I’ll forever be grateful for the heritage of idealistic law and justice bequeathed to me and all-American taxpayers in the fervent admonition of this honest attorney, Constitutional legislator, Vice-President, and U.S. President John Adams when he said that”we (the American republic) are a nation of laws rather than men.” I wish I could have extended my admiration to me, but the guy, Adams, was dead since 1824, having lived 126 years before I was born. Yet, despite my sincere gratefulness to him and another committed Framers of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, there are now those national officers of the 21st Century, elected, appointed, and hired as bureaucrats who, having come in the 20th Century, personally hate what Adams said and would rather the republic become and act as a’nation of whimsical and flippant men (and women) and not of laws’
The crux of this report addresses the open and utterly flagrant disregard for national, and notably U.S Constitutional, law from the aforementioned national officers of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States Government since the national Judiciary continues to routinely usurp, with undue fanfare, its designated and defined function as an interpreter and judge of the constitutionality of cases falling under the U.S. Constitution and the legislated and codified laws of the United States of America. This insipid disregard for, particularly, Constitutional law, from the women and men who have sworn to uphold it, has been going on since before 1925, while during this pivotal year a very simple and ordinary action of Congress, the Federal Judiciary Act, quietly altered the particular requirement of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, as the representatives and senators of the 69th Congress completely ignored the requirement of this Article V constitutional Amendment procedure requirement. This was an egregious and inexorable first-step into the complete prohibited transformation of the national Judiciary, and notably the U.S. Supreme Court, by a branch of national government designated initially by law as a judge of the constitutionality of federal legislation into an illegal quasi-legislative member of government. The unconstitutional Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 altered the particular inherent requirement for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear”all” cases climbing under the U.S. Constitution and national law, which make their way successfully through the federal appellate judicial system into a point for hearing, by right, before the highest court of the land, to that of a”pick-and-choose” certiorari writ system in which the Supreme Court can arbitrarily refuse to hear important cases it would have generally heard by regular order before 1925.
As to why Taft knowingly sponsored an unconstitutional bill from the Legislative branch, well, in short, the answer to this question is, simply, the man had gone about pragmatically organizing the successful passing of the Certiorari Bill to a law prior to its diplomatic demonstration by the dishonest illegal deals he made with U.S. senators and representatives in the smoke-filled backrooms of the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court, and, possibly, in prohibited speak-easies and burlesque parlors while sipping fine Kentucky bourbon. Taft, who was also the 27th President of the USA, was an intimidatingly large guy (six feet and over 300 pounds) and was widely called a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist (one who firmly believed that the end-result of any undertaking warranted the legal, or illegal, means used to get it). Fundamentally, he was an accomplished liar, who had succeeded in persuading President Warren G. Harding, in 1921, the President had him in his hip-pocket because his nominated choice of a dutifully servile and obliging Supreme Court Chief Justice, which proved very detrimental for Harding’s government after Taft’s formal nomination and confirmation by the U.S. Senate, as the new Chief Justice immediately revealed himself to be just the reverse.
There was, of course, a political agenda set in place to fortify an activist U.S. Supreme Court following the execution of the 1925 Federal Judiciary Act and the writ of certiorari procedure that made the nine justices of the high court into basically a pragmatic way of determining the achievement of political goals set in motion by conspiring Legislative branch senators and representatives and extra-governmental social activists, such as Margaret Sanger, the first outspoken proponent of eugenics, lobotomy, birth control, and abortion. How else, but by purely political debate and subjective prioritization, could the nine justices have selected the appellate cases most”worthy” of being heard from the docket of appellate cases that”deserved” to be noticed? The writ of certiorari procedure turned out to essentially be a writing competition for national appellants.
