Liberal Judges: Bill of Rights Don't Apply to Republicans

Elections have consequences unless you’re a Democrat. It doesn’t matter if they lose, Democrats will find ways to exercise power by hook, crook or judiciary. We found that out in North Carolina, and now, it’s Michigan’s turn.

What we are witnessing is a cabal of black-robed thugs who are denying states their constitutional prerogatives to establish congressional districts. Gerrymandering is not unconstitutional; only the time, manner and place can be regulated by Congress. No where does the court have jurisdiction over these matters.

We are under assault by a federal judiciary that has no bounds. They are dictating policy while ignoring statutes that clearly contradict their rulings. Now, they wish to fix elections by redrawing districts. And what is their excuse? Here is an excerpt from the Daily Caller:

The court founded that Michigan’s gerrymandered lines violate on First Amendment rights of Democratic voters. First, they infringe on the right to association, since rigged district lines diminish incentives for like-minded people to cooperate for campaigning and electioneering. Second, the gerrymandered maps amount to retaliation, since the legislature is punishing certain communities based on their past political choices.

The panel cited private communications between Republican legislators, aides, and mapmakers as proof of the GOP’s objective to punish Democratic voters. Among other pieces of evidence, one GOP aide urged colleagues to “cram Dem garbage” into a handful of districts.

“The breadth of evidence of discriminatory intent, from these multifarious sources, renders Senate intervenors’ ‘legislative intent’ argument meritless,” Clay wrote.

First of all, the Bill of Rights was established to protect states and their citizens from an abusive central government and that includes the federal judiciary.

Notice how these judges aren’t concerned about Republicans freedom of association. I, for one, can attest to that. I was once in a conservative district until a cabal of black-robed thugs forced their gerrymandered maps on us. Now, I have a Marxist for a congresswoman. What about my freedom of association? Am I not harmed by a judicially imposed gerrymander?

I must ask, does the Bill of Rights protect Republicans from an abusive judiciary? The answer is an obvious, NO!

Source:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/26/michigan-district-maps-gerrymander/

Chris Anglin, A Wannabe Emperor in a Black Robe

Earlier this month, I published a blogpost about a scumbag Democrat who’s trying to pass himself off as a constitutional Republican, so as to split the vote in a judicial race in North Carolina. Chris Anglin is his name and every Republican voter should remember the depths of deceit this low-life is willing to go.


Mr. Anglin has published an op-ed in the Charlotte Observer in an attempt to convince the rest of us he’s not a liberal plant trying to skew an election for his comrade, Anita Earls. So let’s critique what he’s written:

This has been a dizzying decade for North Carolinians. Nearly every day we have witnessed attacks on the rule of law and the checks and balances of our democracy at both the federal and state level.

Our legislature has governed like the emperor with no clothes since gaining super majorities. The only check to its overreach has been an independent judiciary, so judicial elections have been a frequent and repeated target of power grabs.

First, N.C. lawmakers eliminated public financing for judicial races, widening the door for big money influence on the courts.

Then they made us the first state in 100 years to make judicial races partisan, including the state Supreme Court. They rigged the ballot order to favor their candidate and eliminated the primary election for this year.


The role of an independent judiciary is not to put a check on the General Assembly. They are to apply the laws that are passed by our elected representatives. An independent judiciary does not mean judges can do as they damn well please. Does this sound like a constitutional Republican to you? It doesn’t to me.


By the way, I applauded the defunding of judicial races. I don’t want my hard earned tax dollars aiding and abetting my political enemies. I also applauded the outing of judicial candidates. I want to know their political philosophy.  However, Mr. Anglin doesn't care what voters think.  He wants to put a check on our elected representatives.


They have openly expressed a desire to do away with judicial elections altogether and to give the legislature the power to control all judicial seats.

They passed six unneeded, misleading constitutional amendments that will harm voting rights, and strip power from the executive and judicial branches of government. There is nothing transparent, nor conservative about this. It’s just bad governing, putting party and power over the people.

Expressing a desire is not the same thing as doing. Don’t you just love the fact that he’s concerned about stripping power away from the executive and judicial branches when that’s exactly what Mr. Anglin wants to do to the legislative branch! What an astonishing lack of introspection.


As for these constitutional amendments, they have to be approved by the voters of North Carolina. I thought liberals - ahem - believed in democracy. Oh, and what is this blurb about voter rights? Does Mr. Anglin have a problem with voter I.D.? Why that’s not very constitutional Republican of him. Here is the last piece of nonsense written by this fraud.

North Carolinians have a chance to get off this dizzying ride. They can stand up for an independent judiciary and the checks and balances of our democracy by defeating all six unneeded, misleading Amendments, and by electing lawmakers and judges who will fight for the rule of law, not undermine it. I’m confident they will make the right choices.

And if we don't, I'm sure Mr. Anglin and his liberal buddies will find an activist judge to rule these amendments unconstitutional.  We've been down this road before.  This guy isn't fooling anyone.

Mr. Anglin is a fraud.  He doesn’t believe in the rule of law, democracy or a representative republic. Does he not understand that lawmakers make the laws? The only people who can undermine the laws are judicial activist. This guy doesn’t have a concept of how our system of government works. He referred to our elected representatives as emperors without clothes. First of all,there can only be one emperor and if Chris Anglin gets his way, that emperor will wear a black robe.


Source:


https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article215757220.html

https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2018/07/nc-democrats-sleaze-up-judicial.html?m=0

Judge Aids and Abets Illegal Alien in Courtroom

The rule of law no longer exists when a judge aids and abets an illegal alien in her courtroom.  This is truly a remarkable case of judicial activism.

A judge in Multnomah County, Oregon is under investigation for allegedly helping an illegal immigrant evade federal authorities.

On Jan. 27, Mexican national Diddier Pacheco Salazar appeared before Judge Monica Herranz in a DUI case. After it came to Herranz's attention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the hallway, she allegedly had Salazar leave her courtroom through her private entrance, Fox 12 Oregon reported Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney Billy Williams raised the issue when ICE agents notified him of the incident

"I felt that it was inappropriate and delegitimizes the work of ICE agents who are out there doing their jobs," Williams said.

"When you're talking about the judicial system, whether it's federal or by state, you have an expectation that people are going to abide by the law and not take steps based on their own motivations, their own politics, whatever the motivation was," Williams added

Liberals have an expectation that they’re above the law.  This is a serious problem that is systemic throughout the country. 

Source:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/judge-under-investigation-allegedly-helping-illegal-immigrant-escape-ice-through-private-entrance/

Federal Court Steals North Carolina's Sovereignty

North Carolina is having its sovereignty stolen by unelected and unaccountable federal judges.  Recently, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against voter identification at the polls.  Mind you these people are not disinterested arbiters of law. 

This court is peopled with rank partisans that are trying to strip our citizenry of self-government.  They want to hijack the political process in favor of one party rule.  The Civitas Institute reported the machinations of Judge Jim Wynn who has been continuously rejected by North Carolinians for elected office and for good reason.

Wynn also has a close working relationship with the head of one of the organizations challenging the VIVA law – the Rev. William Barber, president of the NC NAACP. On one of Barber’s resumes, he lists organizing a “Get Out to vote Rally and Radio-Thon” that included Judge Jim Wynn and only Democrat candidates and politicians, hardly a non-partisan “get out the vote” affair. At the time Wynn was running for Supreme Court, the race he lost to Republican Newby.

Wynn has not confined his efforts to election law. He also was the dissenting vote in a March decision on North Carolina’s pro-life license plate. He again wanted to invalidate the actions of the NC legislature. The majority of the panel upheld the law.

 The VIVA decision by the 4th Circuit overruled the decision by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder upholding the law in a 485-page written opinion. In their decision, the Fourth Circuit panel did not refute Schroeder’s facts, nor did they find evidence of anyone actually being denied the ability to vote.

Judicial activism is a serious problem that has to be dealt with.  Mark Levin featured Daniel Horowitz and his book, Stolen Sovereignty.  We are reminded that Americans do have a constitutional path to check reprobate judges.

Congress can limit the power of these District Courts if only they had the political will to stop them.

Source:

https://www.nccivitas.org/2016/the-partisan-effort-behind-federal-court-voter-id-ruling/

Senator Ted Cruz Denounces Arrest of a Christian Clerk

Senator Ted Cruz is saying what many are thinking.  The Supreme Court is infested with progressive activist masquerading as jurist.  Their gay marriage dictum is a direct attack on American’s First Amendment rights.  Christians are being persecuted by black robed thugs.  Here is his statement in full:

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision.

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s decision was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

“Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in pubic office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.

“Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”

Source:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-kim-davis-contempt

Federalist and Libertarians Debate the 14th Amendment

It all started with Kurt T. Lash’s critique on a new book entitled, Overruled:  The Long War for the Control of the Supreme Court by Damon Root.  Since then think tanks and liberal blogs, such as the Huffington Post, are weighing in on the 14^th Amendment, and particularly, the privileges and immunities clause.

This debate is enlightening for a layperson, such as me, wading through the morass of modern judicial activism, biased academia, journalistic utopian philosophy, and historical fiction.  The 14^th Amendment encapsulates all the above and we can all thank Rep. John Bingham and his ambiguous first section for this legalistic swamp gas.

I for one agree with Mr. Lash’s constitutional federalism assessment.  Here is an excerpt from his latest review:

Recently, I critically reviewed Damon Root’s new book, Overruled: The Long-War for the Control of the Supreme Court(see Part 1 and Part 2). In response, Root and others have now taken to the blogosphere in defense of the book and of libertarian constitutionalism. Unfortunately, Root just digs a deeper hole and his defenders only illustrate the problem with libertarian readings of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Root’s basic argument is that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, like the Comity Clause of Article IV, protects unenumerated economic rights. The only difference is that the Privileges or Immunities Clause transforms the equally protected state-secured rights of the Comity Clause into absolute substantive rights. Thus, the Supreme Court wrongly rejected unenumerated substantive economic rights in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and in later New Deal decisions like Carolene Products (1938).

In my review, I pointed to a large body of historical evidence suggesting that Root is wrong about the original understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Clause refers to the rights of citizens of the United States, not the rights of citizens in the several states as it says in the Comity Clause. Where the latter refers to state-secured rights, the former refers to constitutionally enumerated rights.  The man who drafted the Privileges or Immunities Clause expressly distinguished his handiwork from the Comity Clause and insisted that his efforts were aimed at requiring the states to respect the enumerated rights of the federal Constitution, especially those listed in the Bill of Rights. As a matter of original meaning, the treaty-based language Representative John Bingham (R-OH) chose had long been understood as pointing to federally enumerated rights.

To read what others are saying about this debate click the links below:

Source:

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/07/15/root-digs-a-deeper-hole-the-equal-protection-of-economic-privileges-and-immunities/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bernick/yes-the-fourteenth-amendm_b_7787926.html

http://www.johnlocke.org/newsletters/research/2015-07-22-86hf3gfvoakfnunum1qifit0i1-legal-update.html

Congress Has Ability to Check Supreme Court Rulings

Americans are up in arms over the Supreme Courts blatant activism.  We are often told that we have a system of checks and balances.  Many are asking, who is checking the Supreme Court?  How can five justices arbitrarily upend our laws and traditions without consequence?  This cannot be the original intent of our founding.  Well, it isn’t!

Congress has the authority to strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction on almost any matter they please.  Article Three, Section Two in the U.S. Constitution states:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Christopher Carson, a lawyer, wrote the following in American Thinker:

In other words, instead of grimly accepting that the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of marriage and the issue is settled, Congress could, by a simple majority vote, re-enact, say, the Defense of Marriage Act, declared unconstitutional two years ago, and simultaneously strip all federal courts from any ability to challenge it.  Congress could, alternatively, enact legislation allowing the states to separately define what marriage is – and then strip the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of any power to overturn the states’ definitions of marriage.  It is not necessary to pass a new Constitutional amendment for Republicans in Congress to get their presumed desired result on nearly any cultural issue, including homosexual marriage and abortion.

