'Faction' Instrumentalizes 'Statutory Interpretation' In Our U.S. Supreme Court To Misconstrue The Importance Of The Word & Spirit of Our Constitution

 

‘Natural law’ is that law that is ‘written’ upon the ‘tables of our heart;’ our conscience. We know certain truths about life to be self evident: all humanity is equal in its right to life and the right to liberty. That is to say, it matters not the color of our skin, or how much money our family has or has had; it matters not that one of us is from this area of the world, and the other is from another region. Our religion, creed, walk of life, or what our outward complexion may be; the certain truth that our life is of equal claim to be respected is a universal, unalienable certainty. Thus, as long as we respect the rights of others to also enjoy the liberty to live and be free, we have liberty. To effect the protection of our natural liberty to live and be free, we have established government for the care and not the destruction of the people. Hence, we have laws, law makers, and protectors of the law. Now, in 1774, an incredible experiment was initiated in the land we call the United States of America: 39 of our best, most upright in character and knowledge formed the first government. Within two years they produced the founding document that would be the start of a new nation; a constitutional republic; from its beginning, founded on the ‘natural law’ amongst humans; that law that is written upon the tables of our heart and mind, our conscience. Assuredly, the plainest, most clear language and philosophical ideation was instrumented into the spirit of the written words we call the Declaration of Independence (1776). Life & liberty was immediately proclaimed as the most important, along with our right to be happy, and to have a government of us people that was for the people, for our protection, and that the government itself be aligned; that it abide, within the spirit; that intent of the declaratory words of that document.

We have that right to life and liberty;  government, nor any one of us may unrightfully cause the death or loss of that life and liberty from us. Moreover, that we be a happy people is the ultimate intent of the language of the document. A happy individual; safe and with peace.

The Committee That Drafted The Declaration of Independence 

Recognizing that slavery existed in the land, the fathers of the constitution, made repeated efforts in the law to limit, hinder, and end the enslavement of humanity. They understood that to take on the discussion of stopping slavery at the onset of the creation of the nation would have possibly splintered the colonies in half, and created an English dominion in the south. So the first government placed slavery on the gradual road to extinction instead; foremost with the introduction of ‘natural law’ language in the Declaration of Independence.

All appeared on track until the  U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall’s long-winded opinion on a case, Marbury v. Madison, introduced those new precedent doctrines or powers not found in the Constitution, ‘judicial review,’ and the unconstitutional activist action of self-allowing such an invention. It stated that the constitution was a written document (with no spirit or intent) and that its wording was too extravagant to be taken as it was. Instead, the Chief Justice invented a new power that went largely uncontested, and completely over the understanding of all of the American people. From henceforth, the words and the intentions of the creators and signers of the Declaration of Independence and our constitutional documents were not to be understood in the altruist, unalloyed spirit of liberty that was originally intended, but the documents were what the holders of office in the Supreme Court said.

Abraham Lincoln defended the original understanding of the 'natural law' in our Declaration of Independence, 

while Stephen Douglas was of the slavery faction, and said the document could be sectionalized.

Do you understand that switch? The slave-holding establishment did! All they had to do was get people who agreed with them and their economy that was founded on the enslaved  labor of people of black skin color. So they groomed and maneuvered their way into the Supreme Court! Why and how? Because they understood that in the lack of challenging the Marshall opinion, the original American government literally became extinct as it was originally intended. The constitution could be controlled under the guise of couching legal rulings in constitutionalized vernacular. Of course, this is called judicial aggrandizement;  policy or social and political engineering of the local and national community could be controlled—if the office of the Supreme Court could be controlled by ‘faction.’

In order for this scheme or ploy to work, the people’s knowledge of understanding upon these matters had to be suppressed. Therein, education had to be slanted away from critical thinking on such matters. Else, the ploy would be found out, and the people would rise up. With enough time, the cultural sway of the 1803 opinion allowed the mainstay of slavery to become a large industry ‘normalizing’ perspective and thoughts on slavery. John Quincy Adams, the abolitionists, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and many others were avowed defenders of the founding spirit of America and would not acquiesce unto the normalization schemes of the factions, but pushed hard against it, being a thorn to the governmental takeover of the slave faction. Arbitrary application of judicial interpretation becomes a tremendous blunder then in the American experiment, in that it certainly led up to the legal entrenchment of sectionalism amongst the American populace; it created division and acrimony because it reversed the intent and spirit of the purpose of America, the right to life and liberty, that we be a happy people, with a government for our care, and not for our destruction. 

What the 1803 opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall illegally invented was an unrighteous judicial aggrandizement of authority over the original intention; the spirit and good purpose that America was to be about. What we have experienced as a national community, and in our own communities, is sectionalism and appeasement to sectionalism. That is to say, we have had to find our peace and liberty in the midst of a ‘law of the land’ that has subjugated or placed the peaceable, equitable spirit of liberty and justice for all under the authority of an elite perspective that uses the power of the office of the U.S. Supreme Court to exact its own narrow ends!

Frederick Douglass defended the original understanding 
of the Declaration of Independence

 Instead of an integration and healing of the nation as was the intention of the first government, the 1803 ruling created a ‘reverse Declaration of Independence,’ in that the very power that that document put forth— the right of the individuals ‘natural law’ claim of the right to life and liberty, was allowed to be at the discretion of the whims and political inclinations of the holders of the offices of the Supreme Court. Faction could and does control the office of the Supreme Court. In as much as those office holders fail to outright and openly refuse the unconstitutional power of statutory interpretation, each generation of Supreme Court Justice continues to give the illegal unconstitutional doctrine invention.. life.

Therein, we have had slavery. Therein we have had segregation. Therein we have had ABORTION. Each of these were allowed by the holders of office of the U.S. Supreme Court. Slavery was a business; an economy built on the forced free labor of people of black skin color. The uncontesting of the 1803 decision; the failure of the media to present it as an issue before the people; the stumbling of our education at the grade school and university level to not clearly define the conversation, altogether, these created an ignorance, an indifference; a coldness to the hearts in the conscience of the people; the very understanding of what it means to be an American: liberty and justice for all.

The arbitrary  application of statutory interpretation  as an instrument of the Supreme Court personnel to ‘choose to review or not’ the enactment of laws from the two other branches of government as a means for judicial ideological aggrandizement is unconstitutional. The 62 million children aborted in America since 1973 are a drop in the bucket when compared to the legacy that the greatest nation on Earth gives to the world itself. We are supposed to be the shining example of liberty. A nation of people who justly self-govern—It was John Adams who exemplified the strength of the true spirit that should be in our courts of law: a patriot without nationalism; a patriot of liberty and justice; he defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre debacle; experiencing great angst and unpopularity amongst the American colonials, John Adams explained an incredible rule: we must attach ourselves to the right ideals and not unto the popularity of the time. He most certainly was ridiculed for protecting the British soldiers. Yet his genius good heart prevailed, he did the right action, for he worked the work of justice, and not the work of popularity. America was to be an empire of laws, with the ‘natural law’ as its cornerstone; we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

The 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling of Chief Justice Marshall must be discarded as a doctrine. It is anathema to the original supremacy of thought and spirit of liberty of the Declaration of Independence. In so doing, the pathway to protect the unborn becomes clear: we are created equal with the unalienable right to life and liberty.

At all points in the letter of the law, it is that solemn duty for the magistrates of the law to bring into perspective the original intention to safeguard individual life and liberty. Thus, slaughter of the unborn and the global trillion dollar business of it must end in America first, the United States of America shall be a land of liberty for and of the people, with a government for the care, and not the destruction of the people.

Abraham Lincoln's defense of the Declaration of Independence showed the intent and spirit in our founding government of and for individual liberty that was originally purposed for America.

It is the solemn duty of the American citizen to understand the language; that intentional spirit of liberty and justice that the creators and signatories of the Declaration of Independence and our constitutional documents purposed—that we may have peace, and that we may be happy. An end to the 1803 ruling is the beginning of the end of an American society that has been sectionalized with slavery, segregation, and abortion. So many good people brought against one another; one side inculcated to acquiesce to ‘faction,’ the other released from shackles of indoctrination. Read the writings of Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s; understand the love and spirit he had; the strength of character; the will to triumph for what ought to be the right course for America. He was shoulder to shoulder with Frederick Douglass, with John Quincy Adams, John Adams, and George Washington, who established the first monetary foundation and school for his freed slaves, that they be self-sufficient and live as prosperously as could be.