The False Doctrine of Incorporation: Its Fatal Attraction & Deadly Addiction!
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4,1837The American Bar Association published Federalism: Reconciling National Values with States’ Rights and Local Control in the 21st Century in the Spring of 2001.[1] Dr. Michael Greve, John G. Searle Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,[2] made the following observation and prediction during that symposium:
A constitutional principle without an actual constituency to back it up will soon crumble. I also agree that conservative constituencies with a nominal interest in federalism have been very inconsistent. I suspect that the arrival of the Bush administration will exacerbate that tendency.
Conservatives quickly gloss over Greve’s prophetic point. Would there be any difference between a state that abolished all law enforcement and another state that repealed all law? The Constitutional text can’t leap from the parchment, like animated cartoon characters, and bind[3] all taking an oath to support the “Supreme Law of the land.”[4] If the text could evolve into lively characters, and seize offenders by the scruff of their stiff-neck, (Ex. 32:9) and shake some textual sense into their illogical, Leviathan-loving[5] minds, then Antifederalist 78-79 would not have made this fearful point about federal judges:
“Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself…. When great and extraordinary powers are vested in any man, or body of men, which in their exercise, may operate to the oppression of the people, it is of high importance that powerful checks should be formed to prevent the abuse of it… Hence it is that the true policy of a republican government is, to frame it in such manner, that all persons who are concerned in the government, are made accountable to some superior for their conduct in office. This responsibility should ultimately rest with the people. To have a government well administered in all its parts, it is requisite the different departments of it should be separated and lodged as much as may be in different hands.... [6]
That concern was addressed in Article 3 of the Constitution (Federalist 78-82) and in the requirement that those federal judges and other officials take an oath to the Constitution, not precedent. Federalist 78 confronts conservatives with the feebleness of the federal judiciary in a footnote: “Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.”[7]The text is clear; it simply needs to be invoked,[8] not argued with subversives! [9] The Founders divided and conquered concentration of power with Federalism! The design is not maintenance free. Utopians, neglecting the maintenance, disparage the design and create interpretational schemes to subvert the legally required amendment process. Domestic enemies illegally implement those off-the-wall theories in the absence of a constituency for Constitutional principal. Republicans are their accomplices; because they refuse to expressly deny federal jurisdiction over those cases. When the Court assumes jurisdiction not granted by Congress, then Congress, the President, and the states must correct the Court’s wayward course. If Congress grants jurisdiction, and the Court proves incompetent, then incorrigible judges must be removed from the case (impeachment & removal), or the case must be removed from the judges (jurisdiction-stripping). The Constitution legally obligates the President to support it and not act like a criminal sock-puppet of the Court, when the Court errs. He has the power to veto unanimous opinions; and he has a duty to veto all opinions contrary to the authoritative text of the Constitution. States have an obligation to their citizens and the Constitution that prohibits them from acting like fifty sock-puppets, mastered by unconstitutional edicts of any and all law-breaking branches of the federal government. Lovers of tyranny purposefully confuse federalism with anarchy. Conservatives should not be confused by those rebellious children in adult bodies.
A couple of years after Michael Greve made those comments in 2001, he wrote “The Term the Constitution Died:”[10]
Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility.
In the new age of postmodern constitutional law, one authority is as good as another. And so the Federalist Outlook bids farewell to constitutional argument….
A long long time ago . . . if you can still remember, the Supreme Court used to be guided by constitutional text and logic….
Thomas E. Woods, Jr[11] and Kevin R. C. Gutzman[12] concur with Michael Greve’s admission: “The United States Constitution—the bedrock of our country, the foundation of our federal republic—is . . . dead.”[13] Their recently published book, Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush refers to Brown v. Board of Education as “third rail of American jurisprudence.” George Washington called it a fatal attraction:[14]
If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.Mr. Chief Justice Marshall made an observation in Marbury v. Madison: “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” A Court appointed by Republicans[15] subverted the Government of the United States, while Republicans idly watched a government of laws fall by the opinions of men. Marshall made another observation; “Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an [opinion of the Court]repugnant to the Constitution is void.” This Republican Court broke “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “subvert[ed] the very foundation of all written Constitutions.” Marshall asked this question: "Why [do officials] swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?" Marshall continued his appeal to those with some semblance of integrity:
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the [opinions of the court], but only [laws] which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a [majority opinion ] repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
John McCain voted for the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the U.S. Supreme Court; and Republicans can’t wait to reward him for that obstruction of justice.
Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure, University of St. Thomas School of Law prescribed the cure for this deadly addiction: “The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People.”[16] Professor R. J. Rummel’s research removes all doubt about Paulsen’s insistence: “Part of this reluctance to call a government or its ruler a murderer comes from the fact that to do so is a new and strange thought. Democide is a black hole in our textbooks, college teaching, and social science research. Few people know the extent to which governments murder people.”[17] Romans 13 tasks government with securing the right to life, not removing it! Politically conservative Christians, worshiping the law-breaking rule of evil men, continue their rebellion against the good rule of law,[18] every time they vote for the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. They desecrate the grave of everyone who wore an American Uniform and died fighting for those Constitutional principals. Woods and Gutzman might have provoked an outrage, followed by a national confession, with a title change: “Who Assassinated the Constitution?” Assassination rivets attention. Killings are all too common since Roe v Wade. Who will stop Obama and McCain from burying the dead parchment and America in the same mass grave? “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[19] God is where Christians leave Him, every time they vote for typical Republicans and Democrats.
Marbury v. Madison conclusively demonstrated that judicial opinions contrary to the Constitution are void![20] Illiteracy, ignorance and irrationality are the only three stooges[21] contending otherwise. Leo Graglia, John N. Hostettler, Robert P. Casey, Herbert W. Titus, Michael Stokes Paulsen, William J. Bennett and Charles Kesler agree that law schools inculcate deviant precedent into the next generation of tyrants and ignore the authoritative text of the expired Constitution. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.[27]“Overrule” and “struck down” are criminal euphemisms used to persuade government officials to break state laws; because federal courts do not have the power to enforce their own opinions. Who is tasked with enforcing the Supreme Law of the land? Everyone taking an oath to support the Constitution is sworn to that obligation.[28] An oath to support a federal court’s majority opinion of the Constitution is noticeably absent.[29] When federal courts err, as they often do, it is the responsibility of other officials to interpose; and it is the responsibility of the electorate to ensure they do.[30] Such has not been the case, in any case.
Conservative Republicans occasionally rail against the evil court; but they worship the same, when they refuse to hold politicians accountable to their oath of office. They idolize entertaining, conservative rhetoric and fear Constitutional action more than they loath liberal lies. Republicans get the rhetoric they crave from Fox News, et al, while Democrats get the action they demand from government! Politically conservative Christians see the enemy when they look in a mirror; but they fail to recognize it and the rebellious, deadly hypocrisy for which it stands! [31]
The worst that could be legitimately said about the legality and morality of the sound doctrine of interposition[32] is much better than the very best legal argument for the false doctrine of incorporation. Every 4th of July, Interposition Day is celebrated as Independence Day.[33] Incorporation is celebrated every time a federal court breaks state laws.[34] The National Lawyers Association makes a far better case for incorporation of the Declaration of Independence[35] than the strongest case ever made for the false doctrine of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Incorporation is the reason mountainous piles of print are composed over numerous interpretational schemes based in various views of jurisprudence about judicial review. If substantive due process, spawned in Taney’s Dred Scott,[36] had been aborted, this mountainous controversy would be reduced to a molehill of print confined to the original bones of contention in Article 3.[37]
Incorporation isn’t analogous to an addiction; it is an addiction…to heresy. It is far deadlier than any substance abused.[38] It is the opiate of the liberal masses[39] and responsible for the American Holocaust[40] and the destruction of the American Republic. But the war against incorporation remains undeclared. There is a drug war, a war on AIDS, a war on terror[41] and a war in the making against the natural phenomenon of global warming.[42] But too many conservatives would rather fight all those distractions,[43] and then go after space aliens in another universe,[44] before coming down to earth and facing the domestic enemy planning to bury them in tyranny. [45] The candid citizen must admit, conservatives are their own worst enemy!
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)The cure for conservatives is interposition. The test for conservative addiction to the liberal opiate is their reaction to the cure. If they act enraged about interposition to mask their love for Leviathan, in the form of a judicial oligarchy, their mind is reprobated beyond repair! These infiltrators need to be exposed and banished from office. Federalist 51 describes the anarchist[46] aspect of “anarcho-tyranny:”[47]
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws,[48] based on the same propositions that make abortion murder. Supreme Court majority opinions on murder (abortion) remain in contravention of that well established fact, the Constitution, [49]and thirty states with unenforced abortion laws.[50] But conservative and liberal judges and lawyers are addicted to those majority opinions. Some conservatives are as fatally addicted as liberals; but others could recover from this fatal attraction if their enablers got right with God!
Arguments and evidence are preventatives and safeguards against recidivism; but they are no more than parchment against the irrational supports of an addiction.[51] The Constitution must be invoked against their anti-Constitutional addiction. The electorate must break their elected officials; and they will break the judges’ addiction, via the Bill of Rights, [52] Article 3, Section 2, and executive review [53] of majority opinions.
Lino A. Graglia, A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law, exposes this addiction and its concomitant anti-constitutionality:[54]
The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment -- in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.The 14th Amendment is obsolete.[55] It was written to prevent released slaves from being treated like illegal aliens and a people without a country.[56] No former slaves are alive. The 13th Amendment prohibits reinstitution of slavery. Blacks who owned slaves were citizens of their respective states prior to the 14th Amendment.[57] Many have argued that the amendment was never properly ratified; but there is no need to enter that debate.[58] The 14th Amendment should be ignored, until it is repealed. Interposition is the means to end this destructive addiction. It can not be overemphasized that addictions are cured by withdrawal, not argument!
Because most of the Supreme Court's activist rulings of unconstitutionality purport to be based on a 14th Amendment that it has deprived of specific meaning, the problem can be very largely solved by simply restoring the 14th Amendment to its original meaning, or by giving it any specific meaning.
Conservatives need Incorporation Anonymous For the Substantive Abuse of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment. That tentative title is useful for enablers of the addicted. Addicts usually have enablers; and in this instance they are the conservative electorate, conservative media and conservative political activist organizations. The court is the god of the godless liberals. Conservatives, mere acolytes in that corporate worship, can recover from this addictive idolatry. Otherwise, they are limited to feebly hacking at the branches of evil and prohibited from striking its deadly root.
It is essential to note the difference between substantive and procedural due process.[59] Substantive due process is a textual phantom, created ex nihilo, by the Court from procedural due process implied in the text of the 14th Amendment. The most notorious deviant, Judge William O. Douglas,[60] defined substantive abuse of due process: "due process, to use the vernacular, is the wildcard that can be put to such use as the Judges choose".[61] The incestuous love affair the Court has with its textual phantom took the title from the world's former most haunting love story told in Phantom of the Opera. Substantive due process is a combination of romance, horror, mystery and tragedy played 24/7 in the everyday lives of citizens. The phantom of the opera lived in the catacombs of the opera house. The Court’s textual phantom was homeless, until it found one in emanations and penumbras. Douglas sheltered it in the shadows formed by gaseous products of nuclear decay.[62] It can mutate and infiltrate the equal protection clause, liberty, and privileges or immunities in Section 1 the 14th Amendment; because the Body Politik’s immune system is ravaged by apathy, ignorance[63] (Hosea 4:6) and a wickedly false belief in the divine right of deviant judges.
John Ashcroft, victimized by this nomadic phantom, employed as puppet master, psychotically stated that Roe v. Wade was “settled law of the land.”[64] Majority opinions are only evidence of law,[65] not law.[66] Law binds all under its jurisdiction. Majority opinions bind only the parties of the case. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the U.S. Courts states: “The COURTS DO NOT MAKE THE LAWS. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies.”[67] If Bush had any feeling of compassion for Ashcroft’s delusional disposition, he would have demanded that Ashcroft immediately exit the ethereal and reenter reality. Prohibition from office is a much quicker cure than any twelve-step program for overcoming delusions of grandeur and other political addictions.
There is another distinction of terms that is noteworthy. Court demigods coined selective incorporation (Benjamin Cardozo)[68] to denote their menu-driven approach for including/excluding portions of the Bill Of Rights to annihilate the Founders’ federalist design. This violation is in violent opposition to Marshall (Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore): “Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.” [69] Hugo Black’s total incorporation of the Bill of Rights[70]boldly ventured where only a few imaginations could rabidly roam and return by the end of the day. Imagine them trying to find a way home in that altered state of mind. So, it was more of an occupational hazard than any fidelity to the text that confined the deviant demigods to selective incorporation.
Incorporation addicts use racism to strike anyone confronting them about their addiction. A black American counterstrikes that pathetic ad hominem and emancipates them from their addiction: Ellis Washington, J.D is a former editor of The Michigan Law Review, law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, graduate of John Marshall Law School, and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books. His article, The Brown v. Board of Education Fraud, Pop psychology masquerading as legal reasoning ,[71]is reprinted in Issues & Views, founded in 1985 by black Americans![72] Caucasian cowards should grow a spine and join their black brother’s righteous stand! Perhaps, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas can furnish the first vertebrae:[73]
Today, no one can honestly claim surprise at the vicious attacks against those who take positions that are contrary to the canon laid down by those who claim to shape opinions. Such attacks have been standard fare for some time.
If you trim your sails, you appease those who lack the honesty and decency to disagree on the merits, but prefer to engage in personal attacks. A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One should not cowed by criticism.
In my humble opinion, those who come to engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom, should expect to be treated badly…. That is required…. For, it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.
On matters of consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore, those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of consequence.
Ellis has a column at Worldnetdaily.com.[74] In his Reply To Judge Richard A. Posner On The Inseparability of Law and Morality,[75] Ellis gently dropped Judge Posner’s jaw to the ground, before breaking it, and leaving his sardonic smile looking like a toothless grin. Ellis does not stand alone in his Constitutional rebuke of Brown v. Board. Raoul Berger[76] exposed the false doctrine decades ago: “Berger famously argued that the great 1954 school desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education was incorrectly decided because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend its equal protection clause to require racial integration of the public schools. According to Berger, the sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, was to reinforce the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and protect it against repeal by a future Congress.”
Berger doesn’t stand alone defending the accurate historical record. Between the end of World War II and the start of Korean War, two law professors, Charles Fairman[77] at Harvard and Stanley Morrison[78] at Stanford, exposed the false doctrine of incorporation. Just prior to those expert testimonies, Justice Frankfurter, Adamson v. California (1947),[79] conclusively demonstrated the doctrine of incorporation is false:
“Between the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment into the Constitution and the beginning of the present membership of the Court – a period of 70 years – the scope of that Amendment was passed upon by 43 judges. Of all these judges, only one, who may respectfully be called an eccentric exception, ever indicated the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment was a shorthand summary of the first eight Amendments theretofore limiting only the Federal Government, and that due process incorporated those eight Amendments as restrictions upon the powers of the States….The notion that the Fourteenth Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the States all the rules which it seemed important to Eighteenth Century statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments, was rejected by judges who were themselves witnesses of the process by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Constitution.”But disciples of international communism [80] would not be deterred in their suppression of that record. Communist Goals (1963)[81] listed several of their objectives that required infiltration of federal courts with Leviathan-minded judges determined to destroy the remainder of the Federalists’ orderly design. The majority of those goals have been met. One of those goals was achieved by Judge Hugo L. Black’s creation of the “The Mythical ‘Wall of Separation.”’[82]
While neither the words nor the concept of "separation of church and state" appears in our Constitution, those words and ideas do appear in the Constitutions of the former communist Soviet regimes. See U.S.S.R. Const. adopted July 10, 1918, art. Two, ch. 5, 13 "For the purpose of securing to the workers real freedom of conscience, the church is to be separated from the state and the school from the church , and the right of religious and antireligious propaganda is accorded to every citizen.") (emphasis added); and U.S.S.R. Const. adopted Dec. 5, 1936, ch. 10, art. 124 ("In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda are recognized for all citizens." (emphasis added)). Eleven years after the U.S.S.R. Constitution of 1936 wrote the "separation of church and state" into the text of the Soviet Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held that our Constitution commanded the same philosophy and then wrote that phrase on the minds of the American people. See Everson , 330 U.S. at 18.] It is surprising how many citizens, including lawyers, believe that the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" is in the text of our Constitution. [83]
Even the deviant Douglas had to acknowledge “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”[84]
America’s cultural hegemony[85] imported communist ideology[86] to destroy the Constitutional compound republic[87] through institutionalized propaganda that overtly and covertly attacked faith,[88] family and freedoms. Transnational progressive forces[89] of destabilization and demoralization rapidly expanded to dominate every major cultural institution. It has only recently been recognized by the traditional stabilizing resistance.[90] It remains to be seen whether this traditional resistance can retake vast areas of conquered territory; or failing at that, resort to tactics that will be labeled and crushed as terrorist by the next President. The persistent non-resistance to repeated unconstitutional actions lead to a dead Constitution and a Pandora’s Box pressed down, shaken together and running over with the fascism of McCain[91] and the Marxism of Obama.
Ludwig von Mises’s Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, published in 1944 by Yale University Press, identified the goal that both major political parties in America eventually agreed to pursue at all costs to life, liberty and the pursuit of property:[92]
They are planning a -New Order,” a system of world hegemony of one nation or of a group of nations, supported and safeguarded by the weapons of victorious armies.… This New Order is a very old concept. All conquerors have aimed at it….The Soviet government is by the deed of its foundation not a national government but a universal government, only by unfortunate conditions temporarily prevented from exercising its power in all countries. Its official name does not contain any reference to Russia. It was the aim of Lenin to make it the nucleus of a world government…The following bibliography contains more than enough evidence and argument against the false doctrine of incorporation to remove all reasonable doubt about the guilt of those addicted:
A History of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, Why It's a Problem, and How to Fix It, Susan Shelley, 2002[93]
The Kelo Decision and the Fourteenth Amendment, by Laurence M. Vance [94]
A Libertarian Defense of ‘Kelo’ and Limited Federal Power by N. Stephan Kinsella.[95]
Supreme Confusion, Or, A Libertarian Defense of Affirmative Action, by N. Stephan Kinsella.[96]
The 14th Amendment and "Selective Incorporation" by Timothy B. Lewis [97]
Incorporation is a psychotropic power-trip for tyrants dragging society down the road to perdition. Part 2 writes the prescription that overrules tyrants and strikes down perdition.
[1] http://www.abanet.org/publiced/focus/spring_01.pdf
[2] http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.24/scholar.asp
[3] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffken.htm In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions : October - 1798
[4] http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo74.html Constitutional Futility by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, July 21, 2004. But this whole enterprise of preaching about the Constitution, as conservatives and libertarians have been doing since at least the 1930s, is utterly futile. It has had no effect whatsoever, yet Cato, Heritage, and many other institutions continue to churn out essentially the same old arguments about how the Constitution can limit government. ====The reason all these efforts are useless is that those who partake in them invariably ignore any serious discussion of how constitutional restrictions on government can be seriously enforced. They typically implore the public to educate itself, as though politicians will then magically transform into dutiful tribunes of the people, take their advice, and shut down most of the government. Or they believe in the pie-in-the-sky notion that the federal judiciary could somehow be reeducated and turned into modern-day Thomas Jeffersons, writing such things in their judicial decisions as "that government is best which governs least." This is all extraordinarily naïve. The government has had an iron grip on the American educational system for generations, and it's not about to ease up on that grip by teaching American school children about the virtues of limited government. This is true of all levels of education, including – and especially – the law schools. The reason is straightforward: The parties who are interested in limited constitutional government are widely dispersed and not very well organized politically (i.e., the general public); whereas the advocates of ever-expanding legal plunder (the state itself, and all of its special-interest groups) tend to be much more concentrated and well organized. Therefore, it is the nature of politics that the enemies of constitutional limitations on government will win out, as in fact they have in the U.S. for well over a century. The Constitution not only sought to limit government with its "enumerated powers," something that Pilon emphasizes, or the system of checks and balances, but also with the much more important doctrine of divided sovereignty. That is, the citizens of the states, as well as all other organs of government, were to have an equal voice in constitutional matters. If there is any lesson to be learned here, it is that constitutional liberty – in America or anywhere else – is an empty slogan unless the people possess the rights of secession and nullification. This is how the founders intended the people to be sovereign over their government. Until these powers are restored – and the Fed, the income tax, and the Seventeenth Amendment abolished – Americans have no hope of ever returning to a regime of constitutional liberty.
[5] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/dye_american_federalism.pdf Democratic political processes alone cannot restrain Leviathan. The founders understood that "republican principles," while they should be nurtured and cherished, would not be sufficient in themselves to protect individiual liberty. Periodic elections, party competition, voter enfranchisement, and political equality may function to make governing elites more responsive to popular concerns, but these processes do not protect minorities or individuals,"the weaker party or an obnoxious individual," from government deprivations of liberty or property. Indeed "the great object" of constitution writing was to preserve popular government and at the same time to protect individuals from "unjust and interested" majorities. "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control of government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions" (Federalist,Number 51). ====Among the most important "auxiliary precautions" the founders devised to control government is federalism, which they viewed as a source of constraint on Leviathan. Governments and government officials were seen as likely to act in their own self-interest===== Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? (Federalist, Number 5 1 ) Constitutional limits on governmental power do not enforce themselves. Regardless of how explicitly a constitutional protection may be stated in a document, it will not give much protection to individuals unless government officials are provided with personal motives to enforce it. Those motives must be supplied by constitutional arrangements that encourage competition within and among governments. The solutions the founders advanced were federalism and the separation of powers within the national government: In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. (Federalist, Number 51) Federalism is the creation of "opposite and rival" interests among governments. Understanding U.S. federalism is recognizing the paramount importance of competition among governments. Federalism is not only competition between the national government and the states, the topic of most modern scholarship and federalism; it is also competition between the states. Indeed, it is also, by extension, competition among the nation's eighty-three thousand local governments. The founders themselves recognized the importance of "the system of each state within that state" as a component of federalism (Federalist, Number 33).
[6] http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/brutus.html%20Antifederalist%20No.%2078-79: The Power of the Judiciary by Brutus Taken from the first part of the "Brutus's" 15th essay from The New York Journal on March 20, 1788.
