Posted by
Byron Gillory on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:53:37 PM
I don't know about you about I get real nervous when I hear people hint at courts making laws. To me it is absolutely repulsive that most Americans have not read the Constitution for themselves. President Obama in all his wisdom picked a women who by some of the things she said is a Activist of the worse kind.
I want to start by asking a simple question how is it that a country who was found by men who despised tranny of any form, now finds it's self under the tranny of the federal bench.
In the Constitution the founders of this
Country laid out in a very precise way the roles of each branch of
Government. As the History of this country moves forward we have lost
the line that give us separation of powers. How dose a country that has
a clear delineation of each of the branches of the Government come to
allowing one branch of the Government( ie.. the courts) to influence
every aspect of American lives.The Answer has
become a dirty word for most conservatives, especially when it comes to
those of us who are originalists. The nasty phrase is called Judicial
Review (JR), what this means is that the federal courts have gained the
power to over turn act of congress or act of the executive branch. One
may say “well what is wrong with that?” Well on the surface nothing,
but the problem arises when you look at the reality that has to
manifest its self for JR to work. That reality is an objective look at
what the constitution says, and what actually qualifies as a
constitutional violation. As will be shown in the following articles
Objectivity when it comes to the courts is hard to come by.
The
best place to look when considering issues like this is History.
Winston Churchill once stated that “the only thing we learn form
history is that we don’t learn form history.” This is obviously the case when it comes to JR.As
far as the court system goes the founders based it on British common
law. The Job of the courts in the eyes of the founders were to rule on
criminal law, matters of equity, and other legal issues. As a matter of
fact rulings were to be viewed on the basis of the state and not the
federal courts. The reason for this was to maintain a representative
government. In the Articles of Confederation there was no reliance on
federal courts, the Articles of confederation made it clear that the
state should handle its own disputes. In the outline of the
Constitution which was called the Virginia
plan, the founders made it very clear as to the jurisdiction of the
courts. They stated “All Piracies and felonies on the high seas,
capture ofthe enemy; cases in which foreigners or citizen of other statesapplying
to such jurisdictions may be interested; or which respect the
collection of the national revenue; Impeachment of any national
officer, and questions which may involve national peace and harmony.” (
Articles of Confederation) During the Constitutional Convention the
idea of the courts legislating form the bench was highly contested.
John Dickinson of Delaware argued that Judges should not be empowered to overturn acts of the national legislature. Roger Sherman of Connecticut disapproved to Judges “meddling in politics and parties.”
It was in the rejection of judicial review that the founders came up with the presidential veto.In
conclusion, history has shown that the current arrangement of our
courts was not intended by the founding fathers, and most importantly
it is not supported by the constitution these judges have sworn to
protect. The reason I have written on this topic is because it is the
foundation of all the problems that we are currently facing.