Basically, Margaret Sanger, allegedly trained as a nurse, gained national sensation in 1925 by vehemently proposing the exact barbaric and racist agenda for the USA which Adolf Hitler had suggested in his 1925 book,”Mein Kampf” (interpreted as”My Struggle”) and which he finally implemented against the Jews and some other group of human beings which didn’t fit into his master-race schema in his Nazification of Germany from 1933 until 1945. Having attained legal recognition from five of the nine Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, three of the impending federal appellate cases against eugenics and birth control, since inspection by the USSC, were removed via the certiorari procedure as the Court refused to hear them. However, Buck v. Bell (1927) was chosen by writ of certiorari, heard, and determined by the Court, where it voted 8-1 to approve compulsory Nazi-like sterilization for socially undesirable women and men.
Consequently, due to that judicial approval of eugenics, between 1928 and 1975 over 100,000 girls throughout the USA were deemed socially incapable of producing normal healthy kids and were sterilized by order of the state and federal authorities. This depravity also extended to more than 40,000 guys across the nation during the identical time-period that were adjudged by state and federal courts as having the diminished capacity of siring normal healthy kids and were neutered, or chemically castrated, by court order. In California, for 70 years starting early in 1909, over 20,000 people were sterilized, often without their full knowledge and consent. California led the nation from the indiscriminate sterilizations of both women and men. What’s more, from 1950 until 1973 before Roe v. Wade, over 7 million unnecessary abortions also happened in the united states, the vast majority of which were conducted in California abortion clinics. When I say unnecessary abortions, I suggest that over 7 million healthy unborn fetuses (unborn children) were clinically murdered (aborted) due to the flippant attitudes of sexual partners, as well as the unwanted pregnancies created by indiscriminate sexual intercourse. In a public statement made by Margaret Sanger, in 1951, the frenzied woman said to her clamoring disciples that,”young couples should be more worried about the quality of their passions and sexual compatibility than pregnancy, the inconsequential by-product of their sexual union. Because of this, abortion ought to be accustomed to the full extent of its ability to regulate population.” Something to seriously consider is that after Roe v. Wade, from 1973 to the present day, over 90 million unnecessary abortions are performed in the united states, a number that’s tantamount to the complete population of the republic in 1908. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Byron White said the provocative legal issues which I will discuss further in this report.
“I find nothing in the history or language of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.
In each U.S. Supreme Court decision which, within the history of the American republic, which was at odds with the appropriate Constitutional judicial power vested in the federal judiciary from the Framers, there were dissenters, such as Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist who have fervently decried the judicial harassment of justice as well as the obvious usurping of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. These dissenters, such as Bryon White, have fully realized the law, as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and the Framers’ intent of the perpetuation of the manner of interpreting the Constitution are the most significant areas of U.S. Constitutional law. This amendment simply states that the national government has no more authority and power than that specifically detailed in the text of the first U.S. Constitution.
In the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, in 1790, the national government was seriously limited in its power over the States, and the States were ordained with the rights and powers reserved unto them by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In the same exact way that each of the first nine amendments’ guarantees of freedom and liberty were inalienably sacrosanct, and that no other amendment might be added to the U.S. Constitution to add to, or detract, from these sacred inalienable rights, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteed that the States retained all authority and powers not specifically assigned to the national government nor denied to them by the Constitution. That was a terrific deal of power reserved unto the People, and the Framers knew that a constitutional republic of States could only persevere throughout the ages of liberty under such a particular delineation and separation of powers.