[7] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
[8] http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#21 Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: ''The Congress shall have power . . . to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.'' Article III, Section 1 states: ''The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' These two sections mean that all federal courts except the Supreme Court were created by Congress, which defined their powers and prescribed what kind of cases they can hear. Whatever Congress created it can uncreate, abolish, limit or regulate. Article III, Section 2 states: ''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 section means that Congress can make ''exceptions'' to the types of cases that the Supreme Court can decide. This is the most important way that Congress can and should bring an end to the reign of judges legislating from the bench. ===== For instance, until 1875, the lower federal courts had no general jurisdiction in cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. This power of Congress was so broadly interpreted that a specific authorization by Congress of appellate jurisdiction was construed by the Supreme Court to imply that such jurisdiction was excluded in all other cases. This ''negative pregnant'' doctrine was enunciated by Chief Justice John Marshall in U.S. v. More, in which the Court held that it had no criminal appellate jurisdiction because none had been expressly stated by Congress. Marshall, speaking for the Court, said: . . . an affirmative description of its powers must be understood as a regulation, under the Constitution, prohibiting the exercise of other powers than those described.
[9] http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Morons-Ideology-People-Stupid/dp/1400053552 Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas, by Daniel J. Flynn (Why the Left Hates America) takes aim at those he calls "intellectual morons," smart people who make themselves stupid by letting "ideology do their thinking"; stock or fanatical answers, bad logic and lies are all part of their putative arsenal. It is startling how many Americans—and particularly how many media, academic, and political elites—fall for bad ideas. The trouble is, their lies become institutionalized as truth, and we all suffer as a result. Filled with jaw-dropping lapses in common sense from even our most celebrated opinion leaders, Intellectual Morons is a welcome reality check for the glaring excesses of today’s political and cultural debates.
[10] http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.18112/pub_detail.asp The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve Friday, July 25, 2003 FEDERALIST OUTLOOK , AEI Online (Washington) Publication Date: August 1, 2003
[11] http://www.thomasewoods.com/abouttom1.htm Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University
[12] http://www.wcsu.ctstateu.edu/history/gutzman.asp Professor Kevin R. C. Gutzman is an expert in the Middle Period of American history, 1760-1877, with additional areas of expertise in American constitutional and Southern history. Dr. Gutzman was Distinguished Visiting Professor of History at New College in Sarasota, Florida (March 2008). He was a featured expert in the documentary film "John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman, Jurist" (FFH, 2005).
[13] http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Constitution-American-Liberty/dp/0307405753 Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (Hardcover), by Thomas E. Woods Jr. , Kevin R. C. Gutzman Crown Forum (July 8, 2008)
[14] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm Washington's Farewell Address 1796
[15] http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news100103_commentary.shtml & http://web.archive.org/web/20060525205603/http:/committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news100103_commentary.shtml Has the Supreme Court Gone Too Far? A Symposium, Commentary, October 2003. The Court’s recent rulings on affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger) and sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas) have imparted fresh life to these themes. Especially but not exclusively on the Right, observers have once again decried the activism of judges who ignore both constitutional precedent and the claims of elected lawmakers in order to pursue their own policy ends. The specter has been raised of, if not the end of democracy, at least the end of constitutional law. Hope once lay in the making of new appointments, but the failure of ten consecutive appointments by four Republican Presidents to change the direction established by the Warren Court has shown this hope, too, to be unreliable. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush appointees make up seven of the nine Justices on the Court; but we have to thank this same Court for finding unconstitutional a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion, for approving racial preferences in a public-university law school, and for discovering in Lawrence v. Texas a constitutional right to sodomy. ======== But the solution, clearly, does not rest only in electing Presidents or congressmen of one party as opposed to another.
[16] http://www.stthomas.edu/law/faculty/bios/paulsenmichael.htm The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995 (2003).
[17] http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP6.HTM In the twentieth century, the age of great advances in technology, medicine, wealth, and education, governments nonetheless probably murdered over 170,000,000 people, the worst of these murderous governments are listed in Table 6.1 here.1 This is more than four times those killed in combat in all international and national wars, including world wars I and II, Vietnam, Korea, the Mexican Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Civil War. The toll could even be more than 300,000,000. This is as though we had a nuclear war, but with its deaths and destruction spread over a century. Yet few know about this obscene slaughter.
[18] http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/_have_faith_in_massachusetts__.html Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of laws.
[19] http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63 (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
[20] http://www.law.northwestern.edu/mainpages/curriculum/colloquium/Michael%20Paulsen.pdf The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury, 101 Mich. L. Rev. 2706 (2003). If the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” then,under the logic of Marbury, the theory of our government must be that “an act [of the President, or of the courts], repugnant to the Constitution, is void” in the same way as an act of the legislature
[21] http://web.archive.org/web/20030624070639/http://www.constitutioncenter.org/PressRoom/PressReleases/1998_09_02_1265.shtml New Survey Shows Wide Gap Between Teens' Knowledge Of Constitution And Knowledge Of Pop Culture, September 2, 1998. More Teens Can Name Three Stooges Than Can Name Three Branches of Government
[22] http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#16, the first and most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution. At that point, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized that I cannot confuse what is taught in our Nation's law schools and what is expounded by so-called constitutional scholars on the 24-hour news talk shows with the work of folks like Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Washington, and others at Philadelphia in 1787, or for that matter the first Congress in 1789 or the 39th Congress in 1866.
[23] http://prolife.liberals.com/articles/casey93.html “But, in between 1986 and 1990 campaigns, I came face to face for the first time with a conflict between my personal and public position on abortion, and what I regarded as the duty imposed by my oath of office to "support, obey, and defend" the Constitution of the United States. As a lawyer, I was trained to believe that the Constitution means what the United States Supreme Court says it means.”
[24] http://www.ccomcor.org/stateinterposition.htm “When I was a student at Harvard I took Constitutional Law class and we never read the Constitution. We only read the opinions of the Supreme Court about the Constitution.”
[25] http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/177.pdf “most modern constitutional law casebooks largely ignore the Constitution itself—the document that is ostensibly the subject of study and the source of ‘constitutional law.’”
[26] http://web.archive.org/web/20031123160906/http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/news/news100103_commentary.shtml “Charles Kesler, a scholar of the founding, recently quipped that the worst place to study the Constitution these days is in law school. It is more than a quip: law schools teach constitutional analysis, by which is meant what sitting Supreme Court Justices have written about the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, the debates at the real and original Constitutional Convention, other documents from the era of the founding—these are not seriously studied. No wonder, then, that our lawyers and judges—ignorant of what Jay, Madison, and Hamilton said, wrote, and meant—are under the impression that constitutional law changes with the times and the persons empowered to pronounce on it.”
[27] http://www.roberthjackson.org/documents/The%20Communists%20in%20America.pdf Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954) was a leading American lawyer, judge, writer and life of the 20th century. He served as a United States Supreme Court Justice from 1941 until 1954. During 1945-46, Justice Jackson was the architect of the international trial process and then the chief prosecutor of the surviving Nazi leaders at Nuremberg, Germany.
[28] “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” ==== Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
[29] http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo91.html Jefferson understood that if the day were ever to come when the federal government, under the auspices of the Supreme Court, were to be the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then it would inevitably assert that there were in fact no limits at all. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html The great historian of liberty, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee in 1866 that he saw in the South’s struggle for states’ rights nothing less than the defense of "our civilization," and the last bulwark against centralized state tyranny. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo45.html Americans once utilized the Jeffersonian, states’ rights traditions of nullification and interposition to assist President Andrew Jackson in his campaign to veto the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1832. Jackson essentially ended central banking in America until it was revived thirty years later by the Lincoln administration. The story is told in James J. Kilpatrick’s wonderful 1957 book, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia. The Bank was notorious for fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and attempts to engineer a "political business cycle." Prior to 1861, the American people were still sovereign over their government. They exercised that sovereignty in the way the founders intended: through state political conventions or legislatures. The federal government was their agent. Until 1865, the Supreme Court’s opinion was just the Supreme Court’s opinion. The citizens of the states reserved the right to offer their own opinions on constitutionality, which they often considered to be every bit as valid as the Court’s. The same was true of certain presidents:
[30] http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo105.html Unlike the neocons who surround Judge Napolitano in his appearances on the FOX News Channel, he understands that freedom comes "from God and is inherent to our humanity . . ." "Freedom" is not derived from military adventurism under the guise of phony humanitarianism, as the David Horowitz/William Kristol/Rush Limbaugh/ crowd would have us believe. (For an amusing rendition of this fascistic theory take a look at the web site of the "David Horowitz Freedom Center"). Judge Napolitano recognized that it was Federalists like Joseph Story and John Marshall, and later Whig politicians like Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, who would tell The Big Lie that the Constitution was ratified by "the whole people" and not as it actually was – by the citizens of the sovereign states, with their representatives assembled in state conventions. "That was both historically incorrect and intellectually dishonest," says Judge Napolitano. ===According to this false view of the American founding the central government was always the master, not the servant, of the people. This, too, is a perfect recipe for tyranny that has been made by tyrants everywhere (Hitler even invoked this argument in Mein Kampf to make his case for destroying state sovereignty in Germany). And here’s a shocker: "Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of Congress’s commerce power." (Emphasis added). So much for the phony argument that "judicial review" by the federal courts acts to protect liberty. Instead, it does the opposite: It expands the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.
[31] http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html Romans Chapter 13, by Chuck Baldwin. "Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
[32] Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) offers the following definition: The doctrine that a state, in the exercise of its sovereignty, may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government.
[33] http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=18 The history of Anglo-American liberty is, in many respects, a history of great charters and the events leading to their adoption. Consequently, Americans revere documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. However, conspicuously absent from this list of revered charters are Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Viewing the Constitution as a procedural document meant to limit government and bring it under the rule of law, the Resolves were for much of the Nineteenth Century considered as a starting point for any discussion of liberty and federal and state relations. Unfortunately, the Resolves and the events that led to their writing have been largely forgotten today. For example, the only book-length work devoted to the Resolves is Ethelbert Dudley Warfield’s 1894 classic, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: An Historical Study. =======William Watkins’ Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy restores the Resolutions to their proper place in American history and constitutional law. By presenting the historical background to the resolutions and the interpretation of the resolutions through history, including numerous pressing contemporary issues, Watkins sheds light on federalism, decentralization, civil liberties, checks and balances and what the American constitutional experiment is and should be all about.
[34] http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8397/LEGAL/judges/index.htm When Judges Are Out of Order:Judicial Nominations and Your Rights 6/22/2005 By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel A gavel may be all that stands between you and the rights and liberties you cherish as an American. http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/052405_graglia.html The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment -- in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.
[35] http://www.nla.org/library/winter96/pg9.html The National Lawyers Association takes the position that there is a legal connection or relationship between the Declaration and the Constitution based, in part, on the following…. http://retiredjudges.org/mission.html Congress in 1878 enacted a revised version of the United States Code – our nation’s official compilation of federal law – that included a new first section entitled, “The Organic Laws of the United States.” “Organic Laws” mean “foundational laws” and Congress identified the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as being among our nation’s foundational laws. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that “… it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.” Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 159-60 (1897). http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/Aderholt--CRA.doc Even in our “organic law,” the Declaration of Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is the very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and government authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly basis of our law and government.
[36] http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/about/exhibitions/2007/dred_scott.php it was “the birthplace of the controversial idea of ‘substantive due process’” http://web.syr.edu/~dpyoun02/review1.html In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) the concept of substantive due process originates. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Traditionally due process meant simply following the laws of the land. Thus due process is simply procedural, not substantive. Chief Justice Taney used the argument of substantive due process to fit his personal beliefs and prejudice against the North into his decision. He decided that no state can have a law making slavery illegal because the right to own slaves is protected by the due process clause of the Constitution. Only two justices dissented under the notion that this concept led to “the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean,” (Benjamin Curtis, dissent in Dred Scott). The majority opinion of the Court was morally bankrupt, but Bork holds that it also created a strong precedent that led to further judicial activism. The Warren Court is where Bork argues judicial legislation really took off. The decisions of the Court were largely based on substantive equal protection and rights not found in the Constitution. The first case described is Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In the 1960’s the Warren Court came to many decisions about individual rights, many of which are not found in the Constitution. For example, the ‘right to privacy’ is not in the Constitution but was created by the Court through the ‘zones of privacy’ in the Bill of Rights. Bork believes that these areas should be left to the legislature to decide because the Constitution does not address them directly. The post-Warren Court period continues to see judicial legislation, despite being viewed a generally conservative Court. The claim that Dred Scott v. Sandford was not largely based on substantive due process runs counter to my understanding of the case. The main arguments were that Scott could not bring suit in federal court, that Congressional powers concerning territories were limited, and that the right to property (Fifth Amendment, from substantive due process) forbade the statute. As the first two claims are denounced by precedent and the fact that free African Americans were citizens in some states, the most ‘convincing’ argument is the third. In addition, Bork cites others who agree about the importance of substantive due process in the case. The dissent of Benjamin Curtis is an important indication of its importance as well. As explained above, he correctly saw the opinion as creating a right that was not expressed in the Constitution.
[37] http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45 Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School. The Supreme Court has proceeded on the logical assumption that if Congress possessed discretion not to create lower federal courts in the first place, it also has the power to abolish the lower federal courts. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850). Since it has been assumed that Congress possesses the authority to abolish the lower federal courts completely, the Court has assumed that it has the logically lesser power to ''abolish'' them as to only certain cases by limiting their jurisdiction. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution extends extremely limited original jurisdiction to the United States Supreme Court. In all other cases to which the federal judicial power is extended, the Court is given appellate jurisdiction, ''both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' On its face, this provision provides seemingly unrestrained congressional authority to exclude categories of cases from the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction….Thus, as long as state courts remain open, congressional exclusion of federal jurisdiction raises no issue of due process….But all of its appellate power under article III and its power over most constitutional issues which comes within its appellate power, is qualified by the Exceptions Clause. And I see no way to read that other than this Congress may make plenary exceptions to that jurisdiction. Similarly, as Congressman Hostettler quite accurately pointed out, the Exceptions Clause in article III inescapably says that this Congress may make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. There are external constitutional limits on this power; the Due Process Clause, the concept of separation of powers, and the equal protection directive in the fifth amendment apply. However, there are no internal constitutional limits, no limits in article III on Congress' power. Its power is plenary.
[38] http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/roe/rehnquist_roe.asp To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 20, '' 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [*175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting [**738] abortion. n1 While many States have amended or updated [*176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. n2 Indeed, the Texas statute [**739] struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [*177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.
[39] http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=954 Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals. A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”
[40] http://www.whateveristrue.com/holocaust/cor1.htm The Correlations between the abortion holocaust and the NAZI holocaust.
[41] http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts-arch.html Past articles by Paul Craig Roberts on LewRockwell.com
[42] Global Warming: A Natural Phenomenon, William W. Wood, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2005, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Christopher C. Horner, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (February 12, 2007). Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition by S. Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; Upd Exp edition (January 25, 2008), Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, Roy Spencer, Encounter Books (March 27, 2008). The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so , by Lawrence Solomon, Richard Vigilante Books (April 1, 2008).
[43] http://www.democracybydecree.com/html/wash_times.html Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod offer measures that they believe would restore politically accountable law, but American democracy might be too far gone. The will to fight has departed from legislative bodies, and the American people are distracted and uninformed. Legislators, mayors and governors have learned they can avoid making political enemies by letting judges decide divisive issues.
[44] http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance50.html John Quincy Adams said that America "goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy."
