these Justices have stated, then the Fourteenth Amendment would have to have been intended to not only prohibit state sponsored discrimination based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery, but physical impairment as well, which simply is not the case.
The People, when adopting the 14th Amendment, intended to prohibit state sponsored discrimination, “black code laws“, [discriminatory law based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery] and insure that all people, regardless of race, color, or former condition of slavery, would enjoy a constitutional guarantee to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to inherit and purchase property, etc., as was then enjoyed by white citizens. This was the narrow intent of the majority who supported the Fourteenth Amendment.
A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, which was intended to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act into the Constitution ---thereby making the first Civil Rights Act constitutional --- contains not one shred of evidence the amendment was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon one’s disabilities, and allow Congress to enforce this prohibition by federal legislation. As a matter of fact, there is an abundance of documented evidence the amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area…to prohibit state authorized discrimination, unequal law, based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…” As Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was being debated elaborated:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” see Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex or physical disabilities falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination which is prima facie evidence the Fourteenth Amendment is not a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination at the voting booth on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment was unmistakably adopted to enlarge the prohibition on state sponsored discrimination mentioned in the 14th, and extend it to include a new subject matter, but only to the extent that the prohibited discrimination is based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”…the People not yet willing to provide the same federally enforceable guarantee to the female gender!
The assertion that the 14th Amendment prohibits a wide variety of discrimination such as discrimination based upon sex, [see Justice Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI Case], is totally refuted when reading the 19th Amendment which was adopted by the people to specifically forbid yet a new kind of discrimination, discrimination at the voting both based upon sex. Why adopt the 19th Amendment forbidding the right to vote to be “denied or abridged” on account of “SEX.” if the Fourteenth Amendment already prohibited sex discrimination as claimed by Justice Ginsburg?
And finally, why would there have been a proposed so-call “equal rights amendment” offered in the 1980’s for adoption to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit sex discrimination by legislative acts [which was voted down by the People] if the 14th amendment already granted such power to Congress as Ginsburg asserts?
The truth is, the Supreme Court is working in concert with those who are subjugating our Constitution and supplanting their personal whims and fancies as law in spite of the Constitution forbidding such law ---, such action being a blatant rebellion against our Constitution, and meeting the definition of tyranny!
Regards,
JWK
ACRS
Can’t get anymore flagrant than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.