Us Supreme Court Building Washington Dc Go

I’ll forever be grateful for the legacy of idealistic law and justice bequeathed to me and all-American citizens in the fervent admonition of the honorable lawyer, Constitutional legislator, Vice-President, and U.S. President John Adams when he said that”we (the American republic) are a nation of laws rather than men.” I wish I could have extended my appreciation to me, but the man, Adams, has been dead since 1824, having lived 126 years before I was born. Yet, despite my own sincere gratefulness to him and the other dedicated Framers of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, there are now those federal officers of the 21st Century, elected, appointed, and hired as bureaucrats who, having come from the 20th Century, personally hate what Adams said and would rather the republic become and act as a’nation of whimsical and flippant men (and women) and not of laws.’

The crux of this report deals with the open and utterly flagrant disregard for federal, and notably U.S Constitutional, law by the aforementioned federal officers of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States Government since the national Judiciary continues to routinely usurp, with undue fanfare, its designated and defined function as an interpreter and judge of the constitutionality of cases falling under the U.S. Constitution and the legislated and codified laws of the United States of America. This insipid disregard for, especially, Constitutional law, from the men and women who have sworn to uphold it, has been going on since before 1925, while during that pivotal year a very simple and ordinary action of Congress, the Federal Judiciary Act, quietly altered the specific requirement of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, as the representatives and senators of the 69th Congress completely ignored the requirement of the Article V constitutional Amendment process requirement. This was an egregious and inexorable first-step to the complete illegal transformation of the federal Judiciary, and notably the U.S. Supreme Court, from a branch of national government designated initially by law as only a judge of the constitutionality of federal laws into an illegal quasi-legislative member of government. The unconstitutional Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 changed the particular constitutional requirement for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear”all” cases climbing under the U.S. Constitution and national law, which make their way successfully through the federal appellate judicial system to a stage for hearing, by right, before the highest court of the land, to that of a”pick-and-choose” certiorari writ system in which the Supreme Court can arbitrarily refuse to hear important cases that it would have generally heard by standard order before 1925.

As to why Taft knowingly sponsored an unconstitutional bill in the Legislative branch, well, in short, the answer to this question is, simply, that the man had gone about pragmatically arranging the successful passing of the Certiorari Bill to a law prior to its diplomatic demonstration by the dishonest illegal deals he made with U.S. senators and representatives in the smoke-filled backrooms of the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court, and, perhaps, in prohibited speak-easies and burlesque parlors while sipping fine Kentucky bourbon. Taft, who was also the 27th President of the USA, was an intimidatingly large man (six feet and over 300 pounds) and was widely known as a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist (one who firmly believed that the end-result of any endeavor justified the legal, or illegal, means used to obtain it). Basically, he was an accomplished liar, who had succeeded in persuading President Warren G. Harding, in 1921, the President had him in his hip-pocket as his nominated choice of a dutifully servile and obliging Supreme Court Chief Justice, which proved very detrimental for Harding’s government after Taft’s formal nomination and confirmation by the U.S. Senate, as the new Chief Justice immediately revealed himself to be just the reverse.

There was, of course, a political agenda set in place to augment an activist U.S. Supreme Court after the execution of the 1925 Federal Judiciary Act and the writ of certiorari procedure that made the nine justices of the high court into essentially a pragmatic means of determining the achievement of political goals set in motion by conspiring Legislative branch senators and representatives and extra-governmental social activists, such as Margaret Sanger, the first outspoken proponent of eugenics, lobotomy, birth control, and abortion. How else, but by purely political debate and subjective prioritization, could the nine justices have selected the appellate cases most”worthy” of being heard from the docket of appellate cases that”deserved” to be heard? The writ of certiorari procedure turned out to fundamentally be a writing competition for national appellants. Whichever appellant had the most appealing and persuasive writing content ended-up getting heard by the high tribunal.