As the whole federal government was planned by the Constitutional Framers to stay small and restricted in its legislative, executive, and judicial powers, the Legislative branch was constrained, in Article I, Section VIII, to just the production of legislation necessary, or necessary, and appropriate, to the appropriate execution of only the particular federal powers enumerated in Article I, Section VIII. To put it differently, law and common sense dictated that federal legislators (Rat Poop) couldn’t use Article I, Section 8, Clause 18,”To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the federal government, or in any section of officer ” to justify legislating a law to force the folks, or States, to just birth their children in approved hospitals, and nowhere else,” with the energy contained in Article I, Section VIII, Clause VII,”To establish post offices and post roads.” No sensible person would even suggest doing so in breach of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, it was quietly done to make the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress could get no national authority or power in Article I, Section VIII to make a law commanding civil rights, therefore it arbitrarily used Article I, Section VIII, Clause III, the Commerce Power Clause,”To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” to make the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress used the Commerce Clause to make laws ordering the People of the States to take care of each other in a particular manner. The following expansions of Civil Rights Act of 1964 were based on the egregious U.S. Supreme Court rulings declaring in 1965 and 1966 the use of the Commerce power Clause to legislate and govern civil rights at the 1964 Civil Rights Act was constitutional. The further use of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to supersede the 10th Amendment power of the States was also unconstitutionally applied from the U.S. Supreme Court to allegedly provide the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the”teeth” it required for enforcement. These absurd uses of the U.S. Constitution to justify regulations and enforcement of laws that the federal government had no actual constitutional power to make are just as absurd, but as plausible, as a federal law which could be passed to mandate the placement of identifying RFID chips into each of newborn children to make sure that the kidnapping of newborn infants could be effectively removed. In effect, if the federal government may use the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify its authority over civil rights, it may use any of the Article I, Section VIII powers to warrant any control they would like to assert over the individuals, or the States.
I was thinking one day long ago, when I was in my young prime and living in California, concerning the freedom I had under the U.S. Constitution to take a long distance run anytime of the day or night, in almost any temperature, in sunshine or rain. As I was thinking this, running along in 95-degree warmth and thoroughly enjoying myself, a California cop in his car slowed down and shouted,”You should not be running in this heat!” I shouted back as vociferously,”Leave me alone. It’s my freedom to run in any sort of weather that I choose!” During the early, middle, and late-20th Century, this was a prime example of the sort of fascist mindset that easily existed among many Americans with jurisdiction which has precluded, in a lot of dynamic governmental conditions, the suitable application of John Adams’s wise statement,”We’re a nation of laws, rather than of men.” It was the sort of mentality that resulted in American and Nazi eugenics and abortion to inexorably flourish rampantly under the pretense of law and jurisprudence and gave rise to a national government that flagrantly ignored U.S. Constitutional law and underhandedly made it a reality that a state of a couple of whimsical and immoral people was the rule rather than that of a country of laws.
In a July 12, 2018″Washington Times” comment on the judicial mindset of federal Judge, and President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, noted columnist Cal Thomas did something that many supposedly educated and educated American authors are loath to do in this day-and-age. He made cogent reference to the 1 standard of definitive source of understanding concerning the U.S. Constitution, the 1787″Federalist Papers,” and deferred to the wisdom of the Framer, Alexander Hamilton, who had been selected by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to write about the limitations set upon the federal judiciary in the proposed Constitution, particularly upon the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas did well in mentioning the words of Hamilton in his”Federalist 78″ into latently embellish and fortify the 20th Century words of Justice Byron White in his Roe v. Wade dissent.
With this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing… To deny this is to affirm… that men acting by virtue of powers may don’t only what their powers don’t authorize, but what they forbid.”
It’s fairly obvious that a vast majority of the justices of U.S. Supreme Court have, as 1925, ignored the limitations imposed upon them as judges and arbiters of national and Constitutional law, and have pursued their own political and social agendas to function as quasi-legislative activists rather than as prudent jurists. Had there been, instead, the vast majority of justices determined upon the course of Constitutional correctness based on the judicial intent of the Framers, the Federal Reserve Act would have been judged as entirely unconstitutional in 1913, in addition to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Moreover, Roe v. Wade would have been regarded by the Court as exclusively a 10th Amendment Condition issue and wouldn’t have been heard initially by a national court and finally by the Supreme Court. Homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and marriage in general, would have been announced as only State issues, and, generally, would have been determined by the State courts in favor of morality and sacred heterosexual union. The republic would be far different now than it was in 1925 and 1973, with a larger thriving population and, like Abraham Lincoln had quipped in his Gettysburg address 155 years before, a true rebirth of liberty and freedom.