The Shameful Disgrace of Our Highest Judicial System

Ó O. R. Adams Jr., 2010

BACK TO ARTICLES

    

General George Washington at Valley Forge

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. (Emphasis added) – George Washington, our first President and greatest Founder.

Today we have displayed before us the shameful disgrace of politics and personal bias in our United States Supreme Court, and the importance these prejudices play in judicial decisions of that Court. Many times Supreme Court Justices have unlawfully usurped what is the sole right of the people, and changed our Constitution to fit their own personal views This makes the personal views of anyone nominated for the Supreme Court of vital importance.

President Obama has nominated Elena Kagan to be our next United States Supreme Court Justice. Our news media, both in print and on the air are full of articles and commentaries on her "qualifications." The real interest is political, and has nothing whatsoever to do with judicial qualifications.

When Ronald Reagan was President, he nominated Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. His judicial qualifications were beyond reproach, and I would say that they were higher than any Justice sitting on the Court, today. Compared to Bork, as to qualifications, Elena Kagan is a tiny midget. But Bork was viciously savaged and defeated by the Democrats. Why? Because his judicial philosophy was that there should be no political, social, or personal bias in judicial decisions. For example, Judge Bork believed that a decision on a constitutional provision should be based upon what was intended by those who formed and enacted the provision, and not on what some judge, or several of them, thinks is now best for our Country. Changing the Constitution to reflect what is currently best for the country is the sole prerogative of the people and their representatives under Article V of our Constitution.[1] And a Federalist weighting among the states is required.

Our Constitution has been changed many times by a majority of our Supreme Court – often in five to four decisions. Such changes were in every case made by justices according to their own personal biases and prejudices. Their decisions have frequently been completely contrary to the will of the people, and struck down statutes passed by representatives of the people, and favored by the people, both at the state and federal levels. To support such decisions, they make false statements about what was intended by those responsible for enacting the provision in question, such as our founders. At other times when they know that such an approach would be clearly false to anyone, they even abandon that and take the approach that the Constitution is a "living document," and should be changed by them to conform to what they consider best for society, today – thus completely usurping the rights of the people.

That is the reason for the great interest in any nominee for our high court, and all of the articles and commentaries. Both Democrats and Republicans wish to get judges on the court who are the most favorable to their political and social views. It is a terrible disgrace that the people put up with these shenanigans, when it is entirely unnecessary.

Even before we had a country, there were common sense rules for the interpretation of written documents of all kinds, including laws and constitutions. You of course interpret them according to the purpose and intention of those responsible for the document. This includes such things as the Bible, an essay, a contract, a will, as well as provisions of laws and constitutions. For example, it has long been said that the intent of the testator is the "polestar" for interpreting a will. A judge does not substitute who he or she thinks would be the best beneficiary – it is who the person making the will intended and wanted to be the beneficiary. These are longstanding and well established rules that were quickly recognized and followed by our early Supreme Court justices, including such eminent jurists as the great Chief Justice John Marshall, James Wilson, Bushrod Washington, and Joseph Story. John Marshall and James Wilson both played a part in the founding of this country, and well knew what was intended by the various provisions of our Constitution. Joseph Story was an eminent jurist and a recognized writer and authority on constitutional law, and interpretation of the Constitution. They interpreted a provision of the Constitution in question according to the purpose of those responsible for its enactment. There are ample historical documents, such as congressional records, historical writings such as The Federalist papers written by three of our founders to explain the Constitution to those who would ratify it, and many historical documents and writings, from which the purpose of a provision may be determined. Of course the most important thing is the plain wording of a provision of the Constitution that may be in question. The people who formed our original United States Constitution, including the first ten amendments containing the Bill of Rights. were learned and gifted men. Many considered them blessed by God in the work they did, because of their earnest and sincere approach to it. The politicians of today pale in comparison to these great men. The words of the Constitution were carefully chosen, and they meant what they said – not something some midget-minded judge thinks they should mean.

Let me use the Second Amendment and two recent Supreme Court decisions on it, as examples of the judicial misbehavior of liberal Supreme Court justices. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

The amendment is a simple sentence with uncomplicated wording. The sentence contains a prefatory clause, and then states a right in the primary clause. Who is recognized as having the right? It is "the people." Had our founders wanted the right limited to active militia members they were certainly very capable of saying so, and would have said so. But this shows how absurd the liberals are who argue that the intention was to limit the right to bear arms to the state militia, which is today the National Guards of the states. If it were not the right of the people, there would be no reason whatsoever for setting out this right in the Bill of Rights. Any organized military branch, working under the auspices of the state or federal government has the right to keep and bear arms, by authority of the government itself. Have you ever heard of a branch of the military without arms? How absurd!

The amendment needs no interpretation other than the clear meaning of its plain wording. It is the people in whom the right is recognized. It is the same people whose rights are recognized in other amendments in our Bill or Rights. It is the same people as those in the first three words of our Constitution, "We the People." The word, people, is used over and over in our Declaration of Independence, and in our Constitution. It is clear beyond question that it is the people of our country referred to in the Second Amendment. Any argument to the contrary is both absurd and dishonest.

Although the prefatory clause containing the word, militia, could not possibly limit or delineate the right of the people, there is another reason it was in there which further shows the absurdity of the liberal argument. When our Constitution was enacted, militia had a particular meaning to our Founders. The militia consisted of all able bodied men in the country. There was no formal organization of the militia under the state for federal government. It was very definitely not any organized state or federal military force such as our federal armed forces or a state National Guard. Our founders feared a standing army. They were afraid that a standing federal army, under a centralized and oppressive federal government, might take away their basic freedoms. They wanted the people to be armed, both to protect against foreign invasion; and to protect against the federal government itself, if their rights were sufficiently threatened. 

There are also a number of other reasons behind the right to bear arms, as the history of our country clearly shows. We should note the careful wording of the amendment. It was chosen for the purpose of showing that this was not a right being granted to the people under our Constitution. They considered the right to keep and bear arms a God given natural right of the people, as they also considered many other rights of the people recognized by our Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. They considered these rights to be inherent rights of a free people that should not and could not be removed by any government – state or federal. They considered the right to keep and bear arms an inherent part of the natural right of self defense. They used this careful wording to convey that the people already possessed these inherent rights, and that they should not be "infringed" upon by the government.

It is interesting that many of our founders, including James Madison, did not want a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. They argued that it was unnecessary because of the limited powers being granted to the federal government under the Constitution, and because some felt that enumerating particular rights might be considered as limiting other inherent natural rights of the people that might not be named. However, many were so afraid of a central government that ratification of the Constitution was in danger. To take care of this situation, Madison promised that in the first session of congress, after the Constitution was ratified, he would submit proposed amendments containing a Bill of Rights. True to his word, he submitted the first ten amendments, and the first eight of them were considered our Bill of Rights. They were promptly adopted by Congress and ratified by the states.

Our history shows that for other reasons, besides the natural right of self defense, the colonists considered it important to have arms. Many of them lived in frontier areas, and they particularly needed them for protection against hostile Indians and wild animals. They also needed guns for hunting, and wild game was an important part of their meat supply. It was the only meat supply for some.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States squarely decided these issues, and upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.[2] What is disgusting, and shows the disgrace of our legal system in this court, is that there were four dissenting justices who would have in effect struck down the Second Amendment by making it meaningless. They would have completely usurped the sole right of the people and their representatives, and changed our Constitution to what these four justices think is best for our country. A dictatorial judiciary would take over a right that our Constitution gives only to the people with federalist weighting among the states, and requiring more than a mere majority of the States and their people. It is a national disgrace that the people should eliminate as soon as possible.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined in by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito, is a masterful opinion showing how a case should be decided going by the plain wording of the provision in question, and to the true intent and purpose of the provision, for any further interpretation. Scalia goes into the things I referred to, above, and many others. It shows the importance of English and American history, both legal and general, in deciding such an issue, and in arriving at the intent and purpose behind our Second Amendment, rather than what a particular justice thinks it should be under our present conditions. As to the wording, the opinion succinctly states: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'" (p. 19)  Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, tried to obfuscate this point by saying that by stating "the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right." (p. 84) This statement of Stevens is not only misleading, but it is false. Serving in the militia was not a right of the people, it was the duty of all able bodied men, only. Not all of the people were able bodied men. It was also not one of the natural God given rights referred to by the majority as being codified by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. The right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their families was a right considered by our founders to be one of those natural inherent rights. All of these natural rights preexisted the colonization of the United States, and go far back into English history. They were reflected in such things as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. The majority opinion goes into early English history of the right to keep and bear arms, and brings it down to the time of the colonists. It goes at length into the discussions on the amendment and it purpose. 

The first dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens,  and joined in by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, on the other hand, are great examples of judicial activists, who wish to change our Constitution to reflect their own particular liberal ideas. It is arrogant judicial misbehavior. Had one other justice been of like mind, the Second Amendment of our Constitution would have been eliminated by the Imperial Court. They would have us believe that only an organized state militia had the right to keep and bear arms. They of course do not face the absurdity that such a meaning renders the amendment itself completely useless. There would be no need for it at all. Any state militia has that inherent right of the government to bear arms. They give us no examples of any unarmed military forces.

These gun control liberals on the Supreme Court would change the Second Amendment to in effect read "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if they are actively serving in the militia." Surely this absurdity is evident even to them.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, clearly recognizes the rights of the states to have an organized militia, such as our State National Guards. It also provides when they may be called into national service, and that the federal government could provide arms for the militia. It is true that there were anti-federalists that were concerned about these provisions and had fear of the federal government having these controls over the militia, and wanted less federal control over the militia. Some, like Patrick Henry, did not want our Constitution adopted, because of the fear of a centralized federal government. The Majority opinion sates:

The Federalist-dominated first Congress chose to reject virtually all major structural revisions favored by the Antifederalists, including the proposed militia amendments. (p. 34)

However, our historical documents clearly show that both the pro-federalists and the anti-federalists were concerned about the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The minority falsely use the following Virginia proposal to support their argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment was only for those in the militia, which was rejected:

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power. (p. 88)

Common sense tells us that the fact that something was rejected indicates nothing more than that it was not considered worthy of inclusion. Not only was the above not adopted, but it is actually contrary to the argument of the minority. The very first clause in the above is separated by a semicolon, and sets forth a right of the people, and not just the people in the militia. Further, this basic right was evidently considered primary, because it was listed first.

Do these liberal justices really believe that our founders, like Madison who was involved in the primary drafting, were not capable of saying this was the "right of the people in the militia", if this was what they meant, instead of saying that the right to keep and bear arms was a "right of the people"? Or is it that they are just trying to fool the people into believing that there is historical support for their nonsense? A full reading of the opinions, and knowledge of what our founders considered our natural God given rights indicates that these liberals were merely trying to inject their personal views into our Constitution, and trying to falsely make the people believe that their opinions were historically supported.

The careful wording chosen for the Second Amendment recognizes the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms, and it also takes care of the concerns that many had as to the control of the federal government over the militia. If the people themselves could not be disarmed, then certainly the militia of all able-bodied men would not be disarmed.   

Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, in which the other three in the minority joined. The primary basis was:

I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem. (p. 115)

What is odd about this is that despite the stringent gun bans, the District of Columbia has one of if not the highest crime rates in the country, and many of the murders were committed with handguns. It is a prime example of the fact that criminals get guns, regardless of the stringent restrictions, yet honest citizens cannot have guns to protect themselves. Such thinking is patently wrong. The answer is that there should be penalties sufficient to deter the crimes, and law enforcement sufficient to put the criminals where they belong. But this isn't the way of the liberals – instead they coddle the criminals, and take basic rights away from honest citizens, rendering them unable to even defend themselves.

In this second dissent, the minority show their true colors. Instead of the people, let the judges decide what rights are protected under our Constitution, and to what extent. This is pure imperial judicial activism. There could be no clearer usurpation of the rights of the people. In this regard, Judge Breyer wants the Supreme Court to make an "interest balancing inquiry" to decide to what extent the Second Amendment should be enforced. The Breyer opinion unequivocally states:

I would simply adopt such an interest-balancing inquiry explicitly.

As the majority opinion states:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government [the courts]—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

The dissenting opinions clearly take the position, and give many reasons, why they think the Second Amendment should be rendered completely ineffective.

The Heller case was applicable only to the District of Columbia. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago[3] holding that the Second Amendment applied to State and local governments under the Fourteenth Amendment, and struck down gun ban laws similar to that in the Heller case. This was also a five to four decision.

As in the Heller case, the majority opinions look to the history and legislative records, and other records and debates to arrive at their decision. The primary opinion, written by Justice Alito, due to stare decisis, bases its opinion on the "due process" part of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is another masterful opinion, but I believe it relies too much on the precedent of prior decisions (stare decisis), in not using the "privileges and immunities" clause instead of the due process clause. I agree entirely with Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, using the privileges and immunities clause (Section 1, Amendment XIV), as the basis for protecting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms against abridgement by the States. 

Some years ago, I wrote the book, A Way to Save Our Constitution from Judges, which was copyrighted in 2004, and available on this website. I thoroughly researched the law and relevant history on the Fourteenth Amendment and devoted a full chapter to it. The following was stated regarding rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment:

On the other hand, the wording, "[n]o state shall ... abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States," must have some meaning and must put some new restraints on the states in favor of rights of the people.

In light of the historical record, I therefore think it reasonable to conclude that this language incorporates the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, which seems to be the consensus of the better reasoned cases on the subject. These are all fundamental rights of the people, and they were known and existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was framed. (p. 83)

The above is consistent with Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, and I agree that the courts should lay aside the fiction of "due process" and recognize that all of these basic and fundamental rights are incorporated under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The minority even further showed their liberal activism in this case. While other provisions of our Bill of Rights have been applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, by both liberal and conservative majorities of the Supreme Court, the minority in this case would have made the Second Amendment an exception, without any sound or reasonable basis at all. It is clear that they want our Constitution to mean only what they think it should mean.

Moreover, the history, debates, and legislative records show that one of the primary purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to insure that negroes would not be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms. After the civil war, negroes in the South were being systematically disarmed, mistreated, run out of their homes, and murdered in large numbers. One of the primary purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment was to put an end to this disgrace, and to ensure that the negroes, like other citizens, would have the right to have arms to protect themselves, their families and their property. The minority opinions completely ignore this. What they really believe is that the imperial judiciary should be the ones to decide what constitutional rights the people should have, and the right to bear arms is not a right these liberals favor. They favor such things as the "rights" of criminals, abortion and sodomy.

Actually, these liberal judges have no respect for our Constitution, whatsoever. The intent of our founders, and the purpose behind a provision of our constitution is held in contempt by them. What they favor is the "living document" idea, which gives them the power to mold the Constitution into whatever they personally think it should be at a particular time. The following, from the Stevens dissent, is the crux of liberal judicial thinking, and the essence of the "living constitution" fiction:

“The task of giving concrete meaning to the term ‘liberty,’” I have elsewhere explained at some length, “was a part of the work assigned to future generations.” Stevens, The Third Branch of Liberty, 41 U. Miami L. Rev. 277, 291 (1986).  The judge who would outsource the interpretation of “liberty” to historical sentiment has turned his back on a task the Constitution assigned to him and drained the document of its intended vitality. (p. 142)

It is perfectly clear that the intent of our founders, and the purpose for which a provisions of our Constitution was adopted is irrelevant to these judicial activists. Their living constitution theory completely usurps the sole right given the people under Article V of our Constitution, and gives the judges the power to mold our Constitution into whatever they think it should be.  They argue at length on following stare decisis, which is the following of prior decisions by the Court, but as the majority points out, the precedents they would follow were certainly not followed by them when they applied other restrictions against the states that they falsely claimed were "constitutional rights."

In the past our liberal Supreme Court has actually made up things, with no constitutional basis at all, and called them protected rights under our Constitution; and held that they were restrictions on the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

At one point they declared the death penalty unconstitutional, when our Constitution specifically recognizes the death penalty in four different places. This caused such an uproar in the country that in later decisions, it was recognized that the death penalty was constitutional, but still improperly restricted the conditions in which it could be applied. There are still liberal justices that would now declare capital punishment unconstitutional.

In 1966, the Court decided the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, which has made law enforcement so complicated that law enforcement officers now have to carry a card or a piece of paper around with them to read all of the court invented rights to a possible defendant who is taken into custody. Many criminals have gone unpunished, and free to perpetrate more crimes, because of this fiction. This was later modified to some extent, but even now the theory is not supported by the Constitution. It is something that was really just an invention of liberal judges.

Liberals have a special hate for the Christian religion, and have used the Constitution to do away with all of our Christian heritage that they possibly could, falsely claiming that their decisions were supported by the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The establishment clause in the First Amendment was for the purpose of preventing a government established religion, such as England had when our Constitution was formed. But liberal Supreme Court justices have twisted it to remove all vestiges of our religious heritage from the public square and public buildings, even the Ten Commandments. This is all completely contrary to the purpose of the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment, of which the establishment clause is an adjunct part.  

They have many times tried to limit our freedom of speech and freedom of press under the First Amendment. They have done this in the form of "hate crime" laws, campaign finance laws, and employment and civil rights laws. They would have ministers barred from saying what they wish about political candidates and political issues, by withdrawing their religious exemptions. When cases on these matters come before the Supreme Court, liberals on the court invariably vote the liberal line. The Campaign Finance law, which limited freedom of speech, freedom of press, and even freedom of religion, was recently overturned by the Supreme Court, but the liberals on the court would have retained it.

One of the worst and clearest cases of gross judicial misbehavior was the invention of the constitutional "right of privacy" by liberal members of the Supreme Court. No one really knows what it covers, because there is no such thing in our Constitution, and there are no historical records relating to it, because it was something that was not contemplated or intended by those who framed and ratified our Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment, on which it is claimed to be based. That allows the liberals to place whatever meaning they can dream up on this fictional "right of privacy." On this basis they invented a constitutional right to use condoms, and whatever other such "rights" pleased the liberal agenda.

Under this fictional constitutional right of privacy, they invented the constitutional right to abortion in the case of Roe v. Wade, in 1973, overturning state abortion laws around the country. There is no right to abortion in our Constitution, and such a thing is directly contrary to what was intended by those who framed and ratified our Bill of Rights. When our Constitution was formed, abortion was against English common law, which was the common law of all of the states. Whether it was a homicide or a lesser crime may be in question, but there is no question that it was a common law crime. The right to abortion was not in our Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, and there was no indication whatsoever in our historical records that our founders intended to overturn or restrict state abortion laws. Had they intended such a preposterous thing, they would most certainly have said so. The right to abortion is a complete fiction invented by an imperial court, going against the will of the people, and unlawfully usurping the sole right of the people to change our Constitution, as well as the right of the people to govern themselves. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written by Justice Blackmun and shows the confusion of the court on what they might base the right of privacy and right to abortion on:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

That confusion is certainly understandable, since both "rights" are mere fictions invented by these activist judges. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, at least 36 of the 37 states had statutes against abortion, as shown by the dissenting opinion written by Justice Rehnquist. In the Congressional debates, and historical writings relevant to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is nothing to show that there was any intention of withdrawing the rights of the states to pass abortion laws. Attributing a slight amount of sanity and common sense to those responsible for the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, we must conclude that they did not intend such a preposterous thing as overturning all of those state laws then in existence. Again, this decision unlawfully usurped two rights of the people – their sole right to change the Constitution, and their right to pass laws and govern themselves. Only fundamental rights under our Constitution are protected from infringement, and all fundamental rights were known to the framers of our Constitution, and the more basic rights were enumerated in our Bill of Rights. That was its purpose.

What we should keep foremost in our minds is that although abortion is an explosive issue, and all people, including judges, have very strong opinions about it, it is not the function of the courts, with their misguided ideas of their own superior wisdom, to decide this issue. It is the function of the people, acting through their representatives in each state to make these decisions. That way we would have different laws and approaches from which we could all learn. This great laboratory for the weighing and melding of ideas and approaches to a very complicated subject has been destroyed by a "tyrannical court."

If possible, the invention of a constitutional right to commit sodomy was even more of a wrongful usurpation of the rights of the people than the abortion decisions.

As to a short synopsis of history on sodomy laws, the following from the concurring opium of Chief Justice Burger in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 176 (1986), upholding sodomy laws, is a good one:

As the Court notes, ... the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeao-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies.

Also, at times homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under English law. 

Relevant American history is shown by the majority opinion in the Bowers v. Hardwick case:

Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 States outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private and between consenting adults.

When our Bill of Rights was enacted, and when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, it could not have been the purpose of these provisions to create a constitutional right to engage in sodomy, and overturn all of the state and federal laws around the country making sodomy a crime. It is supported in no debates or historical records. It is a fiction that is the complete invention of a "tyrannical court."

In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), a liberal majority of the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, and declared a constitutional right to commit sodomy. In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the liberal minority argued at length that the court should follow the principle of going by prior case precedent (State Decisis), and not recognize the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms, and to defend themselves, their families, and their homes. The case precedents they argued would have been completely contrary to the application against the states of many constitutional rights by liberal courts, some of which were mere fictions. The Lawrence v. Texas case shows the flagrant duplicity of the liberal judges. They apply Stare Decisis only when it fits their liberal agenda.

It is disgusting that liberals in the Supreme Court have wrongfully and unlawfully invented rights to commit sodomy and abortion, and struck down laws of the states prohibiting such acts; but would not recognize an inherent inalienable right guarded by our founders, and which was one of the primary purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment; and which was expressly and clearly spelled out in our Bill of Rights  – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  These liberal judges continually and willfully violate their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and continually show their contempt and disregard for our Constitution. The people should put a stop to this malicious misbehavior. Politics, personal biases, and prejudices should be removed from judicial decisions.

The book, available on this website, A Way to Save Our Constitution from Judges, goes into detail on the long recognized rules for interpreting written documents, including laws and constitutions; and gives case by case details on the judicial misbehavior of activist judges on our Supreme Court. It also contains a recommended constitutional change that would stop such future misbehavior, and would also remedy past destruction to our Constitution by such judges. The article, Saving Our Constitution from Judges, also available on this website, is a short summary of the problem, and also contains the recommended amendment to stop this misbehavior. It would merely require judges to be judges, and prohibit them from usurping the rights of the people to change our constitution and to govern themselves. These are the two most fundamental elements of our Constitution, which begins with the words, "We the People" and not "We the Judges." As Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, it was intended that we have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." This tyranny of judges should be ended.


[1] Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, ../Import/Declaration and Constitution.docx

[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf 

[3] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

BACK TO ARTICLES