For over two centuries, citizens have suffered and endured the consequences of failing to obey the Divinely inspired wisdom and intention of the Constitution. From the failure of the states to abolish slavery within the twenty years after ratification, to changing the election of Senators from the state legislatures, to taxes other than direct taxes, or to Congress failing in their defined responsibility to check judicial tyranny, the evidences of the disobedience to the original intention of “the supreme law of the land” abound in the injustices wrought by the corruption of the power of government. Incorporated in the Constitution of the United States of America is a structure to check and balance political power.
“Liberty and justice for all” were not hollow or shallow words to the generations of men and women who gave birth to America. Theirs was an understanding of an absolute of Law controlling and defining all human behavior reflected conspicuously, undeniably, and incontrovertably in the immutable “Laws of Nature”. Our system of government and our success or failure in overcoming the evil which robs us of our freedom and denies justice to all are critically dependent on protecting and defending that original intention. The very foundation of our government, our blessings and heritage from the sacrifices of those before us, and our hope for our children and their children rests on every person’s commitment and obedience to the Law on which all successful and enduring societies must be based. The solutions to the injustices arising from the cesspool of corrupt and unchecked or unbalanced power rest not in remedying the symptoms and signs of injustice, but in a every persons’ return to an obedience to the Law that transcends all human laws and understanding.
The father of our nation, not a member of any political party, said it most clearly in his final address when ending his second term as the first president of these United States.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports . . .
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . .
. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Meeting in Independence Hall, the Framers of the Constitution, dedicated themselves to establishing a supreme order of law for our government securing “certain unalienable Rights” for all. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, it was readily apparent that the consensus from these secret deliberations and study of history and political philosophy going back to 500 years before Christ motivating the signers of the Declaration was grounded in their Biblical worldview. Consistent with their intention to separate our government from the discrimination and prejudice manifest by political entities calling themselves religion or religious by various names, then as now, they made no attempt to isolate or associate their understanding of the repetitive and consistent pattern of human behavior to any religious political organization or doctrine. Truth was universal. Their order of law derived from the historically validated truth of mankind’s unchanging quest to satisfy worldly needs and desires, and to avoid pain, suffering, and all the things and situations perceived in the totality of their inclusive environments as being unpleasant. As applicable now, as over two hundred years ago, power in its political application was understood as the ability to control one’s environment using the resources of government. Their ultimate intention was to always protect the weaker from the injustices of government imposed by the more powerful.
For many years prior to ratification, the generations of men and women who gave birth to America had been undergoing a transformation in their political thought. Having experienced tyranny and injustice in many forms and expressions, they were fearful and aware, not only of the power of government, but of those controlling it. Intending a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, they were fully aware of even the dangers inherent in democracy or a public majority. The fall of Greece, and then Rome, to the effects of popular rule were balanced with the tyranny of the British Crown and Parliament. Religious discrimination in their homelands was fresh on their minds. The Constitution is masterpiece of political design, and a model for all governments seeking to establish “liberty and justice for all” based on reality and truth, balancing the power of government.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse . . . from the public treasury . . . . from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency, back again into bondage. – Alexander Fraser Tytler
The debate over H.R. 3313 by its opponents is a prime example and clear expression of how those hoping to overthrow our order of law must pervert and negate the Framer’s original intention to destroy our government. To understand that original intention, particularly relevant to the issue of the judicial tyranny now robbing us of our freedom, we look to the sources they referenced and studied in their deliberations. In 1745 Charles de Montesquieu, looking primarily at the laws of England in his The Spirit of Laws, profoundly influenced their concept and absolute necessity to balance the power within any government. In our republican democracy, balanced by the political structure created by the Constitution, the public majority through their legislatures are to control our government. Clearly, it is the unjust special interests in Congress, discriminating against over 70% of the American public, who depend on the unjust power of activist judges to prosecute their attack on America.
“You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. (emphasis added) The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots.” – letter from Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis (September 28, 1820)
“If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” – letter from Thomas Jefferson to Judge Spencer Roane (September 6, 1819)
“The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” – Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861)
Some liberal members of the House of Representatives choose to join their fellows in the Senate who seek judicial authority to overthrow our order of law – an authority that has been knowingly denied them by the Framers and every generation of Americans. Failing to protect and defend the original intention of the Constitution by instituting and calling to their own flawed procedures and rules, they attack America as surely as the al-Qaeda. By failing to confirm the President’s nominations of Federal judges loyal to the Constitution, these Senators join those in the House who would abuse their power to promote injustice and negate the original intention of the Constitution. Those politicians who steal our liberty and corrupt our society are dependent on the tolerance and apathy of a constituency succumbing to their economic bribery.
We need only to look to their lame arguments relative to the failed Congressional responsibility to check the judicial tyranny. These excuses hollow rationalizations show either their complete ignorance of the Framer’s intention or their treasonous attempt to negate or subvert that intention, in order to promote their own unrighteous and unjust agendas, to expose their attack on America.
