The Original Spirit Of American Law Is Protection Of Individual Life & Liberty: Across All Generations, Without Relenting
The idea and reality of ‘power’ is an abstract reality that takes on clarity in the manner of its relation to its application, its desired ends, and situational context that it is practiced in.
Surely, the work to guarantee perfect liberty pertains to the American people’s understanding of the role, function, and balance of the federal government to themself, and its intended and actual balance of its three branches amongst itself. Further,
the importance of the people’s awareness that it is their solemn duty to ascertain that the national government be of and for the people, in such a way that the spirit, intention, and word of American law be protected and replenished from the source of its unmovable foundation, our national community document known as the Declaration of Independence—is of the greatest regard to the life of the national community, and the spirit of liberty that was originally intended.
the unalloyed spirit of liberty
exacted in that Declaration Of Independence is the wellspring,
the foundation of our unity;
it must be understood, defended, protected;
across all generations, without relenting—
The right education in our American schools should not indoctrinate on a social-emotional judgment that stems from a study of the historical context of our racial differences, placing Americans of one skin color in the role of apologists because of a generalized accusation that they have been historical aggressors (critical race theory), but should instead focus on the unification of all the American people through the support of critical thinkers who listen, observe, analyze, problem solve, and offer solutions that serve the greater improvement of our community, our country, and the world.
That the intended, declared, individual liberty proclaimed and asserted as a unification of the people as a national community contract, starting on July 4th, 1776, was flummoxed and quietly denigrated in an 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Marbury v. Madison), changing the methodology, duty, and breath of power that the personnel of that federal court could wield thereafter, is of tremendous significance. But the happening that the American people were not included in the conversation as to what had happened, therein an elite few foreclosing discussion as to the understanding and consent of the people, is the second egregious damage upon the ability for the nation
to be a thriving land founded upon the original ideas that value individual life & liberty.
That the long-winded opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall on the fine points of a particular case also included his desire to insert language to change and set unconstitutional precedents as to how the Supreme Court would thereafter understand itself in relation to the Constitution and the original intent of spirit of the framers of our nation was a great damage to the American way of life, as intended in the first social contract that was both a letter to King George the Third, and a declaration of fundamental, natural rights that brought together the American community as one nation.
The arbitrary application of statutory interpretation, or judicial interpretation of the law, allows so much abstractness to be employed that ideological aggrandizement of the law and ‘judicial review’ of the law creation of the legislative branch of government (Congress), can be powerful tools used to shape different understandings of our fundamental laws according to the conservatism or activism of of the Supreme Court personnel.
Chief Justice Marshall, our second Chief Justice, unlawfully, unconstitutionally set precedent in this manner in 1803. It was the beginning of what is known as ‘judicial aggrandizement,’ and a shift in the balance of power within government and its relationship to the people. ‘Judicial review’ unconstitutionally allows the Supreme Court to have the final say on the other two branches of government, therein entrenching a nation of laws at the whims and caprices of the ideologies of a few people, and the use of constitutionalized language to cloak personal ideologies in the Supreme Court and the final say on what is and what is not constitutional as it pertains to federal government actions is not, was not written into the Constitution. But an unspoken precedent, an additional unconstitutional power was invented: that of ‘judicial activism’ to set precedents with powers not written into the Constitution or within our counties fundamental laws as written in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Suddenly, after that 1803 decision, the Supreme Court had extra, unconstitutional powers above the Executive Office (the President), and the legislative branch (U.S. Congress). The personnel at the Supreme Court were above the Constitution, no longer beholden to it being its own interpreter, or the spirit of the law; that original intention of protecting individual life & liberty that guided the framers of the government that began in 1776. Now, the Justices of the Supreme Court assumed, and continue to do so, the new judicial power allowing for personal interpretation of what they think. They no longer had or have
to discern what the original intention of that spirit of liberty was and is that was written into the Declaration of Independence or the 1787 Constitution, but were now free to constitutionalize their ideologies and political policy preferences into their decisions.
James Madison Federalist #10 (excerpt)
Less controversial because they are in our political posterity, slavery and segregation were offered up as constitutional. More controversial to include in discussion because it is prescient in current discussion, human abortion has also been offered up as constitutional. Regardless of our own individual thoughts on the right or wrong of these three, it is fair and relevant to include these three institutions in our national discussion: slavery, segregation, and abortion, because of the irrefutable existence of national discussion linking the discussion unto the original intention of protecting individual life and liberty. Were not the first two, slavery and segregation, obviously cloaked ideologies made to fit constitutional language, thus being called right, when in fact, they were institutions in drastic and stark opposition to the original intent and spirit of individual liberty as it was asserted in the Declaration of Independence?
The Supreme Court used the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision of Chief Justice John Marshall as a ‘precedent,’ rather than as an actual power that is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These three institutions: slavery, segregation, and abortion, hindered, diminished the individual rights to life & liberty and the right to a safe and happy life of Americans who were at some point created.
It is then up to the American people to be critical thinkers with the focus of being as selfless and altruist as possible to include in their discussions and public advocacy as a people who do their solemn duty to defend the correct American way of life, that the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision language that began the unconstitutional precedents of statutory interpretation and judicial review must be publicly refused by the personnel of that federal court, lest it continue to hold onto the tedious ground that renders it something other than a government for and of the people, and into a hierarchical government that is no longer tethered to that original intention and understanding that we are created equal, with a fundamental right to the protection of our individual life and liberty, that we be safe and happy.
The Justices in that court have tenure for life and have nothing to lose in disavowing the use of unconstitutional precedents that invite the erroneous practice and tendency of judges to not be selfless, but selfish and narrow in the application of their own ideologies (judicial aggrandizement).
It is not radical, but altogether sensible and the solemn duty of the American people to endeavor to seek clarity and understanding of the original intention; of that spirit to protect individual life & liberty that those framers of the government of 1776 gave us. In doing so, we must not waver, but be confident to smartly alter the trajectory and countenance of the national government until it approximates the universal rights of humanity, as written in the Declaration of Independence.
Comments