Mr. Carson adds that the president can still veto any bill Congress submits; but that is a moot point.  Republicans have proven themselves to be the Theon Greyjoys of Capitol Hill.  They would rather cower in their cage and answer to “Reek” than stand up to the Beltway bullies.

Source:

 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/the_gop_congress_refuses_to_use_the_power_it_has.html#ixzz3emUOS98c 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-marriage-mitch-mcconnell-congress-ted-cruz/2015/07/01/id/653065/

The Roberts Court Exposed

Senator Ted Cruz: Supreme Court Rulings are Contrary to Judicial Oaths

Lawless sums up the latest rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.  These community organizers in black robes created and rewrote laws.  Their fabrications deserve no respect, or fidelity.  Senator Ted Cruz summed it up best.

"Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," Cruz said after Hannity asked how he was doing, according to audio posted by Mediaite.

Cruz went on to describe both rulings as "naked and shameless judicial activism."

The first of the two decisions Cruz blasted on the radio came Thursday when the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Affordable Care Act. In that ruling, the justices rejected an argument that the way the so-called Obamacare legislation was written prevents subsidized insurance in states where the federal government has set up healthcare exchanges.

According to Cruz, this decision amounted to the judges "rewriting" the law in support of President Barack Obama's agenda.

"The decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare ... for the second time six justices joined the Obama administration," Cruz said. "You now have Barack Obama, [former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services] Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths."

We should show as much fidelity to the Supreme Court’s rulings as they have for the law as written.

Source:

 http://www.businessinsider.com/cruz-supreme-court-rulings-mean-the-darkest-24-hours-in-history-2015-6#ixzz3eDk6BQBb

Cocktail Circuit Justices Save Obamacare, Again!

The Washington D.C. cocktail circuit will have the appearance of a presidential inauguration after the Supreme Court once again saved Obamacare by rewriting the law.  Chief Justice Roberts can make his grand entrance into the salons of the political elite knowing he’ll be christened the savior of Obamacare.  What a travesty.

Once again, I’m reminded of the prophetic writings of the pseudonymous writer, Brutus and his dire warnings of an unchecked and unscrupulous Supreme Court.

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.

Justice Scalia summed up the extent of this Supreme Court’s judicial activism in his dissent.

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent

Source:

 http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2014/06/supreme-court-rulings-undermined.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/justice-scalia-wins-for-most-snarky-line-in-supreme-courts-obamacare-case/

Faithless Federal Operatives Depend on Our Fidelity

The U.S. Constitution is a compact between states.  These separate but equal countries agreed to create a federal government with the understanding that this entity would have specific limited powers to ensure a common defense and act as an arbiter when conflict, specifically trade, arose amongst them.  Faith and fidelity to this compact is imperative for this republic to exist.

We are witnessing a great awakening.  Many are beginning to realize we have a federal government that has no fidelity to the Constitution.  We are being ruled by faithless operatives in every branch of that monstrosity.

 

Bureaucrats create rules and regulations that have the force of law, and with the knowledge that no one, not even Congress – who by the way is the only entity constitutionally required to introduce bills for consideration of law – can stop them.  These federal agencies have become a fourth branch of government.

Out of the three – constitutionally recognized – branches that are the most faithless is the judiciary.  We have federal judges who have no fidelity to the Constitution.  They create rights and laws that never existed.   They use precedent as a vehicle for social engineering and expansion of the federal government.  The tool they use most is the bastardized 14^th Amendment.  Of all the branches of government the Anti-Federalist feared, it is the judiciary.  And my have they been proven right.

The biggest fear the central planners in the federal government have is that the states and the citizenry will become just as faithless to their rules, regulations, and judicial fiats as they have to the U.S. Constitution.  The federal government depends upon our fidelity so they can expand their authority.  Once that is gone, their power will become as meaningless as our founding principles are to them.

