Calculated Audacity: Political Factions, The Supreme Court, Our Constitution & Its 'Spirit of Liberty'

A sentinel with the 'spirit of liberty' 

makes his case to the slavery faction:

"When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves in the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, 

even by implication.”

&

"When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live" --the men who made the Constitution --decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago --decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts."

     February 27, 1860 

Address at Cooper Institute, Abraham Lincoln

It has been said and made known that our liberty is not fought and purchased for in some past generation and extended until all future generations, but that this liberty is always one generation from expiring. To our youth and our young adults, this may appear as a dramatic statement. They after all, are able to walk outside, play, enjoy life, fly where they may want to be, and study to become the professionals they hope to attain to be. This is a false sense of uninformed security though, and if they have arrived at the conclusion that there is no need to mount a defense, these individuals have become intellectual casualties, rendered in their present estate of mind useless to understand what liberty is, that they may best be able to defend it. Likewise, such a perspective, it is unfortunate to say, may be the common default state of mind for millions of Americans, and the responsibility is charged upon the quality of our education and the education policy makers for each town, city, and state for producing or not producing an American people who are independent, critical thinkers who care about their country.

We must be taught the ‘pattern’ of defense and offense of the defenders of that spirit of liberty that was born from the generation of 1776; whose torch was carried through the 1800s and 1900s by a few sentinels who can be clearly seen to be altruist to the cause of loving humanity.

The writings and life’s work of a select few Americans exemplify a pattern of selflessness for others and a devotion to the ‘spirit of liberty’ that is the heart and mind of our Constitutional text: our Declaration of Independence & our Bill of Rights. These individuals were: the Founding Fathers of our Constitution, including, but not limited to: George Washington, John & Abigail Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and though they were racially divided, the work of the Women Suffragists of black and white skin color; the early work of Attorney Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, and Ronald Reagan, who on 

March 8, 1983, sounded the loudest battle cry for Americans to awaken their hearts and minds unto the saving of our countries most cherished blessings, our children and the family.

This said, we must be trained to think objectively & independently; to look into, question, think critically; with an observant, analytical mind that is solution-oriented and creative in its final output upon how truth can be twisted, and individuals and factions can and do always seek to gain the power over the straightforward constitutional rights & liberty of the people that are always ours. Surely, though we may not appreciate it, we are duty-bound to maintain a government that is supposed to be of us and for us with a clearly discerned, ardently pure, unalloyed ‘spirit of liberty.’

We must be willing to care enough to always look into the matters of our government and not be wearied by its process. We must think and feel that it is our individual duty to expect the utmost best quality of government, and we are best situated to do so if we are these empowered, critical thinkers who care.

(excerpt of the Constitution of the United States, Article VI)

“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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and  of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

With that said, let us observe wherein we can bring our attention to, that the end result be the greatest defense and restoration of our Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has at times, in its process of operation, ‘invented’ legal precedents that have led to its self-establishment of legal primacy above  our Constitution, rather than the Constitution itself, being the primary law under which we live.

 It has done this with its creation of a new legal, unconstitutional power called ‘judicial review,’ that was created in its 1803 Marbury v. Madison opinion, wherein the court used words, in effect, quietly declaring it had a new ‘check & balance’ upon the Executive (President’s office) and the legislative (U.S. Congress) branches of government: that it could nullify or approve actions of these two branches of government, and that this was called ‘judicial review.’ The problem is that this new power is not in the text, or written language of the Constitution, it was invented, and so, it is ‘unconstitutional.’ The Supreme Court, through its opinion and the consent of the people allowed itself a new power, creating a seismic shift in the balance of power among the three branches of government, between the ‘people’ and the government, allowing itself supremacy of authority of the Constitution, rendering a 'negative' on the power of the Constitution, itself being nullified and subject to the review and interpretation of the Supreme Court Justices.

“This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitution.”

Marbury v. Madison, Opinion of Justice Marshall, 1803, p.178

Chief Justice Marshall of the 1803 Supreme Court being open about his opinion that the Supreme Court has authority to say what they think the Constitution says. The opinion became a 'precedent' and nullified the natural law of the Constitution, placing it under the authority of the Judges interpretation.

Chief Justice Marshall of the 1803 Supreme Court being open about his opinion that the Supreme Court has authority to say what they think the Constitution says. The opinion became a 'precedent' and nullified the natural law of the Constitution, placing it under the authority of the Judges interpretation.

It was calculated audacity that was largely unopposed by the people, though the invention of ‘judicial review,’ has since that 1803 opinion, been largely studied and discussed amongst legal schools.

Why does this matter? Why does it matter that the people who become Justices in our Supreme Court have supremacy above the power of the Constitution? 

Well, do you remember a thing called, slavery? We had a famous case called the Dred Scott case, wherein the Chief Justice of that Supreme Court (Chief Justice Taney) ruled that Mr. Dred Scott, a slave, was neither a human being, or with any legal right to petition the court for protecting his constitutional liberty’s. The Chief Justice’s unconstitutional opinion said that he did not have to be given an audience because the Supreme Court, and not the Constitution said so.

