asked to comment on the question, “Has the Judiciary Destroyed the Constitution?
My first response was, "Is the Pope Catholic?" My answer was an unequivocal
"yes"! But where was my evidence? Where were the facts? How and why did it
happen? Why didn’t "we the people" stop it? Was it done with malice? Was there
specific intent? Is it still going on? Can it be stopped? And, on and on ad
This question lead me on an incredible journey of 250 hours
research and review of 100 plus cases, reading and review of five books, i.e.
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Justice Antonin
Scalia; The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It,
Phyllis Schlafly; God Betrayed: Separation of Church and State: The Biblical
Principles and the American Application, Jerald Finney; Men In Black: How
the Supreme Court Is Destroying America, Mark R. Levin, and, The
Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting
the Supreme Law of the Land, Judge Andrew Napolitano.
With all of
this research, you would think I would be ready to write. Wrong! How do you
start and how do you condense this amount of information into a 30 minute
presentation. You go back to the beginning, the genesis, the root – the
Constitution. It is my belief that the Founders knew exactly what they wanted
when they created a republican government with the primary purpose being to
divide and diffuse all power between the states and federal government and among
all three branches. Originalists, which I am, believe in a narrow and common
sense interpretation of the plain meaning of the law and clearly delineated
separation of powers. This belief, “…seeks to promote the rule of law by
imparting to the Constitution a fixed, continuous, and predictable meaning.”
Robert Bork. They wanted a government which could protect and nurture this
fledgling country, but one limited in its power so that it could not stifle the
state's right or their citizens' liberties. Remember the states were sovereign
entities that the Continental Congress could not directly control because there
was essentially no binding central government. Above everything else was the
Founders concern to prohibit any concentration of power to a small group of
institutions or individuals.
This being said, can anyone tell me how we
have end up having a judiciary with its nose stuck in every aspect of our lives,
i.e., controlling school systems, prisons, flag burning, welfare, taxation,
childcare, throwing out God, prayer, and the 10 Commandments from public
schools, hiring/firing practices of private business, states grants for illegal
immigrants, election processes, partial birth abortion, limits on political
speech, terrorism, same sex marriage, promoting racism, telling states to
increase private property taxes, rewriting immigration laws, and perhaps the
best ruling was, "…that morality was an insufficient basis for legislation."
One of the reasons we ended up where we are today is because
of the infamous decision, Marbury vs. Madison, 1803. In this decision, Justice
John Marshall gave the federal judiciary the power to rule on the
constitutionality of both statutory law, the behavior of the executive branch,
and Congressional actions. This means that the Supreme Court granted itself the
authority to declare the will of the people . . . null and void. This was
politely called judicial review. This of course has caused endless tyranny and
is the reason for the Courts runaway power which they exercise today. In no
section of the Constitution were the Courts granted the authority to overrule
Congress and the President. John Marshall “spent the remainder of his career
finding clearly disingenuous, historically inaccurate and highly questionable
justifications for ruling that federal power is not limited.” Judge Andrew
Napolitano. For my money, Marbury v Madision was enough of a disaster to last
him a lifetime.
No where in the Constitution is the federal judiciary
expressly given authority to interject itself into every facet of federal and
state operations. They have accumulated this power under the ruse of “judicial
review”, overturning an act of Congress or the executive branch on the grounds
that the act in question contravenes the federal Constitution. It is founded on
the joke that the Courts will be the unbiased guardians of the clear meaning of
the Constitution. When in essence what we have are judicial activists, because
of their high position, imposing by fiat, that which should be determined
through the democratic process. They continue through their absurd, inane and
socialistic decisions, substituting personal policy preferences for
Constitutional imperatives, which has destroyed both the intent and the spirit
of the Constitution.
Along with this is their fraud of the supremacy
clause which only grants to the central government seventeen specific functions
which are delineated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, many of which
involve waging war and foreign policy. Period!!!!!! This power has been grossly
abused by the Courts implication that the federal government is somehow
"supreme" in anything and everything vis-a-vis the citizens of the states.
The second most deadly act from the judiciary was their expansive
definition and abuse of the commerce clause, which allowed them to justify
virtually unfettered federal intrusion into the conduct of state and local
governments, and to defend the establishment of massive bureaucracies and their
seemingly endless regulations on private enterprise. As a result the government
is now centralized…enter socialism on the hoof. Their expansive use of the
commerce clause violates the Tenth Amendment. The Founders believed that
individual liberties could be better protected when the power is retained by the
state and local governments. The state is better prepared to develop solutions
at a grassroots level which reflects the desires of the community. "Between 1937
and 1995 not one single federal law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. Not one piece of legislation was seen as exceeding the scope of
Congress's commerce power." Judge Andrew Napolitano. Well, so much for the phony
argument that “judicial review” by the federal courts acts to protect liberty.
