Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Strip The Courts

by Terence Jeffrey - July 26th, 2006 -
Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts and define their jurisdictions. It also includes the "Exceptions Clause," which says "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

This is an interesting new battle in the ongoing war to constrain court arrogance and tyranny. It is based upon confidence by some individuals that the courts still care what the words of the Constitution and the words of our laws as passed by the legislative branch actually mean. To a great extent I have no confidence that our courts and the corrupt judges care about either. Therefore I don't have much confidence in this strategy succeeding in bringing our judges under control.

The judges have already narrowed the meaning of the "exceptions" clause to such a degree they could still jam same sex marriage down the throats of the nation. It would simply take them 50 cases to do it instead of the single case they otherwise would use.

It is therefore my concern that like all of the Constitutional Amendments being proposed to control our courts, using the exceptions clause to resist court power is an exercise in futility. If the judges don't care about the words and their clear meaning, passing an Amendment with more specific words they can ignore has done nothing except waste time. Passing a law narrowing the appellate jurisdiction will likewise be ignored by judges who don't care about the meaning of our laws but only care about seizing power over our nation through the "rule of judges".

But it is an interesting battle.

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Constitutional Isogesis

By Mark M. Alexander - July 8th, 2006 -
"Judge not, lest ye be judged." It's notable that this text from the Bible has replaced John 3:16 as Americans' favorite scriptural quotation -- but what does it actually mean? Is this ageless admonition really a call to unmitigated tolerance over discernment between right and wrong? Is it really a biblical nod of the head to the virtues of postmodern morality and multicultural society?

Of course not. As Christ's imperative against judgment appears in the Gospel accounts, a different picture emerges. With the Pharisees clearly in view, in the Sermon on the Mount account of Matthew 7, and again in Luke 6, "judge not" appears in the context of the proverbial man who perceives the speck that is in his brother's eye, but not the log that is in his own. The context, then, suggests a warning against hypocrisy, not moral discernment.

Isogesis. Now there is a pretentious word. It is not even in the dictionary that I have. However it may be a good word given the meaning ascribed to it in this article. That meaning is "the practice of isolating and thereby misinterpreting a phrase or passage from its context".

No better definition of the judicial abuse going on in our courts can be found.

A perfect example is freedom of religion. Judges have actually twisted the guaranteee of the "free exercise of religion" into the bizarre concept that those opposed to religion cannot be exposed to any expression of Chrisian or Jewish faith. The free exercise of religion is exclusively enforced for the defense of those who oppose religion. No one else is protected. Government has become an agency for the suppression of faith in the guise of protecting feedom of religion.

That does not mean that your children cannot be indoctrinated in the Muslim faith. That practice goes on all over America, where classes are held in the Muslim faith, and children are REQUIRED to read and participate in the Muslim rituals. Of course judges once again abuse the English language by claiming that this is cultural diversity, not religion. In the very same school a valedictorian's microphone is cut off for her simply daring to claim that her religion is an important part of her life. It doesn't matter that she is not advocating her religion for others. She is denied the right to even mention that she believes. "Religion" is whatever some judge misinterprets it to be. Isogesis.

That is what our supreme tyrants have accomplished in America today. Congratulations. You no longer live in a democracy. You live in a judicial oligarchy. This will not change until we start impeaching these tyrants.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Judge Issues Restraining Order Ga. ID Law

By Shannon McCaffrey - July 7th, 2006 - Yahoo News (Associated Press)
With less than two weeks to go before the July 18 primary, a judge Friday issued a restraining order blocking Georgia's voter ID law, saying that requiring photos as proof of identity is an unconstitutional burden.

Superior Court Judge Melvin Westmoreland said in a sharply worded written ruling that the Legislature doesn't have the authority to enforce the law and an amendment to the state Constitution would be required instead.

Proving that you are qualified to vote is a burden, and cannot be required, according to this judge. The I.D. involved is FREE! The legislature can set up processes to register people to vote and have done so for over 200 years. However if the legislature passes rules that a SINGLE ARROGANT TYRANICAL SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE disagrees with at this point in our history, that makes the law unconstitutional and it can no longer be enforced. There is no rule of law in America any longer. We are now totally subservient to the rule of judges.

Judge Melvin Westmoreland should be impeached. For punishment he should be hung.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Supremes Can't Shoot Straight

By Charles Krauthammer - July 7th, 2006 -
All rise: The Supreme Court has decreed a return to normality. A lovely idea, except that al-Qaeda has other ideas. The war does go on. One can sympathize with the court's desire for a Harding-like restoration to normalcy. But the robed eminences are premature. And even if they weren't, they really didn't have to issue a ruling this bad.

They declared illegal Bush's military tribunals for the likes of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver and bodyguard. First, because they were not established in accordance with congressional authority. And second, because they violated the Geneva Conventions.

The first rationale is an odd but fixable misreading of congressional intent. The second is a grotesque and unfixable misreading of the Geneva Conventions.

Our courts continue to focus on their only real job, the acquisition of totalitarian power by men and women blinded by the corrupt consequences of their actions. The single worst aspect of our current court system is that judges who are arrogantly unconcerned with turning killers loose for trivial technical reasons, seem ready to destroy America for any actions that don't bow down to their power. Unfortunately these actions are not transgressions against anyone but these judicial tyrants. They are otherwise intelligent decisions to protect the American people. Why can't these judges see that? Actually I think they do. They simply cannot tolerate anything that is not within their power.

At some point we must destroy the current court system or it will destroy America.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Court Finds A Right To Jihad In The Constitution

by Mark Steyn - July 2nd, 2006 - The Chicago Times
The U.S. Supreme Court has now blown a hole in the animating principle behind the Geneva Conventions by choosing to elevate an enemy that disdains the laws of war in order to facilitate the bombing of civilian targets and the beheading of individuals. The argument made by Justice John Paul Stevens is an Alice-In-Jihadland ruling that stands the Conventions on their head in order to give words the precise opposite of their plain meaning and intent.

If the totalitarian tyrants of the U.S. Supreme Court were not so powerful, they would be a complete and utter joke. Once again, the lack of any concern for the Constitution is obvious from the decision issued by this pack of evil men (and women). The contempt they show for the intelligence of the American people is exceeded only by the arrogance with which they seize more power to help our enemy.

This ruling makes it clear the only definition their actions can justify is "enemy of the people". It is time the American people start more agressive actions to rid our nation of all judges who are currently serving, while we still have a nation to defend.