Too bad for Mr. Dred Scott!

Dred Scott

The written words of the Declaration of Independence had been put under the interpretation of new generations of people who would take on the authority of the office of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices had created another new power for themselves: ‘statutory interpretation! 

Calculated Audacity.

The justices could interpret what THEY thought the law sais. Remember ‘segregation?’ Millions of Americans of black skin color went from being slaves unto being free people, but then the law was interpreted so as to not enfranchise them unto the life of the nation. They were left to fend for themselves and could not petition the court for legal protection of their constitutional liberty as written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights! They were disenfranchised from voting, from going to school, and from being jurists in the courthouse. They were not allowed to improve the quality of their life in America at a time when Americans of white skin color were improving theirs.

‘Too bad so sad’ for the free Americans of black skin color, and ‘too bad so sad’ for integration of the American people on the heels of the Civil War. Instead, we had to have a ‘house divided;’ division and acrimony amongst the people when we could have been enjoying increasing measures of peace amongst the people of the land.

“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.”

Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 

Opinion of Justice, 1803

 

The court said that the court must decide what the Constitution is, how it is to be put into application; thus, the court made itself more powerful than the Constitution itself, and the balance of power shifted away from the people; away from the legislative and executive branches, and unto the U.S. Supreme Court. We got slavery, segregation, and abortion being illegally called, ‘constitutional.’

The doctrine of ‘judicial review’ and in the ‘activist’ process of that invention,  the unspoken precedent of ’judicial activism’ were, and are, wielded as instruments of judicial aggrandizement in order to set and maintain political policy across the land. All that a political faction had to do was groom individuals to the ‘litmus test’ of their narrow perspectives and help them enter government office. Over time, the legislative, executive, and judiciary could become saturated with a political faction. Consider the slavery lobby—that became the segregation lobby, that itself,— became the abortion lobby.

James Madison was correct in Federalist #10:

“When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve THE SPIRIT and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long 

labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.”

As it pertains to, the intention of the founding fathers of our Constitution. Their ‘spirit of liberty’ can be gleaned from the writings & life’s work of many of these individuals, such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton: safeguarding individual life & liberty, with the end goal that the person; that the American people, may be happy, and that a government of and for the people be for their care, and not their destruction. 

Furthering, and guaranteeing this primary, fundamental establishment of individual liberty as the intentional ‘spirit’  of the founding fathers of our government; the primary requisite was the individual liberty of the people, that we be happy.

Lastly, that it be clear and straightforward, the best form of understanding of what the founding fathers of our Constitution intended when they wrote the constitutional language was their life’s work in writing and in action. 

Understanding that factionalism could arise in misalignment with the intention, with the ‘spirit’ of liberty, the fathers of the generation of 1776 who formed the government, stipulated that it was the right of the people, to ultimately alter, and if need be, abolish a government not aligned with the written metrics, 

with that ‘spirit of liberty,’ and understood intention that the people be free, safe and happy. 

U.S. Supreme Court 1892, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, opinion of Justice Brewer put forth two important

parameters to understand the constitutional application: 

1. its written language & (2) the intention, 
2. or ‘spirit of liberty’ of the founding documents. 

“It is a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to 

include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.”

An example of the language to give credence to the unconstitutional theory of statutory interpretation by Chief Justice John 

Marshall, directly nulling & voiding the Constitution, and its intended ‘spirit of liberty’ as written by the founding fathers of our government:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

      Chief Justice John Marshall

Though we want to expect that our Justices in the Supreme Court will always have the best interest of the people, history has at key times proven differently. The Supreme Court certainly allowed slavery, segregation, and abortion to be given legal standing, with abortion continuing to be legal. 63 million unborn children have had their life torturously ended in the womb, and children who have been identified or thought to be identified with Down Syndrome experience higher rates of abortion. 

Does not our Declaration of Independence distinctly and expressly affirm the right to life and the right to liberty of the individual? Is it not so that the ‘spirit of liberty’ of the writings and life’s works of the founding fathers, ultimately prove that the cause and end of the struggle for American independence was liberty? The Court once again demures on the personhood of the unborn child in the womb as it did with the child, woman, and man slave of black skin color. Is it a person? 

What we have is the ‘Popular Sovereignty’ political doctrine of the slavery faction that controlled the instrument of the three branches of government: that a person can make another their property and a third person, including the government, cannot object. This political doctrine is another theoretical, unconstitutional  invention, a construction upon our Constitution, and as John Quincy Adams, Frederick Douglass, and most emphatically, Senator Abraham Lincoln—called it out for what it was, a political power play that was both oppressing a portion of the American people, and also continuously maintaining a narrow-minded political faction in control of the instruments of power.

It remains then that it is up to the people of the land to be astute in their intellect, awake in their penchant for objectivity, and altruist in their selflessness to be sentinels who care about ensuring that our human rights, as written in the natural law text of our Constitution, be protected,  less it die in the darkness of the  'care not' doctrine of indifference that was identified and clearly spoken of by Abraham Lincoln.