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.

The Natural Right of Freedom is Under Attack

A 9/14/05 report by David Kravets in the Associated Press tells of a judgment in a Sacramento located U.S. District Court in which the judge rules that the recitation of the pledge of allegiance violates a 2002 precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The same judge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, contradicting himself by dismissing the claim that the federal Congress’s action of including the words “under God” was unconstitutional. This brings forth both a violation of the rule of law and the hierocracy of the federal judicial system.

If you look at Article 1 Section 1 which reads as follows you will find that only Congress is granted the power to make laws, rules, and the like.

Article 1 Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

If you look at what a precedent is, you will find it is a law set forth by the courts and a series of such laws is called case law or common law. So case law is illegal at the federal level since only congress has the right to make laws. In fact the federal courts are limited by the Constitution to Judicial powers.

Article 3 Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

So a federal judge is limited to determining what action is and is not legal according to the law and the appropriate reaction to remedy the situation. They can not legislate in their decision which limit’s the remedies they can use as to legislate would be to violate the limits on their powers set forth in Article 1 and Article 3 of the Constitution.
Now assuming that the federal judiciary were actually concerned with upholding the Constitution and they either affirmed or gave oath then Judge Karlton would have looked at the first Amendment of the Constitution and the preamble. The first Amendment because it deals with the limits of government in relation to religious freedom and the preamble because it states the purpose of the establishment of the U.S. Constitution.

Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Because the preamble summarizes the purpose of the United Constitution if it is violated by the an interpretation of any other part of the Constitution then that interpretation is wrong since it violates the purpose of the establishment of the Constitution. The exception is if an amendment is made aimed at changing or altering the purpose of the establishment U.S. Constitution which I hope never happens.

If you study history you will find that the writers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned by one specific denomination forcing their will upon others much like the Church of England did. It is not about a generic religious belief system forcing their will upon others such as Atheist establishing Atheism as a state religion such as happened in Russia under Communism. It can also be established that if a specific practice of a religion significantly violate any of the purpose for which the Constitution was established then it can be outlawed. Knowing this a judge reluctant to say that the Pledge of Allegiance violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. A judge should rather address the Ninth Amendment and use it to bring in the Declaration of Independence which states that it is the duty of the United States government including the judicial branch to secure the right of liberty. With this evidence before him Judge Karlton would conclude that by adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance Congress violates the Constitution and the ideals upon what America is based by displaying a bias which violates the ideal of a justice as enumerated in the preamble and the sixth Amendment while also violating the general though not the specific intent of the religious establishment clause of the Constitution. In addition such a clause violates the Constitution in that it alienates those whose religious beliefs are atheistic or polytheistic in nature and thus acts against a more perfect union.

On the other hand I actually find that holding the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County accountable for the pledge of allegiance is nonsense. The school is acting to encourage patriotism which is definitely according to the Constitution as it is related to the oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution that is required by all federal elected and judicial officers. Since free practice of religion is singled out in the Constitution as a right to liberty and the practice of it is related to personal ethical behavior it follows that encouraging patriotism is not a significant reason to violate the right to liberty in this case. Thus the schools must make it optional to recite the pledge of allegiance while the phrase “under God” is in it.

This lawsuit should have included the federal government as a party. In that case the Judge should rule the action of Congress to add the phrase “under God” to the Constitution was unconstitutional and therefore order them to alter the pledge in such a way as to not violate the Constitution. If Congress does not comply within a reasonable length of time then the judge should slam them with a contempt of court charge and order them jailed. Congress can then order the lesser courts dissolved or comply with the orders. For the Supreme Court they can move to impeach the members. It then becomes up to media to keep the citizenry informed and the People of the United States to hold their legislatives accountable.

But since the federal government is not a party the judge should move to order the school to make taking the pledge optional and order the schools to pay appropriate restitution for the damages caused. The judge should also mention that the 1954 actions of Congress were unconstitutional and ask the present Congress to correct it, but can take no other action since the later is not a party in lawsuit.

A Right to Property Issue: Does The Government Own Evidence?

The Associate Press printed an article about the press versus the right of property in the case of the Columbine school shootings as you can see in this cite below.

