Thomas Jefferson warned against a Supreme Court that became the arbiter of all Constitutional questions: He wrote to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820: “You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Students are taught America is a democracy, historians clarify it is a constitutional republic, but in actuality, America is functioning as an oligarchy – a rule by a few unelected federal judges.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “oligarchy” as: “A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands; a species of aristocracy.”
Missouri’s legislators passed a ban on partial birth abortion Sept. 5, 1999. Democrat Governor Mel Carnahan vetoed it. In a historic session, fifteen thousand citizens knelt in prayer around the State Capitol as the Legislature overrode his veto. Days later Federal District Judge Scott O. Wright suspended the law – and five years later it is still in limbo.
For years a bill to ban partial birth abortion worked its way through the U.S. Congress, being signed by the president Nov. 5, 2003. The next day a federal judge suspended the law for years – if not forever. In fact, 31 states passed bans on partial birth abortion, only to have unelected federal judges suspend them.
Nov. 18, 2003, even as Massachusetts Legislators were working to define marriage as between a man and a woman, four State Supreme Court Judges “ordered” the state legislature to pass a law within 180 days recognizing homosexual marriage.
Instead of “Separation of Powers,” the Massachusetts Supreme Court is suffering from “Confusion of Powers.” The Judicial Branch of government cannot “order” the Legislative Branch to do anything.
Consider the following:
- The people of Arizona voted English as their official language, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Prop. 106, March 3, 1997)
- The people of Arkansas passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
- The people of California voted to stop state-funded taxpayer services to illegal aliens, but federal judges overruled. (Prop. 187, nov. 20, 1995)
- The people of Colorado voted not to give special rights to homosexuals, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct. Romer v Evans, 1992)
- The people of Missouri defeated a tax increase, but federal judges overruled. (8th Circuit, Missouri v Jenkins, Apr. 18, 1990)
- The people of Missouri limited contributions to State candidates, but a federal judge overruled. (8th Circuit, Shrink Pac v Nixon, Jan. 24, 2000)
- The people of Missouri passed “A Woman’s Right to Know.” Governor Bob Holden vetoed it. Legislators overrode his veto, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, Sept. 11, 2000)
- The people of Nebraska passed a Marriage Amendment with 70 percent of the vote, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion, May 12, 2005)
- The people of New York voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (2nd Circuit, April 2, 1996)
- The people of Washington voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, March 6, 1996)
- The people of Washington passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
- The people of Montana voted by an overwhelming 74 percent to define a marriage as between one man and one woman, but federal judge Brian Morris overruled. (Nov. 19, 2014) Republican Rep. Steve Daines stated an “unelected federal judge” had ignored Montanans’ wishes. (Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2014)
Fifty-five men wrote the Constitution, but only 39 signed it. Why did some not sign it? They did not think it put enough limits on the power of the federal government.
Men like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry were against the Constitution because they did not think it put enough limits on the power of the federal government.
The promoters of the Constitution convinced the 13 states that if they ratified the Constitution, the first action of Congress would be to put limits on the new federal government. There were 10 limits – the first 10 amendments or Bill of Rights.
(Look how the federal government has grown to wield power over the states. As soon as some state passes a law that defies federal law, that state is threatened with loss of all federal funding (yet there seems to be one exception: The legalization of medical marijuana).)
George Washington stated in his farewell address, Sept. 17, 1796: “And of fatal tendency … to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party – often a small but artful and enterprising minority. … They are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, author of “Democracy in America” (1835), warned: “The president, who exercises a limited power, may err without causing great mischief in the state. Congress may decide amiss without destroying the Union, because the electoral body in which Congress originates may cause it to retract its decision by changing its members. But if the Supreme Court is ever composed of imprudent men or bad citizens, the Union may be plunged into anarchy or civil war.”
(taken from “Why Founding Fathers were Concerned about Judiciary” by Bill Federer)
Now we understand why liberal Democrats want to select members of the Supreme Court, and will stop at nothing to keep truly qualified people out of it (like Brett Kavanaugh) who will uphold the Constitution and not re-define it.
THE RIGHT RENDITION 