Constitutional Truths For Life
Combining scientific & medical facts with Biblical & ethical principals to form arguments which save lives by persuasion with or without legal enforcement is of inestimable value - however - these victories for life haven't succeeded in terminating the unconstitutional opinions commencing with Roe v Wade which have broken the rule of law.
#1 The President of the United States has no Constitutional, legal, or ethical mandate to enforce unconstitutional majority opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court, anymore than the U.S. Supreme Court has to uphold laws passed by Congress or State legislatures that are unconstitutional. It emphatically the prerogative of the President, by virtue of Article. II. Clause 8, to review bills presented by Congress for Constitutionality, and majority opinion of federal courts, which are currently being enforced. Bills failing Constitutional muster must be vetoed and federal judicial opinions contrary to the Constitution must not be enforced.
#2 The U.S. Congress has no Constitutional, legal, or ethical mandate to agree with unconstitutional majority opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court, anymore than the U.S. Supreme Court has to uphold laws passed by Congress or State legislatures that are unconstitutional. It emphatically the prerogative of the Congress, by virtue of Article. VI. Clause 3, to review actions of the President and majority opinions of the federal judiciary for Constitutionality. Congress must exercise the power of impeachment & removal of any President violating the Constitution. Federal judges who routinely issue opinions contrary to the Constitution must impeached & removed. Federal courts that routinely issue majority opinions on certain issues contrary to the Constitution must have their jurisdiction removed and in the case of the U.S. Supreme Court, must have appellate jurisdiction removed allowing each state to decide the issue.
#3 Article. VI. Clause 2 & 3 forces the States to follow the Constitution and not the dictates of an Unlawful order from any federal court or judge. The States, by the Constitutional doctrine of Interposition, and Amendments IX & X are empowered to ignore any federal judicial doctrine that results in an unconstitutional majority opinion.
#4 Article. V. Describes the procedure for changing the Constitution which includes the States and Congress and excludes all federal courts and the President. Article. VI. Clause 3 compels the federal courts to comply with the Constitution and Article. V. Prohibits them from even participating in permissible alteration. The Constitution and Federalist Papers make it abundantly clear that the federal courts have only the power of opinion and nothing more! The people through the States, Congress and President need to focus on and fix the problematic federal courts which have been broken for decades and leave the unbroken Constitution alone.
References
William J. Quirk on how to end the "gay marriage" debate--today
Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect Marriage for the ...
- Hearing Before The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary ^ June 24, 2004 Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School
- Hearing Before The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary ^ June 24, 2004 Prepared Statement of Professor Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law, Notre Dame Law School
- Hearing Before The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary ^ June 24, 2004 Testimony Of Phyllis Schlafly, Founder And President, Eagle Forum
The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury
The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition offers the following definition:
The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government. The concept is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reserving to the states powers not delegated to the United States. Historically, the doctrine emanated from Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, wherein the state of Georgia, when sued in the Supreme Court by a private citizen of another state, entered a remonstrance and declined to recognize the court's jurisdiction. Amendment 11 validated Georgia's position. Implementation of the doctrine may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance.
Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby
"Interposition is an official act on the part of a State government to question the constitutionality of a policy established by the central government." Our federal government is one of checks and balances; the Executive veto and the Court check the legislature's actions for constitutionality. Likewise, the Legislature and the Court check the President's actions. But who checks the Court? "The right to challenge any usurpation of power on the part of the Supreme Court must by lack of alternative, if for no other reason, devolve upon the States." What does the Tenth Amendment mean if not that a State can interpose itself as a legitimate determiner of the Constitution to which it is a consenting party?
posted by EdCurrent | 11:17 AM
2 Comments:
We are living in perilous times in which powerful, wealthy forces possessed of a vision in which all nations cede their sovereignty to a one-world gov't are driving our own nation to this end.
These people, some of whom are liberal Republicans, some call themselves Libertarians, and some are cultural Marxists, have no loyalty to our Constitution, nor to our founding principles. To them, these things are antiquated, and should be retired to some museum.
My point is that it makes no difference to these globalist agendists how well-reasoned our arguments are in defence of our Constitution or of any issue related to it.
"We the people" are going to have to secure our liberties and fight to preserve the integrity of our Constitution, which after many years of abuse, is in sad need of having its' integrity restored.
Eagle Forum's Court Watch . . .
������������������ The Constitutionalist Manifesto: A Summary
��������Virginia C. Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
"An idea, adopted by a court, is in a superior position to influence conduct and opinion in the community; judges, after all, are rulers" (Edward H. Levi, 1949). Levi's description of the federal judiciary was made before the advent of the Warren Court, generally identified as the beginning of the liberal/activist judicial revolution in America. Levi's assessment of more than fifty years is far truer today.
America is engulfed in the fires of a Culture War and federal judges have been whipping the flames to a white-hot heat. Their objective? "The crusading and coercing roles of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, [are] a model for all those whose primary aim is the wholesale reconstruction of American society." (Robert Nisbet, 1982). These Reconstructionists must be repelled. And the responsibility for an effective counter-attack falls on us Constitutionalists, who revere the Constitution and its foundations. The "Constitutionalist Manifesto" draws our line in the sand and is a Twenty-First Century Magna Charta for our constitutional republic. The most embattled principles of the "Manifesto" include the following.
��1. The Constitution is, and must be, by definition, the � "supreme, fundamental, paramount, permanent" law of � � the land. No court decision, statutory law, or other form of � � "law" is either equal to, or superior to, the Constitution.
��2. The Constitution provides America with the legal anchor necessary to give our nation stability and direction--qualities � � without which no nation can survive.
��3. The provisions of our Constitution have a fixed meaning. � � This meaning can, and must, be determined by careful, � � objective study of the express language of the text, the � � context of the provision being interpreted and of the entire � � document, the intent of the Framers, and the world view in � � which the Constitution was embedded by its Framers.
��4. The Constitution, properly interpreted, can express the � � values of only one world view. It cannot reflect a � � "pluralism" or "diversity" of world views.
��5. The world view in which the Constitution is embedded is � � the Judeo-Christian world view. The Constitution's principles and purposes are defined and prioritized by the Judeo-Christian value system. The Constitution cannot survive � � if it is ripped from its Judeo-Christian moorings.
��6. Federal judges have neither the authority nor the competence to rewrite the Constitution by altering its � basic meaning. Federal judges are governed by the � � Constitution. They are required to respect their boundaries and � � give full application to the consent of the governed, to other � � branches of the national government, to state governments, � � and to other societal institutions.
We, America's Twenty-First Century Constitutionalists, affirm these principles as both our foundation and the objects for which we are fighting in America's Culture War. We call upon all Americans who love our constitutional republic to understand clearly, and support completely, these principles. Thus may we fight together to reclaim our culture, our Constitution, and our courts!
The entire Constitutionalist Manifesto can be accessed here: http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watch/alerts/2003/may03/Manifesto.shtml
Post a Comment
<< Home