HIS HONOR? The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was speaking to the bar association

HIS HONOR? The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was speaking to the bar association in New Orleans. One of the more potent remarks was, "It will not do to regard the Constitu- tion signed in Philadelphia as . . immutable and unchal- lengeable. Change is the law of life, in government as well as in other matters." His tone reflects thoughts which have been floating around DC for a long time. Destroy the remnants of the Constitution. It's only an ancient document which is no longer relevant in the world as it is today. It was a good idea in the time of the horse and buggy. The world today is smaller due to electronics and weaponry. Restrictions which were established in the old document cannot apply in this age of instant mass destruction. He also added, "There is no reason to treat our present Constitution with an 'Ark of the Covenant' mentality." Isn't that cute? What a brilliant mind came up with that! What an attitude for a man whose position in life exists solely because of the Constitution! That document created his job. Now his intent is to change it to suit what he feels is best for our country (and himself, I might add). Here is a man paid to uphold the law. He pays no income tax on his salary and says the Constitution does not mean what it says. Can anyone imagine such arrogance? We often hear the statement, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." What do you suppose is his excuse? What our new chief justice is preaching is judicial supremacy! And he doesn't really care what you think about it. After all, he has honor. The judicial branch receives its authority from Article III of our Constitution. There is nothing in that article which gives the black robes permission to change our form of government! The authorization for our government does NOT come from the federal government. To verify this, look at the opening statement in the document. In bold, fancy letters, we find the words: WE THE PEOPLE. That's right . . . our Founding Fathers established this form of government as the rule of the people. It was a novel concept and is still as viable and workable as it was over 200 years ago! Let's take a look at that preamble: "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America." This states the purpose and goal of our government. All the principles, values and ideals of the Declaration of Independence are put together for the world to see our intent . . . Do you think the chief justice is aware of this preamble? Does he know the meaning of the word 'justice'? Isn't it clear to him that WE ordained and established the constitution and created his job? How about the blessings of liberty . . . will he now determine the limits of our liberty? Buffalo chips. By posterity is meant you and I and the generations which are to follow us. That statement proves we are the sovereigns! If our friend in the black robe doesn't have the power to change our constitution, then how can it be changed? Obviously only by going to the ones who gave the power for government in the first place . . you and I through our state representatives! Very often, the state will ask for our consent through the ballot box. This is true when it's a controversial subject. However, the fact remains . . . it CANNOT be changed by any branch of the federal government! It makes no difference what pretense they use to attempt a change. (Art V) When the document was being drafted, the men who were sent to Philadelphia were intelligent and learned men. They probably had no idea that the carriage would become horseless and knew they couldn't foresee the future. This amendment provision allows for changes which future generations might feel necessary. This makes the document ageless. The new boss of the high court says that it won't do to regard the Constitution as unchangeable since change is the law of life and government. Won't do for whom? Do you think he was talking about the amendment procedure? The more likely scenario is they are going to change it through judicial interpretations. Is he really that stupid or is it the country bumpkin syndrome again? The amendment process is slow and unwieldy. That's fine. It's supposed to be. They have tried to make over 3000 amendments to the document. We have only agreed to 26 of them. (27 now) You believe he was talking about the prescribed method? Now, if that process weren't clear enough for those in the government to understand, let's look at the Bill of Rights. This addition really spells out the limit of their power. The entire Bill of Rights is a restriction on the government. There is not one restriction on the people. Here is one amendment which the federales wish didn't exist and it is the one they have most consistently ignored. ARTICLE X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Simple and straight forward! It's obvious from this amendment that anything to which we did not say OK is denied. They CANNOT assume any power which we did not delegate through the Constitution. Why do you suppose the people who work for government can't understand this amend- ment? Especially one who is supposedly trained in the law! How asinine! Two more points have to be verified before we take a look at some of the older writings. The first is what is called the supremacy clause of the basic document: (Art VI, cl 2) THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF . . SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. . . This is also clear enough for any of us to understand. All laws MUST conform to the authority which we granted by the document. There is no other way to read it! If laws made do not agree with this clause, they are NOT the supreme law of the land. They are unconstitutional and NO ONE need obey them! Can't be any simpler than that. The second point is everyone who works for the national government must take an oath to support the Constitution. (Art VI, cl 3) We have allowed NO exceptions to this requirement. Nor were there any changes allowed through the amendment process. Public officials have made a joke of this. Federal judges have not taken an oath to support the Constitution although we ordered it. All his oath says is he will perform his duties to the best of his abilities and understanding. Also that his performance be agreeable to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. (Title 28 United States Code, Sec 453.) Yet the oath requirement specifically points out that judicial officers must swear or affirm to GOD to support it! This is how they get away with making changes to our basic law. By swearing to God to do his duty to the best of his understanding means they can claim flexibility to how they understand it. Why don't they swear to support it? Let's check out some of the old writings on our government. The first we'll look at are The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, in Paper No. 78 points out clearly that a constitution is, in fact, the fundamental law. Judges must regard it as such! And, in the same paper, he remarks that is their duty to declare all acts contrary to authority of the Constitution void. Without the performance of this duty, he adds, all the talk of about rights or privileges would amount to nothing. How true! Another important point in the same paper is that the judicial branch of the government will have neither force nor will. They will merely exercise judgment. It's a good thing he isn't alive today to see how wrong that statement turned out. The Founders expected the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches. Judges were intended and expected to be protectors of the citizens from the government and its agents. It hasn't worked out that way. After all, judges are part of the government. Since they no longer believe that the power for governing comes from the people, they