Who Checks and Balances the Federal Judiciary?

When Barack Obama promised to fundamentally change the United States, he wasn’t kidding.  We are currently living the nightmare that is Obamacare, and he has strategically placed activist judges in key districts.  A U.S. District Court judge in Utah, appointed by the Anointed One, made an asinine ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.  Here is an excerpt from CNSNews.com:

(CNSNews.com) - Judge Robert J. Shelby, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the U.S. District Court in Utah last year, issued an opinion on Friday declaring that a right to same-sex marriage is "deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Shelby was confirmed to the federal bench by a voice vote of the Senate on Sept. 21, 2012. There was no debate over his nomination, and no senator objected to his confirmation.

He has now issued an opinion that could fundamentally alter American law and culture.

“The State’s second argument is that the Plaintiffs are really seeking a new right, not access to an existing right,” Shelby wrote in an opinion issued on the afternoon of the Friday before Christmas.

Shelby ruled in this opinion that the state constitutional amendment that 66 percent of Utah voters approved in 2004 restricting marriage in that state to the union of a man and a woman violated the U.S. Constitution.

Homosexual marriage is deeply rooted in the nation’s history?  What history books has this guy been reading?  Wow!

Of course, the vehicle that all activist judges use to circumvent the legislative process and the Constitution is the 14^th Amendment.  The federal judiciary has completely bastardized the 14^th.  They have used it as a weapon to impose their will upon the citizens of this country.  Four out of the five clauses in this post-Civil War amendment was designed to punish and disenfranchise Southerners.  The equal protection clause was meant to ensure ex-slaves and their progeny were granted equal protection under individual state laws.  But of course, through the decades, this punitive amendment has been shaped by unelected and unaccountable judges to mean anything they want.

 The Anti-Federalist was right when it came to the judiciary.  They predicted that this branch of government would become the most destructive of the three.  The pseudonymous writer, Brutus, predicted the following:

 Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accomodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only; so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the mean time all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion. The people will be told, that their state officers, and state legislatures are a burden and expence without affording any solid advantage, for that all the laws passed by them, might be equally well made by the general legislature. If to those who will be interested in the change, be added, those who will be under their influence, and such who will submit to almost any change of government, which they can be persuaded to believe will ease them of taxes, it is easy to see, the party who will favor the abolition of the state governments would be far from being inconsiderable. — In this situation, the general legislature, might pass one law after another, extending the general and abridging the state jurisdictions, and to sanction their proceedings would have a course of decisions of the judicial to whom the constitution has committed the power of explaining the constitution. — If the states remonstrated, the constitutional mode of deciding upon the validity of the law, is with the supreme court, and neither people, nor state legislatures, nor the general legislature can remove them or reverse their decrees.

Had the construction of the constitution been left with the legislature, they would have explained it at their peril; if they exceed their powers, or sought to find, in the spirit of the constitution, more than was expressed in the letter, the people from whom they derived their power could remove them, and do themselves right; and indeed I can see no other remedy that the people can have against their rulers for encroachments of this nature. A constitution is a compact of a people with their rulers; if the rulers break the compact, the people have a right and ought to remove them and do themselves justice; but in order to enable them to do this with the greater facility, those whom the people chuse at stated periods, should have the power in the last resort to determine the sense of the compact; if they determine contrary to the understanding of the people, an appeal will lie to the people at the period when the rulers are to be elected, and they will have it in their power to remedy the evil; but when this power is lodged in the hands of men independent of the people, and of their representatives, and who are not, constitutionally, accountable for their opinions, no way is left to controul them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm.


I ask, who checks and balances the federal judiciary.  As stated by Brutus: No one.

Source: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/federal-judge-right-same-sex-marriage-deeply-rooted-nation-s-history#sthash.UUwTC0AV.dpuf

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Chief Justice John Roberts Re-Writes Obamacare Law in Order to Pass It

Chief Justice John Roberts and his liberal confederates used extra-constitutional means to push through Obamacare. Where the law was purported and passed as a mandate, the majority on the Supreme Court rewrote as a tax.

