A Defense of The Constitution Against the Unconstitutional Inventions of 'Judicial Review' & 'Judicial Activism'
U.S. Constitution, Article 6, clause 2:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
But in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall opposes, and sais:
“too extravagant to be maintained that the Framers had intended that a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises.”
As we move forward in the American historical timeline from his 1803 opinion we find that the Supreme Courts were arbitrairly silent on the fundamental right to life & liberty, and ‘activist’ in constitutionalizing their ideologies. 'Judicial review,’ an instrument creating an additional power not written in our Constitution, shifted an increase of power unto the Supreme Court, and away from the other two federal branches. With the unspoken precedent created in the process of establishing judicial review, namely, ‘judicial activism,’ the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall instituted a precedent that judges could be ‘activist;’ ‘judicial activism’ itself laying the groundwork for political factions to constitutionalize political ideologies. Aside from both of these two precedents being against the original word and intention of the framers of our government, the spoken & unspoken precedents set a path of legalizing slavery, segregation, and finally abortion in the new Supreme Court atmosphere that condoned ‘activist judges.’
It was never from within the Court that the course of humanity was corrected, but from without—It was John Quincy Adams blockading the release of the issue of slavery from Congress; it was the incredible intellectual defense/ offense strategy of Frederick Douglass; himself clenching tight unto the promissory note that is our Declaration of Independence, and it was Abraham Lincoln altogether demolishing the judicial/ legislative theoretical construction of ‘Popular Sovereignty’ that had impinged its claws into manipulating the instrument of government, from the Supreme Court, straight across to the White House, and amongst the U.S. Congress.
The silence of the Supreme Court was the lash of the whip upon the spirit of liberty of America; there it struggled for breath as it was mutilated with the invention of ‘judicial review;’ each judge from 1803 and forth was a constitution unto himself with their feet on the throats of the African-American humanity. John Quincy Adams’s adamant entrenchment in defense of the ‘all created equal’ natural law, as written in the Declaration of Independence could be legally opposed and scorned at because of the judicial construct invention that the Supreme Court could be stacked with minds & hearts subservient to the slavery industry faction; and the people, for lack of education to be those outspoken, critical thinkers that the nation so needed, were made to ignorantly consent without knowledge; without understanding.
"Dec. 4 1888
My dear Robert Adams.
Thanks for the paper containing an account of the Fall [R]iver Aldermanic Reunion. I was glad to observe the part you were able to take in that pleasant occasion. I was also glad to see that your Brother Charles was also there.
I am a good deal disturbed just now by the clamour raised for the disfranchisement of the colored voters of the South. The cry about negro supremacy is like the old cry you and I so often heard in the old time about the negroes going to cut their masters throats. Its all humbug – There is nothing in it. Kind regards to Mrs Adams and yourself in which Mrs Douglas joins me. Yours very truly
Fredk Douglass”
So it is in such way, that the natural law could be co-opted and the ‘reverse’ Declaration Of Independence literally become the new law of the land. With the invented theory of ‘judicial review,’ and the unspoken precedent of juridical activism, the slavery faction that ultimately controlled the Democrat Party had to merely set its focus on placing emphasis on one of the three branches of government, even as it percolated its adherents in the legislative and executive branch as well. This theory gives the Supreme Court additional veto’s on the other two branches, effectively, rebalancing the power structure of our government.
"We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers."
Abraham Lincoln,
Address at Cooper Institute, February 27, 1860
The invented instrument of ‘judicial review' and the method of its creation, judicial activism finish off restraining the power of supremacy of the Declaration of Independence.
This instrumental language and methodology implies that the judge sais what the Constitution says and intends, replete with the arbitrary insertion of statutory diligence as it pertains to responsibly defending the originalist word and intent of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Henceforth, the Constitution is not administered as supreme law, but open to arbitrary judicial activism and ideological interpretation couched in the guise of constitution language. This ploy upon the fundamental American law, beginning with the natural law that is straightforward and plainly written in our Declaration of Independence, is like a two-edged sword, in that the efficacy; the very legitimacy of the American government itself becomes beholden to the caprice of people, who are themselves, beholden to the self-interest of political faction.
It may be said that not all judges, not all Justices may agree with the 1803 opinion that became the ‘law of the land’ (due to the unknowing consent of the uninformed American people), yet, if ‘upright’ judges and Justices can be found who oppose the use of those two invented & unconstitutional instruments, these individuals are rendered as in default agreement to that 1803 ruling in their silence.
Why?
Because they do not stand in a concerted, vocal effort in correcting the matter, and completely restoring the original supremacy of our founding legal documents of 1776 and 1787.
With one notable exception, all Justices in the Supreme Court have given their tacit, default approval since that 1803, Marbury v. Madison opinion: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a 2010 speech at Washington & Lee University, railed with the utmost civility upon the judicial aggrandizement that has characterized the Supreme Court and lower courts since 1803, (Clarence Thomas Appears at Washington and Lee University.)
Together, these two invented constructions upon the Constitution paved the way for a take over of our government by a small group of wealthy people, and also created the environment for them to maintain power.
Case in point, immediately upon the death of Abraham Lincoln, the unconstitutional separation of the people was instituted based on race, with the purpose of completely oppressing the newly, freed slaves; disallowing their right to be at liberty to partake as equal citizens in the local and national community. They were oppressed physically, psychologically, and educationally so that they could not raise upon legions of critical thinkers; they were suppressed from entering the jury box so that they could not share in being an equal part of the defense of their own people, and they were suppressed from voting at the ballot box, so that they would not be able to affect the leadership of their towns, states, or nation! The slavery & segregation factions purposed to keep them as close to economic poverty as could be done.
It is the time, and always is, for the American, with good conduct, to raise his and her intellect, to make their conduct responsible and upright, that they be ready to give that good defense; that selfless defense of the true ‘spirit of liberty,’ that the political instruments to stop them, the use of ‘identity politics’ be of no effect, and they may be able to make their message withstand and endure; that in our selflessness, we may burn off the ‘dross’ of self-interest, and we then join the ranks of those mighty men & women; that George Washington, that John & Abigail Adams, that John Quincy Adams, that Frederick Douglass, that Abraham Lincoln, that Martin Luther King, and that Ronald Reagan, who threw the political script away on March 8, 1983, and exemplified the ‘spirit of liberty;’ he cared and went for the black heart of the abortion industry; wrenching it; slaying it; defending the family, defending the children, defending liberty.
It is the time, and always is, for Americans, for “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature, and of nature’s God entitle them.”
Within the letter of the true law we remain faithful, decent, kind, obedient, and humble. Yet, unto that unconstitutional construction upon our Constitution, with civility, we become hostile to such doctrine that opened the door to slavery, to segregation, and to abortion; seeking to call it out; following the valiant pattern of the speeches and writings of Abraham Lincoln, of Frederick Douglass, and of Martin Luther King; that in no regard may it be said that we offend as revolutionaries or radicals. It is not a new doctrine or a new vision that is put forth, but the old tried and true ancient faith that has already been tested and became our Constitution; starting with our Declaration of Independence.
Comments