Nowhere does the Constitution grant the judicial branch supremacy over the other two branches, let alone over the will of the people. There is a reason the Left has used the courts to impose its most heinous schemes and to hatch its most progressive plots against the Constitution, because their plans simply would not survive the scrutiny of the American people at the ballot box. It is no coincidence the Left has to go outside the Constitution in order to impose much of its most unconstitutional policies.
Some reading this will say I am only bringing up these points now because my side lost at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the truth is I have been addressing these issues on my radio show for years, ever since my State Supreme Court violated its oath of office in amending the Iowa Constitution over the issue of marriage. I was an outspoken proponent of voting out the judges responsible for this miscarriage of justice on my local show each day. Iowans responded by making history in 2010, firing the justices up for retention for the first time.
Now on my new syndicated radio program I am taking this fight national. In the days leading up to the Obamacare ruling I warned my fellow Constitutionalists not to perpetuate the unconstitutional paradigm of the Left that courts make law and are the final word on what the Constitution says. There were other Constitutional remedies we could use that didn’t involve doing an end-run around the very Constitution we claim to be defending. For example, the Constitution does not permit a single penny of the people’s money to be appropriated without consent of the House of Representatives, and who controls that?
Why the Republicans with their spineless Speaker John Boehner of course. They could just refuse to allocate any funding for Obamacare. All it takes is the will to defend the republic and the integrity to truly mean it when you swear your oath of office. However, it’s obvious after the last two years the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. has neither, which means we the people will have to do it for them.
That starts by electing state and local officials who understand what Alexander Hamilton meant when he wrote in Federalist 78:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
It’s time for a rule of law voter’s guide to make sure our candidates understand the Constitutional scheme, and what the Founders meant by the aforementioned words written by Alexander Hamilton. I submit the following questions as just such a guide to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Did our Founding Fathers intend for us to be subject to “laws” passed by people we did not elect?
Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says that judges have the legal authority to make the law?
Is there anything in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or any of our founding documents that says the other two branches of government are inferior to the judicial branch?
Does either the federal or your state Constitution say the ultimate political authority rests with the people or the courts?
Does either the federal or your state Constitution enumerate the power of making law to any branch other than the legislature?
When the courts attempt to impose on our God-given rights, what recourse do “we the people” have? For example, when the court eventually decides it wants to take away our right to self-defense (two recent court opinions only upheld the Second Amendment by a slim 5-4 vote), do we then just hand over our guns because the court said so?
Are the legislative and executive branches automatically compelled to submit to ever court opinion as if it has the force of law no matter what? If you’re in public office, should your first allegiance be to uphold the literal wording of your state and federal Constitution, or a court opinion? Is there ever a moral case to be made for ignoring a disobeying a court opinion, and if so what is it?
What is the “law” and what is it based on? Is the “law” an already determined standard, or does it evolve? If you think it’s a determined standard, what determines it? If it evolves, what do you think evolves it? What is the highest law? What if there is a conflict between the highest law and the law being executed/interpreted? What resolves that conflict?
Oh, and the next time one of these Republicans tells you there’s nothing we can do while the courts pillage and plunder the Constitution other than just vote for anybody with a “R” after their name to get conservative justices, tell them you’ve got two words for them—“John Roberts.”
Then kick them in the shin as hard as you can with a steel-toed boot.