[45] http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1997/feb97/psrfeb97.html The most important duty of the 105th Congress is to protect America from judicial usurpation and restore our constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of our government. This goal should take priority over everything else because the federal courts pose the number-one threat to our democratic process, as well as to conservative and pro-family goals, and because the Congress has the power to take many constructive steps that cannot be vetoed
[46] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm
[47] Under anarcho-tyranny, criminals aren’t punished (which is why it’s anarchy), but the innocent are (which is why it’s tyranny).-- Sam Francis - Chronicles
[48] http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm
[49] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872 I objected to Roe v. Wade the moment it was decided," Bork wrote, "not because of any doubts about abortion, but because the decision was a radical deformation of the Constitution. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the judgment and moral sense of the American people and their elected representatives." Bork compared Roe to another infamous ruling: "Roe and the decisions reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sanford. Just as Dred Scott forced a southern pro-slavery position on the nation, Roe is nothing more than the Supreme Court's imposition on us of the morality of our cultural elites."
[50] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion Tuesday, October 05, 2004
[51] http://www.kinsellalaw.com/publications/kinsella_taking-ninth-massey-review.pdf One problem with trying Is persuade the Court to move toward a more orlginalist interpretation of the Constitution is that, even if the Court wants to do this, it may be too Bate. Given the entrenched and accumulated accretions of government power and court decisions that have resulted from over a century of misinterpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court is unlikely to simply unndo its own jurisprudence and interpret the Constilution anew.
[52] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/mcaffee_federalism_ninth.pdf Traditionally the Tenth Amendment has been understood as a purely structural guarantee designed to clarify the implications flowing from the Constitution's grant of limited powers to the national government. It makes explicit what was already implicit in Article I of the Constitution: that the federal government was to be a government of limited, rather than general powers, and that the states would continue to exercise power over the vast range of matters over which the national government was not granted authority. Madison confirmed this purpose when he presented a draft of what became the Tenth Amendment to the First Congress and acknowledged that many would think it completely unnecessary for this reason.13 Traditionally, most scholars have agreed with Justice Stone's well-known dictum that the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surendered."
[53] http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1138 Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution:Jeffersons View. Who, then, does decide constitutional questions? Let us leave to the side for the moment how they may be ultimately decided, so far as they ever are, in order to get to Jefferson’s intermediate answer. So far as the Federal government is concerned, each of the branches—and in the Congress, each of the houses—decides for itself in matters that
come before them. “The constitution http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/veto/ajveto01.htm If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=442 Lincoln on Judicial Despotism, by Robert P. George (c) 2003 First Things (February 2003).
[54] http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/052405_graglia.html Rule of Law: Our Constitution Faces Death by 'Due Process'By Lino Graglia Published Tuesday, May 24, 2005, in The Wall Street Journal.
[55] http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.htm Truth About the 14th Amendment Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
[56] http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html “[Lincoln] supported the notorious Illinois Black Codes that made it all but impossible for free blacks to earn a living….” http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/007344.html "[T]he provisional legislatures established by President [Andrew] Johnson in 1865 adopted the notorious Black Codes. Some of them were intended to establish systems of peonage or apprenticeship resembling slavery." http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo39.html "In virtually every phase of existence [in the North], Negroes found themselves systematically separated from whites. They were either excluded from railway cars, omnibuses, stagecoaches, and steamboats or assigned to special 'Jim Crow' sections . . . . They could not enter most hotels, restaurants, and resorts, except as servants; they prayed in 'Negro pews' in the white churches [and were] educated in segregated schools, punished in segregated prisons . . . and buried in segregated cemeteries . . . racial prejudice haunts its victim wherever he goes." http://www.lewrockwell.com/healy/healy3.html The point here is not to "re-fight the Civil War," to engage in Southern revanchism, nor in any way to minimize the abomination of human slavery or the repugnance of the postwar Black Codes. The point is that violations of rights, however egregious, do not give rise to federal powers absent a constitutional delegation of authority. To hold otherwise is to repudiate constitutionalism. http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section By P.A. Madison Last updated on June 18, 2008. Like under the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, the amendment's first section “does not reach mere private wrongs, but only those done under color of State authority,” said Bingham’s close colleague, Samuel Shellabarger. Bingham said on February 15, 1871 that section five gives Congress the power “to correct and restrain by law the abuses of State authority.” The abuses spoken of were unequal justice and punishments sanctioned by State authority. http://sovereignstates.org/books/The_Sovereign_States/SovStates_IV.html#IVsect2 The Fourteenth Amendment grew out of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and gave constitutional sanction to that law. An important point to keep in mind, in considering the Civil Rights Act, is that the act was to apply to all States; its provisions were not to affect, as was true of the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, only the States that had seceded.
[57] http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/Curtis.asp At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was rdained and established. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established. http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/23000/article/23018 Black Americans continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. In 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. -- Roger D. McGrath, in "Slavery's Inconvenient Facts," Chronicles magazine, November 2001. http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm Dixie's Censored SubjectBlack Slaveowners, By Robert M. Grooms. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large.
[58] http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"! By David Lawrence, U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957. http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html The Unconstitutionality Of The 14th Amendment. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html The Squalid 14th Amendment, by Gene Healy. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, aghast at Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the amendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it – you'll excuse the phrasing-- "passed into law." Thus, in the wake of Brown, federal courts enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment have seized vast coercive powers, state resistance to taxation and social engineering notwithstanding. To what benefit? None, actually. As the editors of a leading--and, it should go without saying, leftist--constitutional law text admit, there is "no proof . . . that [integration]has aided blacks in any demonstrable fashion." (Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, and Tushnet; Constitutional Law; 2d Ed. Little, Brown, and Co.; 1991 pps 530-31)
[59] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/berger_liberty-constitution.pdf 1995 Georgia Law Review Association, University of Georgia, Spring, 1995, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 585. Liberty And The Constitution, Raoul Berger. The Fifth Amendment provides that "no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." n3 On the eve of the Convention, Hamilton declared, "The words 'due process' have a precise technical import and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature." n4 That is to say, due process is ever procedural, never "substantive" (i.e., affecting contents of legislation). Hamilton correctly summarized the common law. n5 Charles Curtis, an ardent proponent of judicial "adaptation" of the Constitution, wrote that when the Framers put due process "into the Fifth Amendment, its meaning was as fixed and definite as the common law could make a phrase. . . . It meant a procedural due process." n6 It has long been a canon of construction that when draftsmen employ common-law terms, their definitions, as Justice Story stated, "are necessarily included as much as if they stood in the text of the Constitution." n7
[60] http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415a.htm Gerald Ford's Remarks on the Impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, April 15, 1970
[61] http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_fobl.html Douglas, William O., quoted in Forrester, W. "Are We Ready For Truth In Judging?" American Bar Association .lournal 63 (1977): 1212.
[62] http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp Death by PrivacyEmanations, penumbras, and bad law. March 14, 2005, This article is an excerpt from Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general “right to privacy” any more than you will find a right to abortion — and for good reason: It’s not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples — from murder to incest to rape and other crimes. ======Griswold v. Connecticut, and the right to privacy became constitutional law. In order to strike down the Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives, Douglas wrote that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Young lawyers across America had to pull out their dictionaries when reading Griswold for the first time. A penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot — and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”
[63] http://www.democracybydecree.com/html/wash_times.html Where democracy needs to be rescued, By Paul Craig Roberts, April 10, 2003. law in the U.S. is no longer accountable to the people, because state and local governments have lost both legislative and administrative powers. Schools, welfare agencies, prisons — indeed, practically the entire range of state and local public institutions — are actually controlled by attorneys and judges, not by governors, mayors and the voting public. Mr. Sandler and Mr. Schoenbrod offer measures that they believe would restore politically accountable law, but American democracy might be too far gone. The will to fight has departed from legislative bodies, and the American people are distracted and uninformed. Legislators, mayors and governors have learned they can avoid making political enemies by letting judges decide divisive issues.
