Go to: =>
TOP Page;
What's New? Page;
ROAD MAP;
Shopping Mall;
Emmaus Ministries Page;
Search Page
The Judiciary is NOT the
Problem...!
Email by John Haskins
[COMMENT: An excellent piece by John Haskins on
the disaster upon us as the Judiciary continues to be installed and entrenched
as our oligarchy.
I have just recently (July 08) been made aware of this
terrible situation. For more, go to
Conservative Collapse.
E. Fox]
To: W
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 5:30 PM
Subject: Urgent concerns about the impact of your recent
commentary
Mr. W,
In regards to your recent commentary which unfortunately repeats the
catastrophic error being parroted by much of the "conservative" and
"pro-family" establishment -- namely that judges have "legalized" or even effectively legalized
homosexual "marriage" (and abortion, pornography, and
outlawed prayer in schools, etc.) -- it is urgent that you consult
with a qualified constitutional scholar who is equipped to thoroughly debunk
the desperately misguided consensus view of the conservative
establishment. For the sake of our dying republic I urge you respectfully
but in the strongest possible terms to emphatically repudiate this fatal
myth before the republic is stone cold in the grave.
In their fetish for social acceptance and respectability among the
anti-constitutional, anti-rule of law, anti-Christian, anti-family nihilist
left, virtually the entire "conservative" elites have abandoned the very
core principles of our constitutions and flouted the grave warnings of the
likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:
To consider the judges as the
ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very
dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy. ...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.[45]
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
...the judiciary, from the nature
of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the
political rights of the Constitution.
[T]he judiciary
has no
influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the
strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active
resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor
WILL..."
Furthermore, Hamilton observed that the Court has
no means of enforcing its decisions --
making it obvious that the executive and legislative branches
are not compelled to "obey" false or even
dubious opinions. Hamilton is
considered perhaps the strongest advocate of the right of "judicial
review." But neither he nor any other Founder imagined in it a form
that compels the other two branches of government to blind
obedience! What, otherwise, would have been Hamilton's point in
reassuring Americans that judges will be prevented from becoming tyrants by
the fact that they cannot enforce their opinions?
Not a single signer of the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence)
would have taken seriously the purportedly "conservative" view today that to
restrain judges we need to wait until we have somehow replaced them through
attrition over decades of uninterrupted success in state and federal
elections. Bear in mind the sobering fact that Reagan and Bush gave us
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, and that not a single
justice today holds to an inalienable right to life in the womb! Not
Scalia, not Clarence Thomas! The view pushed by Jay Sekulow, Mark Levin, Mat
Staver, James Bopp, Hugh Hewitt at al guarantees total victory of the
far left.
The "conservative" elites themselves have destroyed the separation of powers
by actually urging our elected public servants to practice slavish
obedience to judges who have stepped outside the law and are therefore
speaking as ordinary citizens without constitutional authority and issuing
legally void opinions!
Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that Supreme Court opinions were binding
on the specific parties involved and entitled
to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the
government. But like the Founding Fathers, he totally rejected
today's cowardly and constitutionally unfounded "conservative" consensus
that judicial opinions are the law of the land:
..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 instant they are made, in
ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, 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.
Consider also this:
Whether involving federal or state
matters, the practice of judicial review has been marked by dynamic
expansion and persistent controversy. Judicial power has been
consolidated both in the superiority of the federal
judiciary over the states and of the
Supreme Court over the other branches of the federal government.
The authority of the federal government that became centralized
after the
Civil
War is one of the pillars of judicial review and vice versa. Justice
Thurgood Marshall, in commenting on the constitutional bicentennial
celebration of 1987, said that the
Constitution did not survive the Civil War, but was remade following
that conflict. Since the late nineteenth century, power has come to
be increasingly centered in a Supreme Court that would be
unrecognizable to the founding generation.
...
After the Revolution,
the framers of the Constitution debated, and
then rejected, an aspect of judicial review, the judicial veto. ...
They rejected explicit judicial authority over Congress
... James
Madison,
for example...refused to acknowledge the authority of the judiciary
over the other branches of government. (
www.answers.com/topic/judicial-review?cat=biz-fin )
Why then, Mr. W, are we failing to throw back the enemy by demanding
that every member of the executive and legislative branches fulfill their
solemn oaths to uphold our constitutions rather than hide behind impotent
judges as a pretext for the enslavement of the American people? The
majority of the "conservative" elites more or less united in taking us over
a cliff on constitutionally groundless instructions from judges! This is
national suicide being conducted by your colleagues of the last thirty
years!
We are watching our entire civilization unraveling before our eyes on a
time scale that is a blink of an eye. As a long-time firm supporter of what
I believed were heroes of the "conservative movement" and the
"pro-family movement," Many of us have watched in shock, horror and sadness
since the Goodridge decision as our side's lawyers, leaders and
pundits have literally leap-frogged over the far left in their eagerness to
legitimate the wholesale cancellation of constitutionalism by Mitt Romney
and now Arnold Schwarzenegger. Why are self-styled "conservatives"
spreading these bizarre assertions that judges have powers that the
American people have never given them?
