The Supreme Court Is Not Final Arbiter
By: Sharon Emmert – July 27, 2015
Our Founders gave us a Constitution that purposely keeps the three departments of government distinct and independent, restraining the authority of the judges to the judiciary. They intended for the three branches to be held in check by one another.
The Tenth Amendment clearly defines the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
Unfortunately, our activist Supreme Court is ignoring the Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment, and our cowardly Congress is not holding the Court accountable for straying far beyond its constitutional boundaries!
Thomas Jefferson’s warnings about the dangers of “judicial review” may have rung hollow to some during the early wrangling over our Constitution, but those warnings are more cogent today than ever before.
Prophetic would aptly describe Jefferson’s words: “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please . . . . Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass”
(Sept. 6, 1819 letter to Judge Roane)
“[T]o 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 oligarch. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power . . . .” (Sept. 28, 1820 letter to William Jarvis)
“The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union . . . .” (June 12, 1823 letter to Justice Monticello)
In his book, Judicial Monarchs, William J. Watkins explains how the court has become so powerful and why our only hope of reining it in is to restore sovereignty to its rightful and constitutionally correct place — with the people.
It was 1803, in its ruling in Marbury v. Madison, that the Supreme Court first fraudulently assumed the power to strike down a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
The Marbury case is probably the most quoted authority in support of “judicial review” and could logically be pegged as the beginning of an out-of-control, activist federal bench.
Watkins contends that the Supreme Court has taken on a role never envisioned by the Founders. He argues that Chief Justice John Marshall never intended for the Marbury decision to divest the people of their sovereignty, and in fact made clear that the court should show deference to the elected branches of government.
History tends to show that Thomas Jefferson’s bold critique of the court may have held it in check. It was long after his death before the Supreme Court again used judicial review to step outside its constitutional boundaries and create a doctrine that applied to the entire country.
If only we’d had a few more like Thomas Jefferson throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, America would not be at this critical juncture – Supreme Court justices have become comfortable and prolific with unconstitutional opinions, knowing they will not be held accountable.
The recent majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is packed with foolish and unconstitutional reasoning. Much of it, in my opinion, is a profoundly shallow argument to justify destruction of, as Justice Roberts put it, “[T]he meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history *. . . . Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.”
Justice Thomas takes to task the majority for their reckless misinterpretations: “By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. . . . The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses.”
Justice Alito’s closing comments in his minority opinion are especially sobering: “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. . . . I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. . . . [A]ll Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
I agree completely with Justice Scalia: “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. . . . The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”
The Constitution gives Congress power and authority to rein in a runaway, out-of-control Supreme Court, but they have been too cowardly to use it. There is sufficient remedy for faulty interpretations; however, the most expeditious methods require the cooperation of Congress – a steep hill to climb in today’s political environment.
Unfortunately, it’s become far easier for progressives to have their way with the Court than to pass legitimate legislation through Congress; therefore, they have no desire to rein in the Court?
Congress has power through Article 3.2.10 to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Also, with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, a Constitutional amendment may be proposed. However, with our feckless Congress, what are the chances of either of these?!
Both political parties have become too self-absorbed and complacent to hold one another accountable or even to make constitutional government a high priority. Government “of the people, by the people, for the people” has taken a back seat to fears of not being re-elected.
Elections have consequences, and we are living out some horrible consequences in an America starkly different from its beginning. Christian conservatives have failed miserably in keeping America on course through the electoral process. We must have far greater participation and do a dramatically better job of getting constitutional conservatives elected.
Our Founding Fathers fought and died for a nation firmly founded upon Judeo/Christian principles. Today we are fighting to retain our fundamental God-given freedom of religion. When that is gone, nothing else matters!
We’ve allowed the Supreme Court to nullify Texas Statutes, which were properly passed and codified in accordance with our Texas Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The Court has ignored our Constitution and the rule of law in its quest to make its own law. It’s time for us to be free of their stranglehold upon our sovereignty, our personal freedoms and our culture.
The Tenth Amendment gives “We the People” authority to hold the Supreme Court accountable when our Congress will not. “We the People” are the final arbiters of what is constitutional. We must all firmly resolve to fight back against the Supreme Court’s illegal pronouncements.
The fight begins on our knees as we beg our merciful and loving God to forgive us of our sins and heal our land, and pray that He will send another Great Awakening to America.
Next, we must go where this fight began. The destruction of our constitutional republic has been coming at us fast and furiously through the tyrannical, out-of-control federal judiciary, and that’s where we will have to take our fight.
The battle we face will be long and difficult. Like-minded conservatives must join forces with each other and more particularly with professionals who have the knowledge and expertise to use the court system to return to “We the People” our sovereignty.
We must align ourselves with and financially support organizations like Liberty Institute https://www.libertyinstitute.org/. It is just one of many organizations available, ready, and prepared to fight alongside us to get America back on course. Liberty Institute wins over 90% of its cases because they know how to use the Constitution and other legal weapons to counter the damages of judicial tyranny.
We have the tools; do we have the will?
* “If Adam had rejected Eve, and instead, asked God for another man, or if Eve had rejected Adam and asked for another woman, how do you think God would have responded? . . . If Adam had shaken his fist at God and made such a demand, he would have vanished in a split second, and God would have started over with a new creation. . . . Just because lightning didn’t strike after the Court’s decision doesn’t mean the consequences of rejecting God’s created order are not on their way. . . . Therefore, all of Creation must repudiate this wrong-way decision. But not only that, we must ultimately use everything within our power to change the decision and reverse course.” Michael Youssef | Jul 26, 2015