Instead, it does exactly the opposite: It expands the size and scope of
government at the expense of liberty.
Rather than upholding the
Constitution the Supreme Court helped Congress use the commerce clause to get
power at the expense of the state and local authorities in direct violation of
the Constitution and in denial of liberty to the America people. The Founders
wanted to increase commerce between the states and trade between their citizens.
But typical of the courts deceit, they have turned the commerce clause into
exactly the opposite. Through all of the federal regulations, statutes, rules,
mandates, licenses, permits, and registrations, etc., they are destroying the
ability of both individuals and businesses to succeed, and creating a vehicle to
strengthen federal power, deny authority to the states, and once again deprive
the American people their God given rights.
The third disaster, as I
perceive it, is that lingering misinterpretation of the phrase “…a wall of
separation between church and state.” No where in that statement does it refer
to separation between God and state. God is not a church. God is not religion.
God is not prayer. God is not the 10 Commandments pasted on a school wall or in
front of a Courthouse. God is not the Pledge of Allegiance; God is not an
invocation or benediction. God is not only the Creator of the universe and all
things therein, He is the sovereign ruler of every individual, family, church
and nation. The Bible has laid out the specific jurisdictions and principles for
the functioning of each one of these governments. The courts, and therefore
America, has violated its God given jurisdiction and principles.
look at the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment, the Framers understood
the word “establishment”, and they meant this clause, “… to involve actual legal
coercion and that government practices that have nothing to do with creating or
maintaining coercive state establishments simply do not implicate the possible
liberty interest of being free from the coercive state establishments.” Justice
Clarence Thomas. Thomas said further in Van Orden v Perry 2005, “The
unintelligibility of this Court’s precedent raises the further concern that,
either, in appearance or in fact, adjudication of Establishment Clause
challenges turns on judicial predilections…The outcome of constitutional case
ought to rest on firmer grounds than the personal preferences of judges.” There
you have it from one of their own. This is the crux of the entire problem and
the cause of the chaos in our Country…the courts, through their activist judges
position and power, conjure up the ideas that they are righting wrongs or doing
justice and impose their will and warped beliefs by fiat.
the courts stock and trade. They have no standards of operation. They talk about
interpretive problems presented by conflicts between the Establishment Clause
and the Free Exercise Clause. They have problems because they have no knowledge
of God and His sovereignty. Therefore, they have to twist meanings; they have no
standards upon which to base their principles, because they use different
standards than the standard which was used to formulate the thing they are
judging; and, they have no knowledge of the true history and intent of that
which they are judging. The courts and the other branches of the federal
government have let us know that with enough liberals and moderates, they can
reconstruct the Constitution into whatever form they want, completely ignoring
history, logic and totally discounting God.
Yes, the judiciary has
destroyed the Constitution. They are unelected and unaccountable, and have
rejected and violated their Constitutional role and continue to legislate from
the bench. When they make decisions beyond their authority they are violating
and destroying the will of the people. An opinion from these courts, instead of
remaining a simple decision, becomes law, a precedent if you will, which further
perpetrates the fallacy of stare decisis, which by its very concept violates our
rule of law… that each case shall be judged on its own merits. But more
importantly, the federal government, through its laws and its courts, has
rejected God. From this decision America will not escape I am believing that we,
the United States Patriots Union, have formulated a plan, which is pleasing to
God, and which will enable us to take America back. May God bless each of you
and may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.
Ketay, President, United States Bar Association and Co-Founder of United States
A FEW OF THE
DECISIONS WHICH HAVE NEGATIVELY ALTERED AMERICA (THIS LIST IS BY NO MEANS COMPLETE - *INDICATES RELIGIOUS
Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137, (1803)
SCOTUS granted themselves the power to review all executive, Congressional
actions and statutory laws in total violation to the spirit and intent of the
Constitution, as well as the specific powers given.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17
U.S. 316 (1819), states may not impede valid exercises of Constitutional power
of the federal government, i.e. fines, taxes etc, and granted unlimited implied
powers in Constitution, did this to establish a central bank, powers of federal
government only limited by the imagination of evil politicians.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S.
1(1824)-SCOTUS ruled that Congress could regulate interstate commerce thru the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution-Marshall wrote not pertain to individuals
between each other or intrastate lasted 110 years, test was devised to determine
if enterprises or transactions effected interstate commerce then the Congress
United States v. Butler,
297 U.S.1 (1936), – SCOTUS ruled that the taxes instituted under the1933
Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional, but they did not miss the
opportunity to intervene in economic and societal matters thru a new doctrine of
National Labor Relations Board v.
Jones ∓ Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) – disastrous
decision set the stage for the massive expansion of commerce clause and federal
government unconstitutional control over the marketplace”intra-state activities
that have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that
their Constitutional control is essential or appropriate to protect the commerce
from burdens and obstructions are within Congress' power to regulate."
United States v.
Miller, 307 U.S.174 (1939) -first time SCOTUS addressed the 2nd Amendment
requires certain types of firearms, including but not limited to, fully
automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, to be registered with
the Miscellaneous Tax Unit $200 paid for registration and if resold, eventually
*Cantwell v. Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296 (1940) - decision marked the first time SCOTUS incorporated the
free exercise clause into the 14th Amendment, Court ruled 1st Amendment
protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local
levels, as well as federal, this case enforced the 1st Amendment Free Exercise
Clause against the states, thereby protecting free exercise of religion from
intrusive state action.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317
U.S. 111(1942)-no rational basis test, SCOTUS ruled Congress could regulate what
farmer grew even though it had no effect on interstate commerce, ruled because
he did not use the interstate market, he effected the interstate commerce(ex
farmer and wheat for himself example) if it wasn’t so pathetic it would be
Board of Education of Ewing Township 330 U.S. 1 (1947)-SCOTUS decided
under Establishment Clause incorporated into due process clause of 14th
Amendment, this case changed everything, because now whether you were an
establishment of religion or the establishment of a state supported church, you
became an “establishment of religion”, altered mindset and conditions for
churches and Christians.
Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), (overturned1896 Plessy v Ferguson “separate
but equal upholding segregation) SCOTUS ruled state laws that established
separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal
educational opportunities. "Separate educational facilities are inherently
unequal." segregation violated equal protection of 14th Amendment, paved the way
for integration and the civil rights movement.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
(1961)-SCOTUS landmark case in criminal procedure; ruled that evidence obtained
in violation of the 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and
seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state as well as federal
Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)-landmark case, SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional
for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its
recitation in public schools.
*Abington Township School District
v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374
U.S. 203 (1963),-SCOTUS ruled school sponsored Bible reading or reciting Lord's
Prayer in public schools unconstitutional, landmark case.
Miranda v. Arizona
(consolidated with Westover
v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384
U.S. 436 (1966), landmark case-"Has he been Mirandised?", subject had to be
advised of rights in order for inculpatory/exculpatory evidence to be admissible
by prosecution at trial.
*Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403
U.S. 461 (1971)-SCOTUS ruled that no public funds could be used for other than
public schools violated Establishment Clause of 1st Amendment resulted in Lemon
test 3 prongs were used government's action must have a secular legislative
purpose; government's action must not have the primary effect
of either advancing or inhibiting religion's government's action must not result in an "excessive
government entanglement" with religion.
*Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113
(1973),-landmark case, most Controversial and politically significant decision
ever made by SCOTUS, in essence it says its OK to murder babies in the womb
dependent upon the mothers Constitutional right to privacy based on the due
process clause of 14th Amendment.
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) –landmark case, SCOTUS ruled no
affirmative action in college admissions, no quota systems, but affirmed that
affirmative action programs were Constitutional.
*Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.
39 (1980) SCOTUS ruled that statutes requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten
Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public
classroom in the State, was unconstitutional, in violation of the Establishment
Clause of 1st Amendment, because it lacked a secular legislative purpose.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)-SCOTUS, landmark case, ruled Louisiana
could not require creationism be taught along with evolution, unconstitutional
because it was intended to promote a particular religion.
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202
(1982) -SCOTUS ruled that Texas could not refuse to educate illegal immigrants
because it violated the 14th Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people
"in any ordinary sense of the term", and therefore had protection from
discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) SCOTUS ruled flag burning was protected
Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)-SCOTUS- ruled that clergy giving
invocations/benedictions for high school graduation ceremonies were coercive and
United States v. Lopez, 514
U.S. 549 (1995) SCOTUS made possessing a gun near a school a federal crime, when
states and local representatives have the power to outlaw gun possession near a
school and many have, the Framers never intended for the federal government to
be able to define a crime and prosecute such a wholly local activity thru
enactment of federal criminal laws.
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was enacted by Congress, SCOTUS
stuck its nose in immigration law and has found that equal protection and due
process clause of 5th and 14th Amendments gave judiciary all authority it would
need to rewrite immigration laws.
Kelo v. New London,
(04-108) 545 U.S. 469 (2005) SCOTUS redefined public use which was tied to
eminent domain, SCOTUS gutted the taking clause of 5th Amendment which insures
our possessions i.e. private property, and redefined Framers definition of
public use to really mean "public purpose", and that means whatever any
government agency wants it to mean.
2002 McCain-Feingold Act –
SCOTUS approved this act which is obviously unconstitutional, draconian free
speech limitations, right to redress grievances, all protected, no parties, no
contributions to support political campaigns, no advertising, etc., this
confusion typical of Court, in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo, they ruled you could
give money to support political campaigns.