The "conservative" elites are putting the final nail in our coffin. They are
completing the conspiracy of many decades to use the legal profession and
the courts to impose a dark age of dictatorship. They are foolishly handing
absolute power to anti-Christian, anti-family revolutionaries behind the
thin veil of electoral democracy.
This is where the trajectory of the post-constitutional pragmatism
undergirding the "conservative revolution" has taken us. It is the
only destination to which it could have taken us. There was no
other possible outcome than total defeat on every issue and on every front.
The Founding Fathers told us so. We have blindly followed arrogant
mercenary "legal experts" who know little or nothing of constitutions and
who not only ignore the Founding Fathers but also dismiss as quacks today's
true constitutional experts, such as Professors Hadley Arkes, Robert George,
and Herbert Titus, Dr. Alan Keyes and many others.
Many of those with whom you, Mr. W, have worked side by side for many years
are -- mostly inadvertently -- aggressively aiding the far left in the
destruction of America. There will be no stopping the rise of this
dictatorship without presidents, governors, legislatures and prominent
citizens calling the bluff of impotent judges as Jefferson did and asking
them as President Andrew Jackson did, how they will enforce their impotent
opinions. People such as yourself must break ranks with former colleagues
and take a stand that exposes the heresy of judicial supremacy as an
imagined justification for the likes of Romney and Schwarzenegger to violate
state and federal constitutions, violate their own oaths and the sovereignty
of the People.
I have talked with dozens of lawyers, law professors and professors of
jurisprudence -- including some of national renown -- about what we are
seeing. You must know that serious experts in constitutional law are
shaking their heads in horror and sadness at the spectacle of Jay Sekulow,
Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, James Bopp, the Alliance Defense Fund,
the Liberty Counsel and all those who have followed them over the cliff as
they slavishly parrot the absurd claim that judges have legalized homosexual
"marriage" in Massachusetts and California.
Every effort that you and your lifelong friends and colleagues have invested
over the years in defense of our moral fabric and our unalienable rights is
now being surrendered with only the appearance of a fight because of the
craven groveling of our side's self-styled "constitutional experts" before
judges -- who generally have not even asserted nearly so much tyrannical
authority as Jay Sekulow, Mat Staver, Mark Levin, James Dobson, Tony Perkins
and others have granted them.
I earnestly plead with you to examine this core issue with urgency and make
it your highest priority to analyze and then publicly state exactly
where the entire conservative movement went wrong in their broad concession
of power to judges that the people never granted them. What I am telling
you implies a kind of systematic and widespread malpractice at the highest
levels of the conservative movement over many years. This is a very
difficult reality to accept for all of us. But we will either face it,
sound the alarm and retrace our steps to clear and inflexible boundaries on
judges that are constitutional and within which a democratic republic with
unalienable rights can be defended and preserved, or we will fall, as the
Founding Fathers so powerfully warned, into the abyss of a dark and cruel
night of tyranny:
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the quintessential
and most lucid and forceful statement in all of American law of the
boundaries that We the People have placed upon the judiciary, which has no
lawful role whatsoever in the shaping of public policy, but merely applying
laws as originally ratified to specific cased before them.
"The
power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought
never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
(PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)
"[T]he people...are
not controllable by any other laws than those to which their
constitutional representative body have given their consent."
(PART THE FIRST, Article X.)
"The judicial shall never
exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the
end it may be a government of laws and not of men."
(PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)
"All
the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved
shall
still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the
legislature
"
(PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)
Mr. W, those
who are at the helm of the conservative movement are tragically ignorant and in
fact inoculated against the most fundamental principles of separation of powers
that were designed to utterly prevent the oxymoron of "judicial tyranny" from
being used to deceive us. For years the America legal profession has
indoctrinated and brainwashed every lawyer in law school (and throughout their
careers) in exactly the manner that the Soviet communists indoctrinated their
own lawyers, economists, sociologists, etc. This is understood by the top
constitutional scholars in the country such as Professors Hadley Arkes, Robert
George and Herbert Titus.
Please examine this myth critically and call all those around the country
who respect your many years of work to join you in demanding a return to the
constitutional separation of powers established by the Founding Fathers in
our state and federal constitutions.
On this and
many related topics, I strongly recommend Professor Titus' book "God, Man
and the Law" (or, if you prefer, his audio recording of it in a CD series
with the same title -- see below). I would be pleased to put you in
contact with Dean Titus and other constitutional scholars who can affirm the
points I am making here. Please also feel free to contact me for any
questions or discussion.
Very
cordially,
John Haskins
www.UndergroundJournal.net
and The Parents' Rights Coalition
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Date Posted - --/--/2008 - Date
Last Edited -
07/07/2008