Progressing the Constitution - The Ninth Amendment Part IV

ArticleVBlog ^ | December 27th 2018 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

Subtitle: A Judicial Mess.

The Framers considered and rejected a policy-making role for the Scotus. Despite James Madison’s repeated efforts, the federal convention defeated his attempts to attach the Scotus to the Executive Branch through a Council of Revision. Rufus King of Massachusetts noted that judges must “expound the law as it should come before them, free from the bias of having participated in its formation.” As if lawmaking by courts didn’t pose enough dangers to free government, what of the extreme danger of dressing up feel-good social justice in the drag of rights?

The late Judge Robert Bork summed it up: “Judges who create new constitutional rights are judges of the policy of public measures and are biased by having participated in the policy’s formation.”¹ The essence of republics is representative lawmaking; courts, by their nature, are set apart from direct popular will. Having lifetime appointments, lawmaking by such a body is the sure path to oligarchy.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The short history of the Ninth Amendment is found in the amendments that state ratifying conventions submitted with their letters of Constitutional ratification.² None of them suggested a warrant for judges to fabricate rights. The language of the 9th itself contradicts that notion. Had the first Congress thought otherwise, it stands to reason it would have submitted something like, “The Scotus shall determine what rights, in addition to those enumerated here, are retained by the people.”³

In recent decades, theories grew from academe and law schools that elected legislators, governors, presidents and the sovereign people are unqualified to decide the great issues that confront the nation. Therefore, it is up to enlightened jurists

[Pontiac]

In recent decades, theories grew from academe and law schools that elected legislators, governors, presidents and the sovereign people are unqualified to decide the great issues that confront the nation. Therefore, it is up to enlightened jurists

Well, it is obviously true!!!

Even in the most Liberal State in the nation, the people voted in a popular referendum that marriage was limited to one man and one woman.

Now, we all know that’s not right!!!

The courts had to step in and decide once and for all that gays have just as much right to get married as normal, sane people.

/S

[A strike]

Umm, has that horse left the barn?

[Pecos]

I strongly recommend the Hillsdale College online course Constitution 101. It's free and informative. The first lecture states that the Constitution has/is experienced three crises: the Declaration of Independence and Revolution, Slavery and Secession, and Progressivism (to include both Roosevelts and Wilson, IMHO). Wilson stated that he believed in the evolution of human nature, not just Darwinian physical evolution. As such, we had (in his statements) evolved beyond the point of needing the government to be constrained by law because people no longer had to fear the people in government - and then pointedly proved the fallacy of that statement by his own actions. Remember that this was the same crowd that advocated selective human breeding and that Wilson's history of the U.S. was the direct source of the themes of "Birth of a Nation".

Transnational progressivism is a form of amoral familism in which the only standard for right and wrong is that which advances the cause of the Progressive family/tribe. In my mind, this fully explains the Democrat's complete and utter lack of shame at the depredations of their own members unless throwing specific individuals under the bus serves the "higher" goal of totalitarianism under their hobnailed Burkenstocks.

[greeneyes]

Therefore, it is up to enlightened jurists
*****************************************************
More like Black Robed Tyrants. Subversive groups have long used the courts to obtain by decree what they could not achieve at the ballot box.

Thus, the majority is forced to live by rules they do not support. One might call it the Tyranny of the minority.

How much longer will the majority submit to the ridiculous state of things in USA???

[Jacquerie]

How much longer? No one knows.

But, what is certain is our runaway federal court system. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, Congress is incapable of exercising its Article III checks.

Where Progressives publicly scream for ever-more democracy, they privately lust for unlimited power in a tiny oligarchic Deep State, of which most federal judges are sympathetic, if not members themselves.

[exnavy]

Your statement nails it.