Looking back, even before ratification, to the expositions in Federalist 80 and 81, the intention of the Framers is abundantly clear. The power of government was to reside solely with the people through their elected representatives. Subservient then was the executive branch, again with power granted by the public majority, to administer the legislative intention. These two then were to be intertwined and accountable to the citizens. Congress controlled the purse strings, and could override any presidential veto. The president could administer Congressional appropriations and orders, and veto acts of Congress with accountability to the citizens at the polls every four years. In extreme circumstances, Congress could even act as a tribunal to remove Federal officers, even the president. Least in power, with authority derived from Congress was the judicial branch. Until the judicial activism beginning just after the Civil War, Congress exercised its responsibility to check judicial power with the president holding appointive power. The Supreme Court itself confirmed its position under Congressional control until the legal system and its member lawyers, frequently with legislative majority, succeeded in violating Constitutional intention transferring power from Congress to their unholy and unjust fraternity of tyranny.
Chief Justice Ellsworth of the Supreme Court, in 3U.S.(3 Dall.),321, (1796), a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, upheld a denial of Supreme Court jurisdiction, stating broadly that “the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is, likewise, qualified; inasmuch as it is given `with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make.’ Here then, is the ground, and the only ground, on which we can sustain an appeal. If Congress has provided no rule to regulate our proceedings, we cannot exercise an appellate jurisdiction; and if the rule is provided, we cannot depart from it. The question, therefore, on the constitutional point of an appellate jurisdiction, is simply, whether Congress has established any rule for regulating its exercise?”
In a later decision at 4 U.S. 8 (1799), the Chief Justice says:”The notion has frequently been entertained, that the Federal courts derive their judicial power immediately from the constitution; but the political truth is that the disposal of the judicial power (except in a few specified instances) belongs to congress. If congress has given the power to this court, we possess it, not otherwise: and if congress has not given the power to us, or to any other court, it still remains at the legislative disposal. Besides, congress is not bound, and it would, perhaps, be inexpedient, to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, to every subject, in every form, which the constitution might warrant.”
Many of those unfamiliar with, or choosing to ignore the facts and the truth of the original intention of the Constitution point to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, initiating the doctrine of “judicial review”, to afford some standing to their position elevating the courts to an authority sustaining their injustice and special interests. In this landmark case, the Supreme Court found that under Article III of the Constitution, a party within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction must be a State or an ambassador and that neither Marbury nor Madison was a state or an ambassador. Further, it held that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is fixed by the Constitution dismissing the case because Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority granted to the Supreme Court in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The author of the Marbury v. Madison decision was Chief Justice John Marshall. After he decided Marbury v. Madison, he proceeded to dismiss later cases when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789. For example, in Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 7 U.S. 268 (1806), in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789, he says:
“This court has no jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the judiciary act of 1789, but in a case where a final judgment or decree has been rendered in the highest court of law or equity of a state, in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question, the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity, &c. or where is drawn in question, the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said constitution, treaty, statute or commission. In the present case, such of the defendants as were aliens, filed a petition to remove the cause to the Federal circuit court, under the 12th section of the same act. The state court granted the prayer of the petition, and ordered the cause to be removed; the decision, therefore, was not against the privilege claimed under the statute; and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction in the case. The writ of error must be dismissed.”
Bringing into focus other issues where the checks and balances of government power intended by the Constitution are lost, some members of Congress have inadvertently and unintentionally declared their allegiance to the forces that seek to take our freedom and enslave us under their unjust and usurped power. Particularly prominent in this regard is the ever increasing power of the Federal government obstructing or interfering with states rights. Relative to the judicial tyranny at the Federal level, the Founders established a Federal judiciary to ensure uniformity of Federal policy. Regarding the states, they intended to allow Congress the option of creating and granting jurisdiction to Federal courts over state courts only if there was a necessity to police actions by state courts and give uniformity, fearing that, absent policing by some branch of the Federal government, state courts might undermine Federal supremacy. Unless the branches of the Federal government, those intended to hold the power authorized by the people – Congress and the executive – decide in specific and very limited instances that state courts’ actions are contrary to the national interests as a whole; there is, by definition under the Tenth Amendment, no allowance for Federal interference, deeming acceptable whatever constructions of Federal law the state courts develop.
Even more recently, the Supreme Court has clearly rejected claims that state courts are less competent to decide Federal constitutional issues than Federal courts. In Stone v. Rice, 428 U.S. 465, 492 (1976) they said: “[W]e are unwilling to assume that there now exists a general lack of appropriate sensitivity to constitutional rights in the trial and appellate courts of the several States. State courts, like Federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold Federal law.” Justice William Brennan joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens wrote, in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), that “. . . virtually all matters that might be heard in Art. III courts could also be left by Congress to state courts.” 458 U.S. 62 (1982).
Clearly by every historical and legal precedent, the original intention of the Constitution demands that Congress accept its responsibility to check the unjust power of judicial tyranny. H.R. 3313 has afforded them that opportunity, and now we will look to the Senate to define their allegiance and willingness to uphold their oath of office, protecting and defending the original intention of the Constitution. More important, this upcoming election offers loyal Americans a chance to accept their ultimate responsibility to check and balance the power of government. More now than ever before, we must be willing to sacrifice our selfish, humanist desires and restore the foundation of our order of law – our obedience to the Creator’s unchanging, unalterable, absolute Law for human behavior.
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, Second President of the United States
“[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.” John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June, 1776