The Congress, the Courts, and the Constitution….

In the totally unnecessary “side show” (his words) originating with our “carnival barker” in chief (whatever his actual name is; there seem to be many…all foreign), the lot of his co-dependent enablers have stated breathlessly (and somewhat incorrectly) that the Supreme Court has “never defined the meaning of ‘natural-born’ citizen”…as if, absent a “ruling” (another telling word, given the heady oligarchic height to which the Court has ascended over time) by these nine robed “justices” (John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan…?) nothing can be known about the Constitution with certainty; as if the Federalists had never been written, or the extensive writings of the founders regarding the meaning of the Constitution were somehow unknown, or “out of print”!

In other words, absent their “ruling” (which is exactly what their sophist supporters favor), we cannot know anything about the Constitution for sure! Am I the only one in the room who bristles at that esoteric pronouncement? I think not. These men and women are no more intelligent than the rest of us, no wiser, and certainly no more moral than the roughly 315,500,000,000 citizens of this country. And yet somehow many – perhaps the majority – seem to mindlessly, or unthinkingly, accept that the members of the court are “all of the above.”  On what basis do they make this judgment?  On the fact that they are appointed for life by presidents loyal to their respective political parties, and can be clearly seen to vote accordingly the vast majority of the time?

I, frankly, have very little regard or use for the Supreme Court. Nine people, appointed for life, dressed in priestly garb have no right to tell a nation of 315,439,389 (as of yesterday at this time) what is Constitutional and what is not. I am decidedly not a fan of John Marshall, and the precedent he firmly established for Judicial Review. I do not believe that the practice was ever intended by the founders, and I have read as much, but haven’t studied the matter extensively.

The real irony today is that the high court is very loathe to perform one of its chief functions – that of serving as a check on the Executive (as well as on the Congress). In short, the court should overrule the president any time he does anything which is not specifically and clearly authorized in what used to be, at least, the Supreme Law of the Land (as specified in the 10th Amendment). Beyond that, their function should primarily be to give their opinion on the constitutional fealty of proposed legislation (my thought only, at this point, as the founders may or may not have envisioned it this way), and to rule on whether cases brought before them (not laws), are consistent with the laws passed by Congress, the Common Law (upon which much of our legal system is based), and the Constitution and Declaration.

They should be basing their judgments on the clear principles contained in both the Constitution and the Declaration, and on the historical record, as well as the written and documented beliefs of those who wrote them. Meanwhile, if the Congress itself were in the least way confined to the authority granted them under the Constitution, they would meet for a month or two out of the year – or in several brief sessions throughout the year. Originally, as specified in the Constitution, they only met for 2-3 weeks each year, starting on the first Monday in December.

Regrettably, that was changed to January 3rd, by the Twentieth Amendment, in March of 1932 – one year before FDR took office. We then went from having one session of 2-3 weeks in length (starting between the 1st and the 7th day of December, and presumably ending 2-3 days before Christmas, say December 22nd) to allowing just one day after New Years, to get back to Washington, in order to start the next day, and have the entire year in which to meet and pass regulations on the American People…all in the name of “taking care of them.”

That, my friends, was nothing short of a disaster…as well as the beginning of the end. Yes, there was a Depression, and that is no doubt the emergency which wasn’t allowed to “go to waste,” but the fatal and patently false presumption was that the Federal Government was chiefly responsible for solving that. In fact, they had no authority to do so, but in essence threw away the Constitution…and we have been operating outside of the Rule of Law from that day to this. The government that we now have would be entirely unrecognizable (and outside the framework of the law which they gave us) if viewed by the founders today.

The only thing that will save us as a nation at this point is to return to, and fully restore, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.  When our “representatives” fully accept that they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution (Article II – Section 1, the First Amendment, the Second,  the Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Ninth, or the Tenth?) they will enforce, and which parts they will simply ignore, we no longer have the Rule of Law…and at this point in our history, we indisputably do not!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>