Basically, Margaret Sanger, supposedly trained as a nurse, gained national sensation in 1925 by vehemently proposing the same barbaric and racist agenda for the USA which Adolf Hitler had suggested in his 1925 book,”Mein Kampf” (interpreted as”My Struggle”) and which he ultimately implemented against the Jews and any other group of human beings which did not fit into his master-race schema in his Nazification of Germany from 1933 until 1945. Having attained legal recognition from five of the nine Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, three of the pending federal appellate cases against eugenics and birth control, since inspection by the USSC, were eliminated through the certiorari procedure as the Court refused to hear them. Yet, Buck v. Bell (1927) was selected by writ of certiorari, heard, and determined by the Court, in which it voted 8-1 to approve compulsory Nazi-like sterilization for socially undesirable men and women.

Consequently, due to that judicial approval of eugenics, between 1928 and 1975 over 100,000 women throughout the USA were deemed socially incapable of producing normal healthy kids and were sterilized by order of the federal and state governments. This depravity also extended to over 40,000 men around the country during the identical time-period that were adjudged by federal and state courts as having the diminished capacity of siring normal healthy kids and were neutered, or chemically castrated, by court order. In California, for 70 years starting early in 1909, over 20,000 people were sterilized, often without their full knowledge and consent. California led the nation in the indiscriminate sterilizations of both women and men. What’s more, from 1950 until 1973 before Roe v. Wade, over 7 million unnecessary abortions also occurred in the united states, the vast majority of which were performed in California abortion clinics. When I say unnecessary abortions, I suggest that more than 7 million healthy unborn fetuses (unborn children) were clinically murdered (aborted) due to the flippant attitudes of sex partners, as well as the unwanted pregnancies produced by indiscriminate sexual intercourse. In a public statement made by Margaret Sanger, in 1951, the frenzied woman stated to her clamoring disciples that,”young couples should be more concerned with the quality of their passions and sexual compatibility than mere pregnancy, the inconsequential by-product of the sexual union. For this reason, abortion ought to be accustomed to the full extent of its ability to regulate population.” Something to seriously consider is that after Roe v. Wade, from 1973 to the present day, over 90 million unnecessary abortions have been performed in the USA, a number which is tantamount to the complete population of the republic in 1908. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Byron White said the provocative legal issues that I will discuss further in this report.

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.

In every U.S. Supreme Court decision that, over the history of the American republic, that has been at odds with the appropriate Constitutional judicial power vested in the federal judiciary by the Framers, there have been dissenters, such as Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist who have fervently decried the judicial harassment of justice as well as the obvious usurping of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. These dissenters, such as Bryon White, have fully realized that the law, as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and the Framers’ intent of the perpetuation of that manner of interpreting the Constitution are the most significant aspects of U.S. Constitutional law. This amendment simply states that the federal government has no more authority and power than that specifically detailed in the text of the original U.S. Constitution.

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, in 1790, the federal government was severely limited in its power over the States, and the States were ordained with all the powers and rights reserved unto them by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In the same exact way that each of the first nine amendments’ guarantees of freedom and liberty were inalienably sacrosanct, and that no other amendment might be added to the U.S. Constitution to add to, or detract, from these sacred inalienable rights, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights ensured that the States retained all powers and authority not specifically assigned to the national government nor denied to them by the Constitution. That was a great deal of power reserved unto the People, and the Framers understood that a constitutional republic of States could only persevere through the ages of liberty under such a particular delineation and separation of powers.