But the gunmen's parents are fighting a newspaper's request for public release of the videos, audio recordings and writings Harris and Klebold made in the months before they killed 12 students and a teacher in April 1999.

According to the article the question before the court is whether the possessions in question are the governments and therefore public or are the parents and therefore private. Given the evidence as presented in this September 13, 2005 article by the reporter Jon Sarche, the ruling of the district judge is in line with the Constitution in the cite below.

A Jefferson County district judge has ruled that the documents, including a diary kept by Harris' father, should not be made public. But the state Court of Appeals last year ruled that the tapes and writings are public records and ordered the judge to consider whether their release would be contrary to the public interest.

The 5th Amendment of the Constitution is specific on how the government can take over ownership of property as you can see in this cite.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The parents did not lose their property because of judgment against them in a court of law so the due process reason is not applicable. They also did not receive anything in return so the just compensation reason is not valid. Since any other reason the government might use to claim ownership would be unconstitutional it follows that the ownership of the disputed property remains the parents for them to decide what to do with it.

It is such a clear cut case that the government has possession but not ownership of the property that I question the competency of the Colorado State Court of Appeals for overturning the case. I am also addressing the violation of the 4th Amendment perpetrated by the Sheriff as I will address below these applicable cites.

"It was shown without our permission by the sheriff, who we immediately put on notice to stop doing that and he did," Kay said.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. As you can see according to the 4th Amendment possession of property may be seized but there must be probable cause for it being seized. The cause for seizing the aforementioned property was obviously to use in an investigation and not to be shown to the media. The Sheriff therefore violated the reason for seizing it and therefore dishonored the fourth Amendment when he displayed the property to the media.

Hopefully the higher court overturn the Colorado Court of Appeals and rules in favor of the right to private property and against the right of the press to violate the forth Amendment. Also if the deciding judges on the Court of Appeals do not change their ways they need to be replaced by competent judges in order that the Rule of Law be maintained.

Is A Natural Right Of Privacy In The United States Constitution

I was just watching Senator Biden at the Senate Confirmation Hearings of John Roberts as Chief Justice as he made a statement about the candidate not believing in the right of privacy. This so called right of privacy is a very interesting case sine its discovery in the 1965 GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT. The first and largest objection I have is the state made is that the Justices whom decided their was a right to privacy in the U.S. constitution were not unified in where this so called right existed.

The decision by Mr. Justice Douglas is basically that several amendments to the U.S. Constitution deal with aspects of the right to privacy and that these aspects combined create the right of privacy. The ideal is illogical since the reasoning used by the court is invalid in that just because some aspects of the right of privacy are protected by the Constitution does not mean that all aspects of the right of privacy are protected by the Constitution. The decision was also unsound in that some of the examples the court used dealt with other rights such as the right of property and not privacy an example of this being the quartering of soldiers.

Two other Justices Harlan and White agreed that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution but disagreed where it was. Their statement said it was granted by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment a ideal that Justice Douglas has denied in his own decision on the grounds that the Supreme Court was not a super legislation to decide issues of social, economical, or business in nature. These two Justices were basing their decision on a previous decision made by a conservative Supreme Court which was the 1886 decision of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in which the court decided that artificial persons were persons under the 14th Amendment. The decision was completely absurd since person clearly refers to natural person even to the point of using born at one point. Still the two Justices using precedent and not law are justified in there decision since the court did not reverse their decision merely backed off of it saying they were not super legislatures, a point Justice Douglas reiterated it.

The decision given by Mr. Justice Goldberg and joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan. They concluded that privacy in marriage was a right held by society and as such was protected by the ninth amendment. I find two flaws in the reasoning one is the burden of proof which I find lacking. In fact William Blackstone calls marriage a private, as in ownership not secrecy, relation of persons that the government treats as other contracts. If continue to read William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England you will find the government and the church were not adverse to regulating marriage. These laws were the laws in effect in the United States at the time the ninth Amendment was accepted. The second flaw I find is in the wording of the 9th itself which seems to be addressed more to the federal courts and not to limit legislature as you will see below.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My question is why question whether this Connecticut law violated a questionable right to privacy at all when the law clearly violate the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness both enumerated in a legal document we know as the Declaration of Independence and which can be brought into the Constitution through the ninth Amendment if you ignore the way it is addressed something I would be reluctant to do. You can also use the clause secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity that is in the preamble and is one of many reasons the U.S. Constitution was established.

