Sunday, June 1, 2014

Supreme Court Rulings Undermined Federalism

When delegates to the Constitutional Convention presented a new form of government in 1787, they were met with skepticism, and in some cases, outright hostility.  The opposition, known as the Anti-Federalist, recognized the potential for a tyrannical, centralized government.  They foresaw an unchecked power that would trample upon liberty and self-governance.  The one branch they were particularly wary of was the federal judiciary.

The pseudonymous writer, Brutus, prophetically wrote that unelected and unaccountable judges would abuse their authority by interpreting the “spirit” of the Constitution and its “elastic clauses” in any form they wish.  They could fundamentally change our federalist system into a monolithic monstrosity.  In order to accomplish this, the judiciary must undermine the States.  Brutus wrote:

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

One of those considerations was meddling in States’ elections.  A series of Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1960’s subverted the political process by retarding the rights of a State’s self governance.  These judges –  this priestly class – molested federalism by dictating the manner with which States’ shall choose their senators and representatives.  This was by no means a federal consideration.  This was purely local.

The rulings in question are Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Wesberry v. Sanders.  The Supreme Court fundamentally changed the legislature of States by dictating their districts and how they were to be represented.  Basically, rural citizens were to be dominated by urbanites.  Degenerate values that breed on city streets would emanate from state capitols and spread throughout the countryside.

More importantly, this reconfiguration would benefit a political party that advocates centralized government.  Having Democrats dominate state legislatures, they would draw districts that marginalize hard working, liberty loving citizens while packing federal congressional districts with teat squawkers, who are looking for an agent that would steal from his neighbors. 

And what was the catalyst for these Supreme Court rulings?  Why the 14th Amendment of course.  Did you expect any other?

No comments: