The Supreme Court Abandoned the Constitution a Long Time Ago

Readability

The Supreme Court Abandoned the Constitution a Long Time Ago

The Supreme Court’s tor­tured jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for their rul­ing in Mas­ter­piece Cakeshop vs. Col­orado Civil Rights Com­mis­sion is fur­ther proof that the Supreme Court com­pletely aban­doned the Con­sti­tu­tion a great many decades ago. In this ear­lier arti­cle I explained in detail how the Supreme Court should have ruled and why. With this cur­rent arti­cle I was going to cri­tique the rul­ing but Tech Knight beat me to the punch with his excel­lent arti­cle. Instead I decided to do this par­tic­u­lar arti­cle about the sys­tem­atic fail­ures of the Supreme Court, and pro­pose solu­tions. Actu­ally they are not orig­i­nal solu­tions that I will pro­pose. The solu­tions orig­i­nated with Thomas Jef­fer­son and the anti=federalists.

From the very begin­ning, the jus­tices of the Supreme sub­sti­tuted their own polit­i­cal opin­ions for the actual text and mean­ing of the Con­sti­tu­tion. Over the past few decades this has got­ten fare worse. What very few know is that Supreme Court Jus­tices sub­sti­tut­ing their own polit­i­cal beliefs for the mean­ing of the Con­sti­tu­tion is one of the crimes cov­ered by High Crimes and Mis­de­meanors, which is the grounds for impeach­ing a jus­tice under the Con­sti­tu­tion. That was the case under Eng­lish Com­mon Law, which was the blue­print for our legal sys­tem. Impeach­ing a Jus­tice for this crime was only attempted once. It hap­pened very shortly after the Con­sti­tu­tion was rat­i­fied, and it failed. We should make it clear to our elected offi­cials that this needs to be attempted again, and often.

In Mar­bury vs. Madi­son, way back in 1803, the Supreme Court granted itself sole juris­dic­tion in rul­ing on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of fed­eral laws. The power to deter­mine the con­sti­tu­tion­ally of fed­eral laws is inferred in Arti­cle 3 of the Con­sti­tu­tion, but it is never granted exclu­sively to Supreme Court. In the Ken­tucky Res­o­lu­tions Thomas Jef­fer­son declares quite emphat­i­cally that the States have not only the power, but the duty, to declare fed­eral laws and Supreme Court rul­ings null and void if the vio­late the Con­sti­tu­tion. James Madi­son echoed Jef­fer­son on this point when he wrote the Vir­ginia Res­o­lu­tions. The States need to step in imme­di­ately and restrain the out of con­trol Supreme Court by nul­li­fy­ing all deci­sions that vio­late the plain mean­ing of the Constitution.

About a hun­dred years ago the Supreme Court began over­turn­ing States laws. Their jus­ti­fi­ca­tion was the 14th Amend­ment. That amend­ment was writ­ten only to end the harm­ful prac­tices of South­ern States dur­ing recon­struc­tion. The 14th Amend­ment actu­ally for­bids the Supreme Court from enforc­ing the pro­vi­sions of that amend­ment. This was because of the Dred Scott case. The power to enforce the 14th Amend­ment was granted to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment through the for­mal leg­isla­tive process. The States need to tell the Supreme Court to stuff it when it tries to over­turn State Laws.

Start­ing in the 1920s the Supreme Court began to “incor­po­rate” the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level. They accom­plished this by dis­tort­ing the 14th Amend­ment. In this arti­cle I dis­cussed the erro­neous nature of the doc­trine of incor­po­ra­tion. Nul­li­fi­ca­tion of Supreme Court deci­sions that employ this phony doc­trine is the best solution.

Thomas Jef­fer­son and the anti-​federalist pointed out that the Supreme Court was never prop­erly restrained by the Con­sti­tu­tion, and they pro­posed amend­ments to rec­tify this. Term lim­its and a stream­lined impeach­ment process that clearly states that sub­sti­tut­ing your own polit­i­cal beliefs is grounds for impeach­ment would be effec­tive remedies.

The Supreme Court con­tin­ues to run amok because so few of us truly under­stand the orig­i­nal mean­ing of the Con­sti­tu­tion. Our entire edu­ca­tional sys­tem prop­a­gates this dan­ger­ous notion of a liv­ing con­sti­tu­tion, and com­pletely dis­torts the orig­i­nal mean­ing, instead spread­ing mod­ern pro­gres­sive myths. This needs to be cor­rected and the orig­i­nal mean­ing must be restored if we want to return this coun­try to a free coun­try, where indi­vid­ual rights and free­doms exist for everyone.

The Supreme Court’s tortured justification for their ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is further proof that the Supreme Court completely abandoned the Constitution a great many decades ago.  In this earlier article I explained in detail how the Supreme Court should have ruled and why.  With this current article I was going to critique the ruling but Tech Knight beat me to the punch with his excellent article.  Instead I decided to do this particular article about the systematic failures of the Supreme Court, and propose solutions.  Actually they are not original solutions that I will propose.  The solutions originated with Thomas Jefferson and the anti=federalists.

From the very beginning, the justices of the Supreme substituted their own political opinions for the actual text and meaning of the Constitution. Over the past few decades this has gotten fare worse.  What very few know is that Supreme Court Justices substituting their own political beliefs for the meaning of the Constitution is one of the crimes covered by High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is the grounds for impeaching a justice under the Constitution.  That was the case under English Common Law, which was the blueprint for our legal system.   Impeaching a Justice for this crime was only attempted once.  It happened very shortly after the Constitution was ratified, and it failed.  We should make it clear to our elected officials that this needs to be attempted again, and often.

In Marbury vs. Madison, way back in 1803, the Supreme Court granted itself sole jurisdiction in ruling on the constitutionality of federal laws.  The power to determine the constitutionally of federal laws is inferred in Article 3 of the Constitution, but it is never granted exclusively to Supreme Court.  In the Kentucky Resolutions Thomas Jefferson declares quite emphatically that the States have not only the power, but the duty, to declare federal laws and Supreme Court rulings null and void if the violate the Constitution.  James Madison echoed Jefferson on this point when he wrote the Virginia Resolutions.  The States need to step in immediately and restrain the out of control Supreme Court by nullifying all decisions that violate the plain meaning of the Constitution.

About a hundred years ago the Supreme Court began overturning States laws.  Their justification was the 14th Amendment.  That amendment was written only to end the harmful practices of Southern States during reconstruction.  The 14th Amendment actually forbids the Supreme Court from enforcing the provisions of that amendment.  This was because of the Dred Scott case.  The power to enforce the 14th Amendment was granted to the federal government through the formal legislative process.  The States need to tell the Supreme Court to stuff it when it tries to overturn State Laws.

Starting in the 1920s the Supreme Court began to “incorporate” the Bill of Rights down to the State and local level.  They accomplished this by distorting the 14th Amendment.  In this article I discussed the erroneous nature of the doctrine of incorporation.  Nullification of Supreme Court decisions that employ this phony doctrine is the best solution.

Thomas Jefferson and the anti-federalist pointed out that the Supreme Court was never properly restrained by the Constitution, and they proposed amendments to rectify this.  Term limits and a streamlined impeachment process that clearly states that substituting your own political beliefs is grounds for impeachment would be effective remedies.

The Supreme Court continues to run amok because so few of us truly understand the original meaning of the Constitution.  Our entire educational system propagates this dangerous notion of a living constitution, and completely distorts the original meaning, instead spreading modern progressive myths.  This needs to be corrected and the original meaning must be restored if we want to return this country to a free country, where individual rights and freedoms exist for everyone.