If the Justices were attempting to establish a right to private property then they could have used the Ninth Amendment, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of John Locke, and the commentaries of William Blackstone to establish the existence of a right to property and the right for the government to secure these rights. This argument has the same flaw that other like laws based on the Ninth Amendment do in that the Constitution only protects them from violation by the enforcement of other enumerated rights. The argument could be made successfully that if they are protected from the law written in the Constitution then they are certainly protected from lesser laws. Regardless the at least the 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendment address the right to property. So all you need to do is prove a marriage was the property of the couple, which is easy to do using the law at the time.

If the Justices were instead attempting to establish that United States citizens had the right to hide or conceal items from the government and others then the 4th Amendment covers that by forbidding illegal searches.

The question is not if a right exist because in most cases a law by its nature violates at least one human right if only the right to liberty but if there is significant reason to violate that right. The reason for the Connecticut law in question is that is designed to protect the morality(welfare) of the general populace. General welfare is a reasonable reason to violate an individuals rights but the question becomes is there a significant detrimental effect on the General Welfare by overturning this law. I have no ideal what evidence the Connecticut lawmakers used to justify there law but I do know the sexual revolution sprang up at the same time as this court case was decided. The results of that revolution was a declining rate of marriage and more dysfunctional families with the accompanying higher level of domestic and child abuse.

Overall wise Justices don’t second guess legislatures because theoretically the governments of the United States was set up to be a republic with legislative members being accountable to The People. The reality is that The People cannot micromanage their representatives and have to compromise on a best choice and sometimes need a champion to get rid of oppressive laws. If the courts could strike down a law and the legislatures vote that law back in it would work better to serve the People than the current system. Such a system is what reputedly what Abraham Lincoln proposed was enumerated in the Constitution and I tend to believe he was correct as the Judicial branch is forbidden to use legislative powers making precedents and court law illegal on a federal level.

In conclusion the 1965 GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT was wrongly decided in that the reasoning used by the deciding justices was flawed. It is correct in that a right to privacy can be found in the Constitution but I am unsure if it is the same right of privacy they were attempting to find. It is also true that the Justices have the right to wisely or unwisely decide if a significant and justified reason to violate the right of an individual exist and if not then to overturn a law violating that right. On the other hand leaving a flawed judgment in place is not justified. I have previously voiced a hypothesis that Griswold might not be wise.

Why Does The Government Violate The Natural Right Of Property Of Pet Owners

New Orleans and our efforts there is a black mark on the United States governments and their ability to deal with catastrophic events. Katrina hit the Gulf Cost an demolished not only the homes and businesses but the ability of the United States local, state, and federal governments to act coherently or united. The side effect of this is the deplorable condition the humans and animals of New Orleans descended into.

The government recovered a least to a functional level of coherency so that relief caravans arrived four days after the initial disaster and began removing people from the devastated city. When they evacuated the people the would not take their pets. Pets are according to our laws considered property and the natural right of property should have kicked in. I can quote the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Preamble once more but if you are really interested please look them up and see what they say. The short of it is that the government has no right to deprive someone of their property unless for the general welfare or similar reasons.

At first the government did have plenty of reason to deny individuals the right to bring their pets and place those whom insisted on doing so at the end of the line. That reason being the general welfare of the populace but as soon as the majority of the humans were removed the individuals and their pets should have been allowed to leave also out of respect for the right to life of both the humans and animals. More Animal Rescue Groups should have been allowed in just like those whom job it is to rescue people. New Orleans is a environmental disaster and no person or animal should be left to languish under those conditions that can be helped.

It is very deplorable that Americans are willing to act so inhumane toward animals as to abandon them or force others to abandon them in such a barren area Please speak in defense of these animals the government abused and neglected.