are now protectors of the bureaucracy. The new chief justice is just getting ready to carry out that duty! This dereliction of judicial duties is the greatest danger to the survival of our republic! Were they performing their duties according to the mandate for judges, Congress couldn't legislate beyond the restriction of the supremacy clause. Without qualms, judges should declare such actions unconstitutional. By the same token, the executive branch couldn't issue an 'order' or regulation with the force of law! Judges must declare those illegal also! Let's look at some of the arguments and discussions which went on at the Convention during the formulation of our new government. We find the consensus was that judges had no right to make law or revise law. One proposal was made to form a "Council of Revision". It would have consisted of federal judges and the executive branch to check the laws passed by the legislative branch. This came during the debate of whether the executive branch should veto laws. Mr. Gerry, the delegate from Massachusetts was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. He said: "It was quite foreign from the nature of their office to make them judges of the policy of public measures." Statements came from many delegates that the "associa- tion of judges with the executive was a dangerous innovation" and "Judges of all men [are] the most unfit to be in the revisionary council." "Judges should not be meddling in politics and parties and they should never be admitted into the business of legislation . . . The Council would make statesmen out of Judges . . . that interpreters of the law could never be involved in legislative duties." This can be found in a book called "Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States," (House Document No. 398, 69th Congress, 1st Session 1965). Is the new chief justice unaware of the intent of our Founding Fathers? Perhaps he just believes that we are so ignorant of our Constitution and its intended method of operation that we couldn't question their actions. Probably true. We see federal judges issue orders and edicts all the time which have the full force of law. How can this be when clearly judges are not to make laws? We are now at a point in time where five people of the nine on the Supreme Court can decide a controversy. After- ward they issue a decision which in effect amends our Consti- tution. This is a violation of the amendment article! Five people, mind you, not elected, who represent no one and who are not directly responsible to us. Can they change our government by simply saying, "This is how it is to be."? In 1935, they showed their true impudence. The Supreme Court decided not to consider constitutionality of an issue if it could avoid it. (Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authori- ty, 297 US 288). If a controversy could be disposed of on some grounds, other than constitutionality, that was the path they would follow. They have simplified their job. If constitutionality is to be contested, they simply refuse to consider it. It does not get onto the docket. Every court from the High Court on down now follows that decision! Protectors of the people? Does this fit the description of 'good behavior'? One of their favorite words is frivolous. If forced into a decision they prefer not to make, they say, "It is frivolous!" The issue is then denied and thrown out of court. It's the judicial way of invoking the 'privilege' of not incriminating themselves. After all, why face the issue? The new chief justice is certain he has more wisdom and intelligence than all those men who attended the convention in 1787. The attitude of these people is that they all feel they personally have come down off the mountain carrying tablets of stone. Yet we all know they are only human with all the faults, prejudices and frailties as the rest of us. There has been much rhetoric through the years about Supreme Court Justices being conservative or liberal. Drivel! Were they following the dictates of our basic law under the authority we granted, we couldn't put a label on their actions. Do you know there is no requirement in our Constitution that a judge be a lawyer? This is probably the root of our problem! What we need is Americans in these positions who will truly support the document as required. The Constitution is immutable and can only be changed through the prescribed method! When the proposed constitution went to the various states for ratification, each state requested a bill of rights. All states feared the powers that were being granted for the business of the new government. Several of the states specifically pointed out that all power is naturally invested in and consequently derived from the people. Magistrates, [Judges] therefore, are their trustees and agents and at all times amendable to them. New York state made a special request. All Judicial officers shall be bound by Oath not to infringe or violate the Constitution or Rights of the respective States. Alexander Hamilton, in Paper No. 83 reiterated that the Constitution confines the authority of all federal courts. If the Founders had considered giving greater powers, that limited authority would only have been excess words. Are we now at the point in our history where might and power make right? Can they say to hell with the Constitution and the power of the people? Is the land of the free and the home of the brave now the land of regimented masses? Or the home of wimps? Are we going to allow these people to dictate to us when their limited power of government comes from us? Are WE the real endangered species they talk about? All federal judges hold their positions during good behavior. (Art III, Sec 1) Violation of the Constitution cannot be good behavior! Even a moron would have to agree with that! Hamilton (speaking of federal judges) points out further in Paper No. 79, "They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified from holding any other." Malconduct is "Ill conduct, especially dishonest conduct, maladministration, or, as applied to officers, official misconduct." (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed.) Exactly what we have been discussing! The violating of constitutional restrictions or amending the document in any manner not authorized is dishonest conduct and therefore, official misconduct. How long are we going to sit still and allow our rights to disappear down the toilet? Until we are all slaves? Until we all have to carry national ID cards or have our numbers tattooed on our arms? For this to happen, all good people have to do is nothing! What will you tell your children someday when this comes to pass? What will you say when they ask, "Why didn't you do something about it while there was still time?" The problem is the American people are so apathetic and simply don't give a damn anymore! We must wake them! The alternative is frightening! We need determined people to get after our 'friends' in Congress. Demand that they establish confining rules and a proper oath for federal judges. All activities must conform with the edicts we agreed to in the Constitution. The rules and regulation of the court system is the responsibility of Congress. (Art III, Sec 2) They have to be aware that we are going to return the power of government back to the people. Both houses of Congress must be buried with millions of phone calls, letters and petitions for redress of grievances. We must challenge them at face to face confrontations. Demand that federal judges who feel they can do whatever they desire under the guise of law be impeached. They must be denied any further position with the government. We all should heed the words of Cicero who warned Rome just before its collapse, "Beware of the traitor within the gates." Our traitors are not only within the gates, they have their hands on the latches. Ignorance on our part is no excuse either!