About Me

Name: Boomer911
Location: Chicago, IL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Freedom's Friends
Great Information!!
  • The Patriot Post">Patriot Post

Activist Judges and A "Living Constitution"

Posted by Boomer911 on Friday, June 27, 2008 1:34:18 PM
I have put together some wonderful quotes from a wide range of eras and people concerning the Courts and various issues taken up by the courts. The lefts idea of a "living constitution" is a fabrication of the worst kind and has no basis in intellectual honesty, logic, or reason. Let the following quotes serve as proof.
 
“[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution...” - Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81
 
“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” - Thomas Jefferson
 
“As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to ‘do what the people want,’ instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically.” - Justice Antonin Scalia in 2005
 
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ”right“ attributed to ”the people“ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ”the people,“ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset... The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms... The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed’.” - Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller decision
 
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad... Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”
-  Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom the Constitution has long been an unerring compass in Heller decision
 
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams
 
"The wall of separation between church and state is a metaphor based upon bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. ... The greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intention of the drafters of the Bill of Rights." - Chief Justice William Rehnquist
 
"[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment...liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." - Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78
 
"[T]he true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." -Thomas Jefferson
 
"The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution." - Joseph Story
 
"The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." - James Wilson
 
"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please." - Thomas Jefferson
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Haditha Marines Had No Access To Courts

Posted by Boomer911 on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:06:35 PM
For anyone who would like to see the distinct differences in the way our own soldiers are treated as compared to the enemy combatants captured and currently detained at Gitmo, look no further than the circus trials of the Marines accused of murder in Haditha. To recap, eight United States Marines have been put through military tribunals for allegedly killing 24 civilians in Haditha and as of this writing, six of the Marines have had charges dismissed and a seventh was cleared through a court martial. An eighth is awaiting his turn but seeing as how the previous seven went, he too is expected to have all charges dropped and rightfully so. The latest to have charges dropped is Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani. Chessani has hinted at possibly suing Pennsylvania Democrat Represenative John Murtha who claimed the Marines murdered "in cold blood". Not only was Murtha's comments absurd, they were made with no knowledge of the entire situation. Murtha decided to convict the Marines before knowing exactly what was factual and what was just hearsay. Murtha, a former Marine himself, is currently and deservedly being sued by the last Marine to not yet have been cleared through the military tribunal process. But what should jump out at the average American is that thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the enemy terrorist combatants in Gitmo have access to the American courts to detest their detentions when the above Marines never had that luxury.
 
The repercussions of the Supreme Court decision to allow enemy combatants access to our Constitution will be seen for years to come. For some unknown and mysterious reason, the left in this country view the war on terror as a law enforcement problem and this latest decision shows just how they think it should be handled. Now soldiers have to worry about collecting evidence and reading Miranda rights to people who indescriminately kill women and children, and wear no uniform of any nation. These enemy combatants have been captured taking up arms against the United States and now the very system they openly abhor has opened up its arms and welcomed them into our judicial system. How can we, as a nation, allow this right to our enemies but not our own soldiers?
 
We have been dealt a huge blow in our ability to effectively wage war on our enemies. No longer capturing an enemy will ensure they are out of the equation when it comes to warfare. To date, 50 former Gitmo prisoners have been released and found fighting again against the United States. You can bet that these numbers will increase thanks to the Supreme Court decision and unfortunately, more American lives will be lost.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"A Despotic Branch" - A Runaway Judiciary

Posted by Boomer911 on Friday, June 13, 2008 4:45:28 PM
"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
 
                                                                                             - Thomas Jefferson in 1804 letter to Abigail Adams
 
The above quote shows the genius of Thomas Jefferson. His ability to see the weakest link in our new form of self government is one of great importance if only for the fact that his greatest fears concerning the judiciary seem to have come to fruition. Jefferson's warning speaks volumes to what he felt was the greatest threat to our freedoms, the whims of a few elite judges to overrule and circumvent the will of the people.
 
"The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
 
                                                                                               - Thomas Jefferson in 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane
 
It certainly would seem that the last month has been a perfect example of what Jefferson was talking about. The California Supreme Court overruled the will of the people and decided same sex marriages was a Constitutional right protected under that very document. Although 61% of Californians voted to make law the definition of marriage to mean "between a man and a woman", the courts somehow found a "right" for homosexuals to marry. Now I have read the Constitution many times and I have yet to stumble upon that right, or the "right to choose", and whole host of other so-called rights the courts have imposed on the American people.
 
And just when you thought the courts could not have sunk any lower, the United States Supreme Court voted yesterday to allow alien combatants the "right" to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a constitutional right for U.S. citizens, but now that right has been extended to people who have been captured fighting against the United States, fighting and attempting to kill our beloved men and women in uniform, just as if it they were part of the American system. Fred Thompson's opinion sums it up rather well in his latest article at townhall.com when he wrote the courts have created "a new right for our nation’s enemies commiserate with the displeasure that they and the rest of the “enlightened” people have with this “war,” Guantanamo and the Bush Administration."  I wonder what the terrorists think of this "right"? They now have the freedom to fight their detention in a system of law they openly abhor and were captured fighting against. Let me remind you that these "detainees", or prisoners of war, have been captured taking up arms against the United States and are not citizens of the U.S..
 
The American people should know the adherence to legal precedent is the bedrock of the rule of law. And the fact is, the legal precedent concerning combatants captured in times of war had been established. But nevermind the precedent right? Nevermind the U.S. Constitution right? This last month is not the beginning of such decisions by a runaway court. The courts have been bypassing the people's will for decades now. Liberals view the courts as their last best hope for pushing through their agenda without allowing the American people to have a say on such issues. Liberals know the American people would never vote for such radical views so they look to the courts to impose their agendas. And the sad fact is that these courts have put the Constitution last as their guideline to make their decisions and used everything but the Constitution, including global public opinion, to make their rulings. When one branch of government has taken on the Constitutional role of another, we no longer have a democracy.
 
One alarming point that needs to be brought up is the statement Barack Obama has made concerning his views of the courts and the judges that should be appointed to those courts. "We need somebody who's got the heart … the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old. And that's going to be the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."  Really Barack? How about having your criteria be judges who interpret the Constitution? How about those who adhere to the rule of law? How about those who recognize the role of the judiciary as set forth by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution? You might recall Obama voted against the confirmation of Justice Antonin Scalia because his record showed "extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless."  In other words, a judge should base their decision on an abstract notion of fairness instead of the Constitution.
 
Never has there been a more important election for America than the one this fall. We cannot afford a president Obama to nominate radical, leftist judges to our courts if we have any hope of restoring the courts to their original Constitutional role. Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid has already held up the judges Bush has nominated by not allowing them to be brought to the floor for a vote. Reid is counting on Obama winning and an even larger majority in both houses of Congress after the elections this fall. If he gets his wish, the Bush nominess will disappear, leaving Obama the distinct pleasure of putting his radical judges on the courts. We cannot afford this scenario and its time to act.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »