ChristiansUnite Forums

From The Federalist Patriot:

SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! Get your own subscription to The Patriot!
http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/ (http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/)



"One single object...[will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas Jefferson


Top of the fold -- Supreme consequences...

There is no greater threat to American liberty and the future of the Republic than a central government not bound by the limits and constraints placed upon it by our Constitution. Thus, it was providential that on the eve of Independence Day this past week, there were two significant Supreme Court assaults on liberty, capped by the retirement
announcement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (with that of Chief Justice William Rehnquist likely to follow). It was providential because, as we contemplated the birth of American liberty and the sacrifice it has taken to sustain it, we were confronted with what has become the greatest threat to our liberty -- judicial tyranny from within, or what Thomas Jefferson called the "despotic branch."

Last week's decisions pertaining to property rights and religious freedom make plain how critical it is that the Supreme Court be composed of jurists who are constitutional constructionists -- those who, in the words of Ronald Reagan, are "bound by the Constitution to interpret laws, not make them." This, as opposed to the now-countless judicial activists who populate the federal courts -- those who, in the words of the venerable Senator Sam Ervin, "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."

On the subject of property rights, Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the court by our Constitution's author, James Madison, noted, "[P]ersonal security and private property rest entirely upon the wisdom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of justice." But in Kelo v. City of New London, the High Court permitted a Connecticut city to transfer private property forcibly from one party to another. (Here, one might reasonably wonder why all the consternation over Kelo's property rights when Americans allow their property, in the form of taxes, to be seized for all manner of unconstitutional expense. But we digress...)

The Left argues that the Court's decision was correct because the Fifth Amendment's restriction on eminent domain restrains only the national government. However, it is the First Amendment, unique among the Bill of Rights, which makes a plain and explicit such restraint ("Congress shall make no law..."). No other Amendment in our Bill of Rights follows this formulation, meaning that the state governments are to be as limited in their powers as the national government is in regard to the individual citizens' rights enumerated. Further, the Tenth Amendment outlining federalist principles provides that "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."

It is for this reason that the High Court's decision in Kelo offended our Constitution: The Fifth Amendment's restriction, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" is applicable to all levels of government (as is, for example, the Second Amendment's provision that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"). Even Connecticut's Constitution stipulates, "The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation...." That's "public use." Nowhere does it allow for the taking of property from one private party for the benefit of another.

=====================See Page 2

From The Federalist Patriot:

SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! Get your own subscription to The Patriot!
http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/ (http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/)


(Of note, some property rights' advocates argue the Fifth Amendment's restriction on eminent domain is applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, but that line of interpretation is inherently flawed. Though the Fourteenth Amendment has become de facto law, it was never constitutionally ratified by 3/4 of the states as stipulated by
Article V -- a subject for another essay.)

Alas, only a jurist who interprets the plain language of our Constitution, a Constructionist as our Founders intended, would draw such conclusions and, accordingly, rule against such confiscation of property. At present, however, there are only three such jurists (four on a good day) on the High Court.

Likewise, the Court's other decision, which approved displays of the Ten Commandments by state and local governments to honor legal rather than religious tradition, was wrong. Again, the First Amendment makes plain its unique restraint that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."), clearly implying that the states would not be so restricted. Thus, should a state's constitution make reference to God (as they all do) or should a state supreme court or a county courthouse wish to display the Ten Commandments as an expression of the inseparable basis of Judeo-Christian tradition on American liberty, our Constitution reserves that right to the states, and to the people.

There simply is no "wall of separation" prescribed by our national Constitution, and for those who desire one, there is a prescription for amendment outlined by our Founders, rather than by judicial fiat. The errancy of these and other decisions by the Court serves only to erode further the integrity of our Constitution. If we are not a nation of laws, then we are only a nation of men -- and that doesn't bode well for the future of liberty.

The Federalist Papers, as the definitive explication of our Constitution's original intent, clearly defines the Founders' intent in regards to Constitutional interpretation. In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton writes, "[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State."

Concerned about the potential for judicial tyranny, Thomas Jefferson warned: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... 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."

Two hundred and eighteen years hence, Justice Antonin Scalia warns, "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

Thus, it is paramount that replacements for Justice O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist be constitutional constructionists. However, moving nominations for constructionists like recent Circuit Court appointees Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen through the Senate will be a most acrimonious affair, as Senate Democrats will fight nominations for judges who do not do the political bidding of their constituents.

Texas Senator John Cornyn has outlined the constitutional limitations for the Senate's consideration of President George Bush's judicial nominees:

"The Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications, not personal political beliefs; the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks; and the Senate should apply the same fair process -- confirmation or rejection by majority vote -- that has existed for 214 years of our nation's history." Sen. Cornyn
and his conservative colleagues hope to avert the "nuclear option" to end Demo filibusters instigated by Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.

========================See Page 3

From The Federalist Patriot:

SUBSCRIBE: FREE by E-mail! Get your own subscription to The Patriot!
http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/ (http://FederalistPatriot.US/subscribe/)


Our Constitution prescribes that the President (not the Senate) is responsible for judicial nominations. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 66, "t will be the office of the president to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the senate to appoint. There will of course
be no exertion of choice on the part of the senate. They may defeat one choice of the executive...but they cannot themselves choose -- they can only ratify or reject the choice, of the president."

The notion that judicial nominees need pass a litmus test before a floor vote is anathema to our Constitution. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the most liberal of jurists, said of such tests, "In accord with a longstanding norm, every Member of this Court declined to furnish such information to the Senate. ... When a [nominee] promises to rule a certain way on an issue that may later reach the courts, the potential for due process violations is grave and manifest."

Presidential advisor Karl Rove said this week, "The President...worries about federal courts, federal and state courts, being activist and substituting their judgments for the judgments of elected state and federal assemblies" -- as indeed he should.

National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett notes, "Tenure on the court has increased over time and turnover has fallen." According to Northwestern University law professors Steven Calabresi and James Lindgren, since 1971 the average tenure in office for a justice has increased from 12.2 years (1941-1970) to 25.6 years. The
average age of a justice upon leaving office has risen from 67.6 years to 78.8 years between the same periods. The average number of years between appointments to the court has almost doubled from one every 1.67 years to one every 3.27 years. The current makeup of the court is one of the longest in history, lasting more than ten years, since the appointment of Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994. "A mistake or error of judgment," says Mr. Bartlett, "might still be with us 30 or 40 years from now." (See Bush, 41; and Souter, David.)

Accordingly, filling vacancies on the High Court with constitutional constructionists should be President Bush's highest domestic priority. For its part, the Republican-controlled Senate must ensure that each of the President's nominees receives the constitutionally mandated full-floor vote.

Quote of the week...

"The struggle over the Supreme Court is not just about law: it is about the future of our culture. To restore the Court's integrity will require a minimum of three appointments of men and women who have so firm an understanding of the judicial function that they will not drift left once on the bench. Choosing, and fighting for, the right man or woman to replace Justice O'Connor is the place to start. That will be difficult, but the stakes are the legitimate scope of self-government and an end to judicially imposed moral disorder." --Robert Bork

On cross-examination...

"Judges who have compiled a track record of strong positions on controversial issues will be passed over. ... A president or a governor should be willing to occasionally risk a bruising confirmation battle to elevate a jurist with great potential to make a difference. ... Although I frequently find myself in disagreement with Justice Brown's opinions, I
have come to greatly admire her independence, her tenacity, her intellect and her wit. It's time to refocus the judicial-confirmation process on the personal qualities of the candidates, rather than the 'hot button' issues of the past. Our goal should be to have judges in place with a reverence for our Constitution, who will approach these issues with
independence, an open mind, a lot of common sense, a willingness to work hard and an ability to communicate clearly and effectively." --Gerald Uelmen, Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law

Open query...

"Can we have a confirmation process that will hold the Senate up to the world and the nation as a deliberative body made up of men and women who are serious about their job, or will it break down into some food fight?" --Sen. Lindsey Graham

It’d Be A Shame To Waste Such An Opportunity
By Tamara and Lowell Scott

The American public put Republicans in control of the House, the Senate and the Whitehouse.   Against the tide of Hollywood, against the messages of the morning news shows and the media – against all odds – values were deemed valuable.  

Whose values?  Traditional values and Judeo Christian values won out.   Who was chosen to best protect and procure those values?  Republicans.   The Democrats can’t quite yet understand they were not given control by the voters, but they were not.  They didn’t earn it.    They’re still stomping their feet, ridiculing potential solutions, creating distractions, and maligning the character or anyone making a positive impact.   They continue to prove they have no intention of working together for the greater good.

Seeing this, Republicans need to quit acting like a gracious host who gives up a seat for a guest and start acting like tenacious guards of a Fort under siege.  Whether it be guarding the borders from would-be criminals, protecting our national treasury from foolish spending, or stopping a band of black robed thieves from stealing private property, Americans and their freedoms are under attack.  

After battling judicial nominations for too many years already, we’re hearing more threats as Supreme Court Justices are discussed.  Democrats say they’ll demand a litmus test.   Schumer’s proudly “preparing for war” on nominations.  Apparently, they have not learned the lesson of their former leader of obstruction, Tom - no longer Senator – Daschle.   The American people are tired of the games, finger pointing, and hardball harassment.   They want action on illegal immigration, social security, the national debt, and Supreme Court Justices.

The public has come to expect Democrats to whine, hurl accusations, and spread fear.  We’ve also come to realize the media will do whatever they can to help implement such diversions and keep this President from moving forward.   Even so, we should still expect, and demand, that Republicans don’t become distracted, but remain diligent in the work we sent them to do.

Democrats will likely never acknowledge a success or a good strategy from this Administration.   Which is exactly why this Administration had best not work to appease the left on a Supreme Court Judicial Nomination.  They’re going to bark no matter what. Choose the best nominee and let them bark loud.    There can be no compromise on issues of integrity.   There will be no benefit from backing down.  

This is a monumental opportunity to select a judge, possibly two, who will rule our land for the better part of half a century.   America needs judges who understand the binding intent of our Constitution and that it cannot be a living document.   Consider this, why would our forefathers stake such blood, sweat, and sacrifice on something that meant nothing, held no value, and could be changed at the drop of a new interpretation?  

Action must happen now in this precious window of opportunity if we are to save any semblance of the Christian nation our Forefathers bled over.   “For such a time as this,” is a familiar, if not overused, phrase from the story of Esther.   But the powerful message and warning in Esther 4:14 is often overlooked.    Those in places of leadership and ALL Christians should heed the words carefully.  

It wasn’t enough that Esther was simply there or held a certain post in the Kingdom.   In fact, verse 13, Mordecai warned her that she would not escape simply because of her position.   Likewise, it’s not enough to elect Christians for the sake holding posts if they refuse to stand for righteousness.   They become irrelevant and even dangerous to the cause of Christ.

At her own risk, knowing others were hoping for her destruction, Esther “took action in that time’.  Listen more to Mordecai’s warning if she refused, “Should you hold your peace, deliverance will come from another place, but as for you and your father’s house – you shall be destroyed.”    This is the message most Christians fail to understand.  Too often, we refuse to step out of our comfort zone and speak.

God doesn’t need America, Republicans, or Democrats to fulfill His plan.  He doesn’t have to work through any of us to complete His work.   Our Republic is one of the finest forms of government in this world, and God has blessed it, but his design for this universe in no way hinges upon us.  He grants us the privilege to be involved and make a difference simply for our own blessing of being part of his work.   If America ceases to exist, God’s work will still continue.      

If Republican leadership and this President don’t press forward in full earnest and elect Supreme Court Justices like John Jay, they’ll lose a powerful opportunity to secure this nation’s future spiritually and otherwise.  They’ll risk protecting its history of personal responsibility, limited government, and the freedoms we prize.  They will also lose the respect and trust of the American people and the energy base of their own grassroots.    They may even lose the next election.  

God may send help from another source.  But as in Esther, it will likely be too late for Republicans, and perhaps even us as a people, should we fail to speak for such a time as this.   Seems a shame to waste such an opportunity.

Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

JudgeNot,

Amen Brother! Thanks for a great article and another great link for my collection. I think that I've added 3 links from your posts to my favorites in just the last several weeks, and I added some more favorite links by surfing from their links.

We've got the liberals outnumbered and surrounded, but they're still a pain.  :D

Love In Christ,
Tom

Romans 8:28  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Good essay, but don't get too excited about the future. Bush can't find someone to the right of Rehnquist, and if Roberts is a right-wing ideologue who agrees with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas on radical things they'll still lose 5-4 in any big pronouncement. Stevens has been dubbed "liberal" for disagreeing with Rehnquist, but he isn't. You'll notice that no radical left-wing legislation has come from the court for over 20 years, because the (at present 4) moderates won't agree with anything radical. Unless Bush gets to replace Kennedy, Ginsburg or Breyer, that won't change soon.