Constitutional Sovereignty: Will States Use It Or Lose It?

by Alan Keyes - August 6th, 2010 - World Net Daily

In a post published earlier this week at my website, I draw attention to and argue in support of the observation made in an article at Canada Free Press regarding the case challenging Arizona's immigration law. Bylined Publius Huldah, the article cites part of the above quoted language of the U.S. Constitution to make the point that the case must be heard and decided in the first instance by the Supreme Court of the United States. On Wednesday, I read a WND article reporting the views of two experts who disagree, asserting that "the full text of the constitutional provision needs to be noted, because it does not provide the Supreme Court with 'exclusive' original jurisdiction."

This assertion is demonstrably incorrect.

Alan Keyes debunks the progressive assertion that clear language in the Constitution can be misread to permit the legislature to overrule that very language.

This premise is key to the war against activist judges and their abuse of the social contract of our nation. The idea that lawyers and judges can decide, independent of a nation's citizens, what the social contract means is tyrannical. We are not a judicial oligarchy. Judges and lawyers cannot go off and construct a social contract of complex concepts subject to exclusive lawyer dominated litigation which they insist are beyond the grasp of the average citizen. Such a premise destroys the social contract and leaves no alternative but revolution and bloodshed to restore the people to their rightful place as supreme power in the land.

The Constitution is our social contract. It is a contract between the people, not between lawyers and judges. Progressives are arguing that if you disagree with their attempts to alter this contract they can use Alinsky techniques to call you an idiot for failing to accept their logic. Such ridicule is itself fueling the growing contempt for the 'ruling class' in Washington and the legal system which defends their power. It also fuels contempt for those among us (not me I assure you) who defend this arrogant 'ruling class'. This is the major element in the growing divisiveness in politics.

I currently hold no great hope for most elected Republican officials. They are often as accepting of the 'ruling class' logic as progressive Democrats. We are going to find out whether we are still a Constitutional Republic of free citizens or have become a mob dominated pure democracy of socialist tyranny. This showdown is fast approaching.