Barack Obama and the democrats were adamant that the individual mandate was not a tax. The Constitution specifically states that all bills of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives; not the Supreme Court.



This is the worst form of judicial activism we’ve witnessed in a long time. The dissenting justices are correct in their summation:

“[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it,” the dissenters — Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy — wrote, adding that “legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election.” He then suggested that Congress intentionally avoided passing the mandate as a tax in an effort to avoid that election disaster. “We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty.”

The Chief Justice acted like a super-legislator. I’m sure the D.C. cocktail circuit will sing his praises.

Source: http://washingtonexaminer.com/dissenters-obamacare-ruling-is-a-rewrite-of-the-law/article/2500869

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304266/mandate-tax-john-hood

North Carolina Judge Causes Mayhem on Educational System

If you want to see want kind of mayhem an activist judge can cause on a state, all you have to do is look at North Carolina. Judge Howard Manning Jr. ruled from on high, that citizens of North Carolina must provide all “at risk” four year old children a basic education.

However, that kind of ruling has caused mass confusion among legislators and educators; especially in a depressed economy where revenues are hard to come by:

DHHS recently began collecting data to implement their interpretation of Manning’s decision. In an email sent to NC Pre-K administrators, Jani Kozlowski of DHHS’s Division of Child Development states her agency’s interpretation of the ruling. “The court order has been interpreted to direct the state of North Carolina to view all at-risk 4-year old children as having a constitutional right to pre-kindergarten services, without identified barriers such as waiting lists or parental fees,” the email said. The email goes on to request administrators participate in a survey to help DHHS assess how to implement their understanding of the mandate. The Division of Child Development did not respond to requests for comment.

All of the uncertainty in Raleigh has trickled down across the state and has hit the front lines of the Pre-K program: childcare providers. Providers like Kevin Campbell from Mecklenburg County are unsure of how to proceed under the circumstances. “People don’t know what to do. People don’t know whether to follow the legislature or the court ruling,” Campbell told Civitas analysts. Campbell expressed concern over not knowing whether to implement the 20 percent cap on non-income “at-risk” children and was unsure of whether or not to collect the recently installed 10 percent co-pay for children who do not qualify for income-related “at-risk” status. Campbell said he will wait to collect the co-pay when there is a clearer directive from state authorities

The state of North Carolina can’t afford judges like Howard Manning Jr.

Source: http://www.nccivitas.org/2011/judges-decision-leaves-pre-k-in-chaotic-confusion/

Arizona to Deny Anchor Babies Birth Certificates

Arizona is drafting a new bill that would deny illegals a birth certificate for their anchor babies. The citizens of that great state are on the front lines, and overwhelmed from the sea of humanity that is pouring over from the southern border; a good portion contains a criminal element.

State Senator Russell Pearce states that illegals are using the 14th Amendment as a wedge issue to come into the United States and take advantage of the welfare state that we’ve created. He is one of the drafters of the anti-anchor baby bill.

The Examiner gives a good account for the reasoning of the 14th Amendment:

According to the 14th Amendment in the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This amendment was projected to grant citizenship to freed slaves and also served as the final answer in Dred Scott v. Standford in 1857 (which held the view that African Americans could not be U.S. citizens). Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican Arizona State Representative, told CNN, "If you go back to the original intent of the drafters...it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens."

After the 14th Amendment was passed, two Supreme Court Cases supported the original intent: The Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins. A number of years later an activist Supreme Court ignored precedence and the congressional record when they ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. This ruling is the catalyst for the country’s immigration nightmare.

Our founding fathers believed in natural law. They were adherents to Vattel’s Law of Nations. George Washington checked out that very book from a New York City library and failed to return it. Here is what Vattel wrote about citizens and nations:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-21300-Rasmussen-Polls-Examiner~y2010m6d14-Arizona-heads-up-a-new-bill-to-deny-illegal-immigrants-children-citizenship-rights