Our Right To Liberty Is Deprived By Non Origionist Legislators and Judges

I have been listening to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts for Supreme Court Justice and I am wondering if he will be a judge of good character. A judge of good character that strives to interpret the Constitution and other laws by their original intent. After all being lawyer he has already taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and if he is confirmed he will take another such one to do the same think. How can you uphold the Constitution unless you strive to correctly interpret it as it was originally approved by Congress and the States.


I have no desire to be ruled by judges that believe the Constitution can be altered and changed by judicial activism and neither did those whom compromised on its approval despite which fanatical activist will try to make you think. Read for yourself what those whom approved the Constitution said about this very issue and tell me that they would approve of the so called “evolving” Constitution hypothesis law.

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It is obvious from reading this passage and others from the Constitution that those whom compromised to get the Constitution made into law had no intention to be ruled by the dictates of the Supreme Court but left lawmaking to Congress and the States. If you read about Congress in Article I you will find that they have all federal lawmaking powers. If you read about the Supreme Court in Article III you will also find that they are limited to judging by the law and not private interpretation of the law.


So you can see the founders of our country decided to make The Constitution and its Amendment difficult to pass in order to protect The People by requiring the ratification by a supermajority of elected legislators. On the other hand to our regret the legislators failed to see the threat to our freedom presented by the federal courts and allowed them to be appointed to life terms much like King George whom they rebelled against. Their shortsightedness has allowed at this time the majority of 9 men and women dictators to determine what they choose the Constitution to mean. These justices whom have abandoned The Rule of Law when they abandoned original intent of the law have no one to hold them in check except for Congress, who often gains by not doing so.


An origionlist attempts to determine what the law originally meant and to faithfully and honestly apply that law. I have heard complaints against prosecutors whom play fast and loose with the law and charge people for committing crimes that were not originally intended to be covered by the law. I have to say these prosecutors are misusing the law. Defense attorneys seek for ways to change the meanings of the law from that originally intended in order to get their clients off and they are therefore just as guilty of misusing the law. The Judge has the final say in these issues and the can be overridden by the higher courts but if that judge does not hold to the original intent of the law then the Rule of Law is broken. Do lawyers and judges treat precedents with as much contempt as they do laws. Have you ever heard of evolving precedents as the meaning changes according to the bias of the judge using it?


Which brings me to another point and that is the legislatures themselves. The men and women who make up the legislative bodies of the state or federal government take an oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution. If the Constitution does not have a static meaning that can only be changed through appropriate channels then that oath or affirmation is worthless since anyone can have their own interpretation of the document. If you read the Constitution you will find that this oath to uphold the Constitution is one means used to keep the President of the United States in check.

Article II
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So if the Senators took their oath or affirmation serious they would not only limit their consent to origionist judges but they would impeach any federal judge who interpreted the Constitution in any way other than it was originally intended. That is the only way to preserve it for future generations. The President and the House of Representatives would have to use other ways to bring the Judicial branch under control.


They don’t, so I propose Amending the U.S. Constitution to place judges under the control of the people and accountable to them after short and regular intervals. If judges are going to be biased then let that biasness be in favor of the people and not opposed. Ben Franklin once replied to a question about what kind of government the U.S. has and he replied “A republic, if you can keep it.” We have lost that republic to activist judges but if we care we can reclaim it by fighting another war of Independence against judicial oppressors that hopefully will be won without violence. Even without Amending the Constitution to bring the justices under direct American control we can determine which legislative members are against origionlism and vote them out of office. We can also pressure them to do their job and impeach non-origionist federal justices for perjury whether they be conservative, moderate, or liberal. They can also restructure the lower courts to get rid of the corrupt and tyrannical judges that believe that they are a law onto themselves.