Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons - October 29th, 2008 - The American Thinker

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.

This ruling, as much as any we have recently seen, discloses the utter contempt that judges have for our Constitution. If a voting citizen does not have standing to require that the explicit words of the Constitution must be followed, what does a citizen have standing to do? Pay taxes? Obey bureaucrat orders? Shut up?

The government always has standing to force these obligations as well as destruction of freedom in any way it wishes. It has the power of government goons to assure its "standing". We citizens no longer have any rights at all.

Criminals have lots rights. Especially the criminals that have been appointed judges. Citizens have no rights under "the rule of judges".

Friday, October 17, 2008

The Justice Lets Us
Walk Away with a Warning

by Kathryn Jean Lopez - October 17th, 2008 - National Review Online

The United States Constitution is “a tiny document that goes unread.” Americans’ ignorance of the Constitution “horrifies” Justice Thomas.


At the end of every Court session, Justice Thomas reported, he takes his beloved clerks to Gettysburg. Especially after tough sessions, he wants them to be even more idealistic about liberty, the Constitution, and our country. In New York City, less than three weeks before Election Day, he recited words from Lincoln’s stirring address there:

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thomas implored those gathered Thursday night — and by extension anyone and everyone who reads these words and their crucial reminder relayed here — to “rededicate yourselves to the promise of liberty.” And in a land where others have died for the privileges we enjoy, ask ourselves “what any of us has done to deserve to live as a free people in a free country.” Let us rededicate ourselves to ensure that “their bequest, this republic, will not perish from this earth. And definitely not on our watch.”

Check back on November 5th. The answer ... to whether this nation is now peopled by such a "me, me, me" generation of selfish greedy grabbers that we are willing to throw away freedom for socialism ... will be known.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Judicial Activism Reconsidered

by Thomas Sowell

Like many catchwords, "judicial activism" has acquired so many different meanings as to obscure more than it reveals. Yet it is not a term that can simply be ignored as intellectually "void for vagueness," for at the heart of it are concerns about the very meaning and survival of law. Abandonment of the term not being a viable option, clarification becomes imperative.

This is a very long, very complex, and very important article, by America's leading intellectual. Heavily footnoted, it is written in the style of a College Thesis or a legal treatise. It deals with the most important legal point currently destroying our court system. I have created a shorthand term to explain my concerns about the concept of judicial activism. I call it "the rule of judges" versus "the rule of law". Judicial activism, as described by Sowell in this article, is "the rule of judges". I could not have written this article, but I concur completely. It is a brilliant denunciation of the resulting evil of the legal . . . no not legal . . . political philosophy of judicial activism.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

The Case For Traditional Marriage

by James L. Lambert - October 5th, 2008 - North County Times (San Diego)

California voters were taken aback by the May 15 California Supreme Court (4-3) decision that reversed the votes of 4.5 million Californians who said "yes" to traditional marriage in 2000. Proposition 22, which legally defined marriage as between one man and one woman, was passed overwhelmingly in November 2000.

Essentially, the court by a slim 4-3 decision overturned the will of the people and said "no" to 63 percent of San Diego County voters.


Many members of the predominantly liberal media are reluctant to remind the public of the long-term consequences of this court decision. In Massachusetts, where that state's legislature rejected traditional marriage, Catholic Charities was denied its tax-exempt status because of its defense of marriage as between one man and one woman. That form of penalty has hurt thousands of families who benefited from a charity that specialized in finding adoptive parents for kids from 5 to 15 years old (who are traditionally difficult to place).

The major consequence of this ruling, and others like it around the country, is a growing recognition that our courts are corrupt and practicing anarchy. It is absolutely ignorant for a court representing a government based on democratic representation to forget the consequences of subverting democracy. Yet that is what is happening. Our courts have decided that there is some pure law that is above our people, our Constitution and the moral values of our reverence for God.

Without respect for those, anarchy will allow any Judge to invoke law to order anything they want. That is what they are doing. They have replaced the rule of law with the rule of judges. There is no moral, Constitutional or democratic defense of the current anarchy and corruption in our courts.