The View From 1776

The Judiciary: Tyranny’s Active Agent

Have the Constitution’s checks and balances come unglued?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/28 at 03:38 PM
  1. The effect of judicial activism since the late 1950s has been an unconstitutional establishment of atheistic socialism as the official religion of the United States.

    Yes and no. The majority by failing to act and end that activism through Constitutional means is a sort of approval. In other words, "we the people," by failing to act, authorized what has transpired since then.

    Also, the loss of the "democracy," should have been stated the "loss of the Republic" and that was basically lost when "we the people," ratified the 16th and 17th Amendments and allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve which is control by an international banking cartel that serves their own interests first.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/28  at  04:53 PM
  2. I believe that had we not stripped the state governments of their check on the House, by ending the appointment of Senators who approve the Court appointments, Court appointments would have been much different. Also, FDR socialist policies would not have been approved by the Senate if they were answerable to state legislation bodies that appointed them for those policies were stripping the stats of sovereignty.

    Even more damaging that the 16th which gave the Federal Government direct access to our income for taxation instead of through the states, the 17th stripped a huge amount of power from the states.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  12/28  at  04:56 PM
  3. Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/03  at  07:38 PM
  4. (cont.)

    The next act of usurpation was not the 16th Amendment. It was the 14th Amendment in which Congress created a federal power to supersede state internal laws in objects previously reserved to the states:
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/03  at  07:40 PM
  5. (cont.)

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/03  at  07:43 PM
  6. Better that a handful of clearheaded people take the lead, and let the rest follow.

    I agree but, because of our form of government, when convenient, the elite uses indifference as approval even though several clear headed people are opposing something. Often the majority, has to act if there is to be a reversal of some things like a Supreme Court ruling that would take congressional action or an Amendment to reverse. Time after time, we see the "weakness" of the majority rule, used against us both in apathy and when rallied to vote themselves more benefits.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/03  at  08:12 PM
  7. Regarding the majority, that is why from the beginning we have seen people try to move us to a democracy with a strong central government and away from a Republic. It is why from the beginning, a powerful elite (that led to the Civil War and the 14th) to give the Federal government more power.

    Lincoln said that if he could save the union by freeing all the slaves, he would. If he could save the union by freeing none of them he would. If he could save the union by only freeing some of them he would. The Civil war and then the 14th to seal it, greatly expanded Federal power.

    However, with the 14th, it wasn't Congress which was named to use the 14th that became the greatest threat. It was the Courts which ruled the Congress when it approved socialist policies unconstitutional until FDR threatened to stack it. In 1925 they had given themselves increased power by "incorporating" the Bill of Rights and applying them to state powers. Then after their switch in thinking during FDR, they began a trend of using the Bill of Rights to destroy state powers completely but, you are right, the 14th's ratification set the stage and is where the foundation for the damage was laid.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/03  at  08:20 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.