As the entire federal government was intended by the Constitutional Framers to stay small and limited in its legislative, executive, and judicial powers, the Legislative branch was constrained, in Article I, Section VIII, to only the production of legislation necessary, or necessary, and appropriate, to the appropriate execution of only the particular federal powers enumerated in Article I, Section VIII. To put it differently, law and common sense dictated that federal legislators (Congress) couldn’t use Article I, Section 8, Clause 18,”To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the federal government, or in any department of officer ” to justify legislating a law to force the folks, or States, to only birth their children in approved hospitals, and nowhere else,” using the energy contained in Article I, Section VIII, Clause VII,”To establish post offices and post roads.” No sensible person would even suggest doing so in breach of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, it was quietly done to create the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress could get no federal power or authority in Article I, Section VIII to make a law controlling civil rights, so it arbitrarily used Article I, Section VIII, Clause III, the Commerce Power Clause,”To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” to create the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress used the Commerce Clause to create laws ordering the People of the States to take care of each other in a specific manner. The subsequent expansions of Civil Rights Act of 1964 were based on the egregious U.S. Supreme Court rulings declaring in 1965 and 1966 the use of the Commerce power Clause to legislate and regulate civil rights in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was constitutional. The further use of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to supersede the 10th Amendment power of the States was also unconstitutionally applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to allegedly give the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the”teeth” it required for enforcement. These absurd uses of the U.S. Constitution to justify the legislation and enforcement of laws that the federal government had no real constitutional power to make are just as ridiculous, but as plausible, as a federal law that could possibly be passed to mandate the placement of identifying RFID chips into each of newborn children to make sure that the kidnapping of newborn babies could be effectively eliminated. In effect, if the federal government could use the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify its authority over civil rights, it may use any of the Article I, Section VIII powers to warrant any control they want to assert over the individuals, or the States.

I was thinking one day long ago, when I was in my young prime and living in California, concerning the freedom I had under the U.S. Constitution to take a long distance run anytime of the day or night, in almost any temperature, in rain or sunshine. As I was thinking this, running along in 95-degree heat and thoroughly enjoying myself, a California cop in his car slowed down beside me and shouted,”You shouldn’t be running in this heat!” I shouted back just as vociferously,”Leave me alone. It is my liberty to run in any sort of weather I choose!” During the early, middle, and late-20th Century, this was a prime example of the sort of fascist mindset that easily existed among many Americans with authority which has precluded, in a lot of dynamic governmental conditions, the appropriate application of John Adams’s wise statement,”We are a nation of laws, rather than of men.” It was the type of mentality that resulted in Nazi and American eugenics and abortion to inexorably flourish rampantly under the pretense of law and jurisprudence and gave rise to a national government that flagrantly ignored U.S. Constitutional law and underhandedly made it a reality that a state of a few whimsical and immoral people was the rule rather than that of a nation of laws.

In a July 12, 2018″Washington Times” comment on the judicial mindset of federal Judge, and President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, noted columnist Cal Thomas did something that most supposedly educated and educated American writers are loath to do in this day-and-age. He made cogent reference to the 1 standard of definitive source of understanding about the U.S. Constitution, the 1787″Federalist Papers,” and deferred to the wisdom of the Framer, Alexander Hamilton, who had been chosen by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to write about the limitations set upon the federal judiciary in the proposed Constitution, especially upon the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas did well in mentioning the words of Hamilton in his”Federalist 78″ to latently embellish and reinforce the 20th Century words of Justice Byron White in his Roe v. Wade dissent.

With this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing… To deny this is to affirm… that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers don’t authorize, but what they forbid.”

It is quite obvious that a great majority of the justices of U.S. Supreme Court have, since 1925, ignored the constraints levied upon them as judges and arbiters of federal and Constitutional law, and have pursued their own political and social agendas to function as quasi-legislative activists rather than as prudent jurists. Had there been, rather, the vast majority of justices determined upon the course of Constitutional correctness based on the judicial intent of the Framers, the Federal Reserve Act would have certainly been judged as entirely unconstitutional in 1913, in addition to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Moreover, Roe v. Wade would have been regarded by the Court as exclusively a 10th Amendment State issue and would not have been heard initially by a national court and ultimately by the Supreme Court. Homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and marriage in general, would have been announced as purely State issues, and, generally, would have been decided by the State courts in favor of morality and holy heterosexual union. There also wouldn’t have been 90 million heinous murders of unborn children committed in the USA since 1973. The republic would be much different now than it was in 1925 and 1973, with a greater thriving population and, like Abraham Lincoln had quipped in his Gettysburg address 155 years earlier, a real rebirth of liberty and freedom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *