Cost of judicial tyranny: Alan Keyes says reaction to Pledge decision signals crisis of distrust

Reaction to the federal court ruling that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional has revealed not only a national consensus that the decision is wrong, but a national disposition simply to defy it.

The controversy presents two strong challenges to America. First, at a time when the war on terror makes principled national unity crucial, the Pledge symbolizes our common commitment to one another, to the country and the ground on which we stand together as Americans.

So, the apparent determination of Americans to keep the Pledge, whatever the courts say, means that the judges' decision may actually galvanize and intensify our national resolve against the forces of tyrannical terror – at least in the short term.

However, there is a competing challenge before us. The more insidious danger is, ironically, suggested by the otherwise laudable popular rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling. There is widespread determination to keep the Pledge no matter what the courts say. And in this reaction we may finally be seeing the dangerous fruit of decades of judicial irresponsibility and tyranny, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt. Particularly in First Amendment cases, the federal judiciary has richly deserved the ridicule and rejection being showered on last week's decision.

But it is difficult to overstate in principle the danger to our republican form of government of such contempt. Judges are independent in America because they need to make unpopular decisions – decisions which the majority might not agree with, but that are required by the law, by the Constitution, by the principled tradition of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has fashioned. The spirit of active and vigilant citizenship that denounces corrupt, arbitrary and incompetent judicial reasoning is essential to liberty. But when that denunciation reaches the point of open and active contempt for the very office and authority of the courts, making principled but unpopular judicial decisions impossible, an equally crucial bulwark to our liberty is in danger.

America is in the midst of a permanent war against terror that will require a very difficult and dangerous balancing act between our security and our liberty. It will be the judges who decide crucial questions regarding how power is used in meeting this challenge to our safety and national security.

But can we have confidence in a judiciary which seems to be going out of its way to discredit itself? For example, how will such a judiciary sustain the confidence it requires from the American people should the court decide that the president lacks the authority to do something that the president says is essential to our national security?

After decades in which – from the law schools to the Supreme Court – the judicial culture has indoctrinated itself and the nation in the theory that the law is whatever the judge says it is, the whole country is in danger of waking up to the reality that judges who claim the right to be arbitrary are abdicating their claim to respect and obedience from the citizens of a constitutional republic. When the people decide that their judges are whimsically tyrannical, this republic will no longer have a judiciary – or the liberty that comes from living under a regime of law.

In the case of the Pledge decision, the rot goes deep – because it was required by Supreme Court First Amendment rulings going back 50 years. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," a phrase that for decades has been perversely and willfully misinterpreted by the courts. Those words mean, quite clearly, that Congress shall make no law on the subject of an establishment of religion.

Instead, the Supreme Court has, in effect, required lower courts to ignore the plain meaning of the words of the First Amendment, and fabricated an irrational understanding of those words that does exactly what the establishment clause forbids – allow the federal courts to interfere with religious self-determination in the states. The rejection of prayer in schools, and the exclusion of God from public places – both grounded on a mindless abuse of the establishment clause of the First Amendment – come to a natural conclusion in the Pledge decision.

This history, not merely the Pledge decision by a lower court, is the most outrageous – certainly the most overt – overturning of the Constitution that our nation has witnessed. The courts need to be very wary of the spirit of defiance that such judgments arouse in the people by the judiciary's contempt for common sense and our basic rights.

For liberty, we need a respected judiciary. For the sake of preserving our liberty, we need to insist that the courts begin again to deserve the respect from a free people that makes their work possible. Bringing such discipline to the judiciary is, at bottom, a political task. It is one more essential job that only a principled and vigilant citizenry can accomplish. We may hope that the absurdity of last week's decision will awaken many of our fellow citizens to the importance of the task before it is too late.

" And in this reaction we may finally be seeing the dangerous fruit of decades of judicial irresponsibility and tyranny, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt."

This isn't the first fruit of judicial irresponsibility and tyranny but it just might be the one that galvanizes the public.

I think Keyes misses the point here. This is a Christian nation, that built it's appreciation of God and His God given freedom into it's government, culture, and agencies.

No one can touch our freedoms legally, because they come from God not man. Because our freedoms are not man given, man cannot take them from us, a fact that guards us and makes us unique in all the world. This is what is being attacked by the courts who want to throw God off their backs and cut the bonds that hold Americans freedom in God's hand and not man's hands.

It's dangerous and irresponsible, it smacks of an agenda that seeks a power over us above the power of God, and needs to be held in the upmost contempt of court.

...decisions which the majority might not agree with, but that are required by the law, by the Constitution, by the principled tradition of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has fashioned. The spirit of active and vigilant citizenship that denounces corrupt, arbitrary and incompetent judicial reasoning is essential to liberty. But when that denunciation reaches the point of open and active contempt for the very office and authority of the courts, making principled but unpopular judicial decisions impossible, an equally crucial bulwark to our liberty is in danger.

Wrong, Alan. The liberal Federal judiciary has for decades been making its own unconstitutional law based "penumbras and emanations" and the chickens are now coming home to roost, that is all. This decision -- and many others in recent decades -- deserves our contempt. This reaction has been far too long in coming. It is the law itself that has been prostituted by an unprincipled Liberal federal judiciary and this "under God" fiasco is the logical continuation of a long-standing trend. The people are not at fault, Alan. The people are contemptuous of this and other rulings because these decisions and laws are unconstitutional and deserve contempt.

For liberty, we need a respected judiciary.

Yes, we do, but they must earn our respect.

For the sake of preserving our liberty, we need to insist that the courts begin again to deserve the respect from a free people that makes their work possible.

Some have been trying to do this for decades, without success.

Bringing such discipline to the judiciary is, at bottom, a political task.

But the politicians have been wilful cowards, Alan, and more than willing to ignore principal.

It is one more essential job that only a principled and vigilant citizenry can accomplish.

How, Alan? BS, Alan. The Federal judiciary does not listen to us unless there is a massive outcry, such as in the current instance. If the law becomes a prostitute, should she be treated like a lady? That is hypocrisy. If Federal judges subordinate the law to their liberal agenda, as has been done for decades, by what logic does such law deserve our respect?

The liberal Federal judiciary is finding that by undermining the Constitution, they undermine the law and their own authority. This should be no surprise. But so long as the liberal Democrats in the Senate are willing to play politics with principal, this will continue to happen, and there is no sign whatever that they will "get religion". Where is our choice, Alan?

Why are you so angry? Is there really a strong fault line here? Alan Keyes has admitted the outrage is justified. And there is another point, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt. Profound prescience. This is a real danger. It happens here first, on FR.

Right, Alan. There is a real danger of a pendulum swing. We sometimes say, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Why are you so angry? Is there really a strong fault line here? Alan Keyes has admitted the outrage is justified. And there is another point, bringing us at length to the point where law abiding American citizens view the formal opinions of the federal judiciary with active contempt. Profound prescience. This is a real danger. It happens here first, on FR.

I am angry but for the first time in living memeory, so is the majority. I have watched the dishonesty, the hypocrisy, for decades and it does not get better, it gets worse. The politicians are craven cowards. The judiciary have sowed the wind and have now brought us to the verge of reaping the whirlwind.

At this point, there is only one pertinent question and it is a very pragmatic one: "How, specifically, is the situation to be fixed? What, exactly, are we to do?" Is it realistic to think that we can infuse certain judges with a dose of character after a lifetime of hypocrisy? Who will hold them accountable? And if no one will, as has been true for decades, what then is to be done?

Yes, I am angry. I have seen this situation coming for so very long. I am angry because I care. Simple honesty would have resolved the situation before; that is, certain decisions would never have been written. Principled action would resolve it now, but the politicians' track record is dismal in this regard -- they will talk, not act. So what, specifically, do we do?

So what, specifically, do we do?

There are many things to do, for there are many people to do them. Mr. Keyes is kindly suggesting that whatever we do, let us not be revolutionary in our reaction . . . .when that denunciation reaches the point of open and active contempt for the very office and authority of the courts, making principled but unpopular judicial decisions impossible, an equally crucial bulwark to our liberty is in danger.

Vaclav Havel had entertained this question of practicality in the face of systemic corruption. His response: live in the truth.

And I agree. I also agree with Solzhenitsyn. Specific laws and specific judges have, however, earned our contempt. We should not hesitate to show it. If hypocrisy and dishonesty are allowed to stand as law, the very revolution so feared by Keyes will become inevitable. I didn't at all miss his message, you see. But it is now not enough to "tolerate" the continuing erosion of our moral capital -- tolerance in truth being ennui or sloth or calculation. JimRob thinks (and I am interpreting here) that we can overcome by voting straight Republican, then weeding the miscreants. He may be right -- it may be the one effective nonviolent course of action, and I do not advocate violence. But the politicians have gamed the system to the point that votes are massively being bought and public service is a contradiction in terms. Means have been sacrificed to ends. If the takers can outvote the contributors, what then for the republic?

cornelis, to live in truth one must know it. And love it. And honor it. The modern deficiency, in my humble view, is in knowing it. Everyone of whatever stripe thinks they live in truth. Even Adolescent Boy President Clinton will tell you that the question of the definition of "is" is metaphysical in its import. Serious-faced Liberals will tell you that smoking is a cardinal sin. But I'm sure you know that the Liberals have talked themselves into a corner with "There is no truth". They've done this because if there is no truth, there cannot be lies. It's all sophistry. They don't lie about money. But they know, down deep, that they lie about larger things.

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.