[64] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2001/jan01/01-01-19.html In fact, no law has been passed that makes abortion legal in this country. http://www.publicsquare.net/article_ten-legal-reasons-to-reject-roe-45.htm Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe, Susan E. Wills http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=438 Abortion Is NOT Legal!
[65] http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=uvalwps Since the content of a judicial opinion was not seen as the equivalent of law but only as evidence of law’s application to a particular case, the practice of stare decisis was qualified: whatever presumption lay in favor of following established “case law” needed to be understood as capable of being overcome once that “case law” was determined to be demonstrably erroneous. http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/14-2/documents/SINCLAIR.pdf Yet judges were not infallible. Their decisions did not make law, for of mundane institutions, only a legislature could do that.82 Judicial decisions were evidence of law, authoritative, but not preemptive. “[I]ndeed these judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence, that can be given, of the existence of such custom as shall form a part of the common law.”83 Yet a subsequent judge could find that his predecessor had been mistaken, that in the precedent case the court had misperceived the moral blueprint in the sky. The prior decision was not “bad law, but . . . it was not law. . . .”84 On the declaratory theory a court did not and could not absolutely bind its successors.85 BLACKSTONE, supra note 38 at *69 (“[I]n such cases the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new law but to vindicate the old one from misrepresentation.”). See Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1(1842) (Story, J.): In the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect. Id. at *18.84 BLACKSTONE, supra note 38, at *70.85 Blackstone:Yet this rule [to abide by precedents] admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be clearly contrary to the divine law. But even in such cases the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new law, but to vindicatethe old one from misrepresentation. http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/4/c45.htm The role of the judge is to declare what law already exists. The standard legal maxim is, Jus dicere, et non jus dare. That is, the province of a judge is to declare the law, not to make it. [U.S. v. Butler.] case precedents are binding in moral force only, that is, as a matter of persuasion, not as a matter of obligation. Prior opinions are not to be followed if plainly absurd. Thus, judicial opinions are not "law," they are only evidence of it. http://www.lonang.com/foundation/3/f36b.htm Supreme Court Opinions Are Only Evidence of Law,Not Law Itself and Not the Supreme Law of the Land http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/7_1_1.pdf Roe v. Wade: A Scandal Upon The Court. Part I: The Unsettling of Roe v. Wade Chief. Justice Mansfield, in the English case of Jones v. Randall (1774), observed: The law would be a strange science if it rested solely upon cases; and if after so large an increase of commerce, arts and circumstances accruing, we must go to the time of Rich. 1 (1189-1199) to find a case, and see what is law. Precedent indeed may serve to fix principles, which for certainty’s sake are not suffered to be shaken, whatever might be the weight of the principle, independent of precedent. But precedent, though it be evidence of law, is not law in itself, much less the whole of the law. Whatever is contrary, bonos mores est decorum [literally: whatever is against good manners (or customs)] and seemliness (or propriety) [freely: whatever is against public morals], the principles of our law prohibit, and the King’s Court as the general censor and guardian of the public manners, is bound to restrain and punish.60
[66] http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=592&print=1&PHPSESSID=bdbaea2fc30455a7e32730afa79b37ff Courts Do Not Make Law Article One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. So, it’s Congress that “makes law”. It’s the legislative branch – NOT the judiciary – that is VESTED with lawmaking authority and therefore, cannot delegate.
[67] http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html
[68] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1937/1937_135/ Palko v. Connecticut
[69] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1833/1833_0/ The Oyez Project, Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833),
[70] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_102/ Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.- Adamson v. California http://www.belcherfoundation.org/jaffree_v_board.htm The scholarly analyses of Professors Fairman and Berger persuasively show that Mr. Justice Black misread the congressional debate surrounding the passage of the fourteenth amendment when he concluded that Congress intended to incorporate the federal Bill of Rights against the states. See infra p. 42-44 (discussion of Blaine Amendment).
[71] http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/1003/article/501 Bluntly speaking, Ms. Taylor, the type of pop psychology masquerading as legal reasoning the Court used in the 1954 Brown decision was totally fraudulent then as it is totally fraudulent now--lacking in any legitimate judicial precedent, a valid historical context, or plausible constitutional foundation. The Brown opinion forever created in the minds of American society that black people are not equal to white people based on the moral suppositions of the Constitution. To give legitimacy to Brown v. Board of Education, is to sacrifice lawful constitutional due process and sound constitutional jurisprudence for the expediency of the public policy fiction, which the Brown opinion solidified in American culture--that is, that black children must be allowed to attend public school with white children in order to get [equally] educated.
[72] http://www.issues-views.com/index.php
[73] http://web.archive.org/web/20010228175104/http:/www.peopleforlife.org/clarencethomas.html Be Not Afraid, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Given as the Francis Boyer Lecture for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research at Washington, D.C. on February13, 2001. . . . by yielding to a false form of "civility," we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us. As I have said, active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks.... To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and nonjudgmental, i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best. http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2490 Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) said that unwed pregnant women should not be schoolteachers, and the media accused him of intolerance. What the media did not reveal, however, were the constituents who whispered after the cameras disappeared. “People would whisper ‘you’re right, we’re with you,’” said Sen. Demint. “They did not want to say that anything was wrong, because they know that’s hateful, wrong and politically incorrect. I notice how much people whisper.” http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The Origins of Political Correctness An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
[74] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/?pageId=43&authorId=59&tId=8
[75] http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_1.pdf
[76] http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media_relations/releases/09_2002/berger.html Distinguished scholars and jurists will gather at Northwestern University School of Law for a symposium to honor the life and work of the late Raoul Berger, who was one of the nation’s leading authorities and most prolific commentators on the U.S. Constitution and legal history. Berger was the author of more than 100 articles and seven books. Among his most recent works are "Federalism: The Founder’s Design" (1987) and "The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights" (1989). http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/berger_fourteenth_am_bill.pdf Berger, Raoul, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (1989) http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/berger_federalism.pdf Berger, Raoul, Federalism: The Founder's Design (portions)
[77] Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Original Understanding, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949).
[78] Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights? The Judicial Interpretation, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 140 (1949).
[79] http://supreme.justia.com/us/332/46/case.html Page 332 U. S. 62
[80] http://www.newtotalitarians.com/FrankfurtSchool.html What is the Frankfurt School? By Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)Copyright 1 August 1999. Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West. 'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.
[81] http://www.skousen2000.com/biography.htm Dr. Skousen served the FBI for 16 years (1935-1951), and worked closely with J. Edgar Hoover. In 1951 he was asked to join the faculty of Brigham Young University. Here he headed up the Student Alumni organization. In 1956 he was asked to serve as Chief of Police of Salt Lake City. During his 4 year service, he also wrote his national best seller, "The Naked Communist." He also was the editor of the nations leading police magazine, "Law And Order." In 1960 he left the police force and began speaking tours around the country on the political crisis during that time period. He also ran for the governors office in Utah, but narrowly missed the primaries. http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm & http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/8/133540.shtml Communist Goals Chuck Morse, Friday, May 9, 2003, On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr. of Florida read a list of 45 Communist goals into the Congressional Record. The list was derived from researcher Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” These principles are well worth revisiting today in order to gain insights into the thinking and strategies of much of our so-called liberal elite. This strategy goes back to the founding of the American Civil Liberties Union by Fabian Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn among others. This is the Gramscian agenda of the "long march through the institutions" spelled out explicitly: gradual takeover of the "means of communication" and then using those vehicles to debauch the culture and weaken the will of the individual to resist. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41751 & http://revver.com/video/1013010/against-the-usa-naked-communist-conspiracy-theory-nwo/
[82] http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/fp6.cfm June 23, 2006 The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse, by Daniel L. Dreisbach. Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the ?high and impregnable? wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him.
[83] http://web.archive.org/web/20010506153905/http:/www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm -The Ten Commandments and the Ten Amendments: A Case Study in Religious Freedom in Alabama. Volume 49, No. 2, Winter 1998, Alabama Law Review, William P. Gray, Jr. [* Managing partner, Gray & Jauregui, LLP; legal advisor to Governor Fob James, 1995-1998….]
[84] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0343_0306_ZO.html Zorach v. Clauson Decided: April 28, 1952
[85] http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3484376.html Why There is a Culture War, John Fonte, Gramsci and Tocqueville in America Power, in Gramsci’s observation, is exercised by privileged groups or classes in two ways: through domination, force, or coercion; and through something called "hegemony," which means the ideological supremacy of a system of values that supports the class or group interests of the predominant classes or groups. Subordinate groups, he argued, are influenced to internalize the value systems and world views of the privileged groups and, thus, to consent to their own marginalization. Or consider the echoes of Gramsci in the works of yet another law professor, Michigan’s Catharine MacKinnon. She writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), "The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing, indivisible," because "State power, embodied in law, exists throughout society as male power." Furthermore, "Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime." Therefore, MacKinnon notes, "a rape is not an isolated event or moral transgression or individual interchange gone wrong but an act of terrorism and torture within a systemic context of group subjection, like lynching." Similarly, MacKinnon has argued that sexual harassment is essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the subordinate group. Such thinking may begin in ivory towers, but it does not end there. The United States Supreme Court adopted MacKinnon’s theories as the basis for its interpretation of sexual harassment law in the landmark Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). This is only one example of how major American social policy has come to be based not on Judeo-Christian precepts nor on Kantian-Enlightenment ethics, but on Gramscian and Hegelian-Marxist concepts of group power.
[86] http://www.shopaim.org/Blacklisted-By-History_p_0-786.html Drawing heavily on government files now declassified, veteran journalist M. Stanton Evans sets the record straight about communists exposed by the controversial Wisconsonite and his Cold War investigations of Soviet penetration of the U. S. government in his new book, Blacklisted by history: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=2319 “Marx coined neither ‘socialism’ nor ‘communism,’” Flynn informs us. “He expropriated them just as he urged his followers to expropriate the bougeoisie’s property.” “In particular, he latched on to ‘communism’ because ‘socialism’ had been so closely associated with Robert Owen.” Owen was the Scottish industrialist who created New Harmony. “Like so many leftists who came after him, Marx refused to acknowledge his debt to the leftists who came before him,” Flynn observes. “Gods can’t have ancestors.” http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/january_2001_5.html It is difficult to think of any major question during the last half of W.E.B. Du Bois's life on which he didn't stand on the wrong side. From his endorsements of racial seperatism to his unmitigated enthusiasm for Stalin to his naïve interpretations of life in Hitler's Germany or Imperial Japan, Du Bois had a penchant for backing the wrong horse. On some occasions, he simply got caught up in the intellectual fashions of his time. Other instances can't be explained away so easily. http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html In contemplating the deafening silence among intellectuals that has greeted the killing of 100 million people by Communism this century, The Black Book of Communism's co-author Stephane Courtois wonders, "Why has it been necessary to wait until the end of the twentieth century for this subject to show up on the radar screen?" The answer, it seems, is that academics have been engaged in "ideologically motivated self-deception" for more than 80 years, refusing to believe that their ideological cousins could be capable of such diabolical crimes. http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2003/cr_jason_livingood.html At a luncheon presentation on September 25th, Haynes told Accuracy in Media that at this time, "silliness is acceptable in the academic world if it is useful to presenting a benign view of American Communism."
[87] http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people. Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.
[88] http://web.archive.org/web/20030217093012/http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_gramsci.htm Gramsci's Grand Plan by Fr. James ThorntonWhereas conventional Marxist-Leninists were hostile towards the non-Communist left, Gramsci argued that alliances with a broad spectrum of leftist groups would prove essential to Communist victory. In Gramsci's time these included, among others, various "anti-fascist" organizations, trade unions, and socialist political groups. In our time, alliances with the left would include radical feminists, extremist environmentalists, "civil rights" movements, anti-police associations, internationalists, ultra-liberal church groups, and so forth. These organizations, along with open Communists, together create a united front working for the transformation of the old Christian culture.
[89] http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/idealogical_war.pdf Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War Within the West. by John Fonte. The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows
[90] http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ Dr. Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto.
[91] http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven34.htm McCain Would Continue The Bush 2 Disaster, PART 1 of 2. Bush II and Congress have both created the conditions for potentially large scale police-state actions on U.S. soil through…. While most Americans are behaving like good little sheeple, the power elite is doubtless worried about some of us. After all, the Ron Paul Revolution took on such a life of its own last year that even Time was compelled to cover it. The corporate media tried as hard as it could to ignore Ron Paul, as I noted; when that became impossible, they attacked ad hominem by portraying him and his followers as nutjobs and ignoring their substantive views on such subjects as the Federal Reserve and sound money. He was clearly a threat.
[92] http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/intro.asp & http://www.getusout.org/ Get US out! of the United Nations http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=115 The Constitution Restoration Act Of 2004: The Most Important Legislation In The Last Fifty Years. Furthermore, Sec. 201 of this bill states, "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law." In other words, the Supreme Court would be prohibited from basing their opinions on the rule of foreign law. This is especially needful as Supreme Court justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have demonstrated a recent propensity to do just that.
[93] http://www.extremeink.com/appendix.htm This essay is the appendix to The 37th Amendment, a novel by Susan Shelley
[94] http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance57.html Laurence M. Vance, Ph.D., is a teacher, an author, a publisher, a freelance writer, the editor of the Classic Reprints series, and the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He holds degrees in history, theology, accounting, and economics. The author of twelve books, he regularly contributes articles and book reviews to both secular and religious periodicals. Dr. Vance's writing interests include free market economics, taxation, government spending and corruption, the socialism and statism of conservative pundits and Republican politicians, Baptist theology, English Bible history, Greek grammar, and the folly of war. He is a regular columnist for LewRockwell.com, and blogs for LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and Antiwar.com. Dr. Vance is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Grace Evangelical Society, and the International Society of Bible Collectors, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
[95] http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella17.html As I’ve argued elsewhere, the incorporation doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed. The notion that it is part of the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is ridiculous. Due process has to do with process, not substantive rights. The whole doctrine of "substantive due process" is ridiculous. Even legal scholar Roger Pilon, who holds that the Fourteenth Amendment does apply fundamental rights to the states, agrees that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were not intended to provide federal protection for citizens’ fundamental rights.
[96] http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html First, the Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified. Second, the Due Process clause was never intended to "incorporate" the rights in the Bill of Rights. It simply makes no sense that it would have: the Bill of Rights, as noted above, was simply a safety measure to ensure that the federal government would not exceed its limited powers. The First Amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law…". How could a limitation on Congress’s power be applied to the states? Moreover, the Courts have had to resort to the ridiculous doctrine of "substantive due process," as distinct from "procedural due process." How can due process not be merely procedural? (Cato Institute legal scholar Roger Pilon agrees that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were not intended to provide federal protection for citizens’ fundamental rights; but wrongly, in my view, argues that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should be used for this purpose instead.) ====== Third, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine that it spawned have eroded the vertical balance of powers between the states and the central government that was put originally in place so that the states would serve as checks on central tyranny. With Lincoln’s War Between the States and the Fourteenth Amendment as construed by federal judges, that check has been greatly weakened.
[97] http://www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org/Articles/constitutional_primer_14th_amendment.htm Constitutional Freedom Foundation - 2334 Briarbrook Lane -Garland, TX 75040 Phone: 214-500-0038 E-mail: gbbrunt@aol.com
