“During earlier periods,” stated Dr. Walter Williams, “Congress and the Supreme Court had far greater respect for the Constitution. They understood that if the federal government was to have a power not delegated, or expressly forbidden, by the Constitution, they had to use the provisions of Article V to gain the power by amendment.” For example, in 1919 Congress understood that to prohibit the sale of alcohol, it required the passage of the 18th Amendment. “Today, it’s an entirely different story. Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court have abiding contempt for the Constitution and . . . Americans are left with a constitutional carcass.”
As Dr. Williams pointed out, “No matter what [Americans may] think about the alcohol prohibitionists, [they] can have a bit of admiration for them because [the alcohol prohibitionists] used the constitutional route to get their agenda across.” Whereas today, “constitutional stealth” (e.g., taxation, majority votes for legislation and “totalitarian tactics” of agencies like the EPA, FDA, SEC and IRS) seems to be employed to circumvent the Constitution; thereby avoiding the amendment process required by Article V.
Dr. Williams continued, “. . . the education establishment has played a greater role through the dumbing down of Americans. The resulting ignorance has allowed . . . charlatans and quacks in the legal profession [to] tell [Americans] what the Constitution means.” When the Constitution was written, it was easily understood by a nation of mostly farmers, not intellectual elites.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to do 17 things. Today, probably 75% of what the federal government does, falls outside the 17 powers authorized under the Constitution. For the past 80-to-100 years, both Congress and the Executive branch have continually violated their oath to uphold the Constitution, leaving the constitutionality of the interpretation and administration of legislation, solely to the Supreme Court.
In other words, Congress and the Executive branch act as if they can do anything they want to accomplish their objectives, without considering whether or not their acts and legislation are constitutional; and, it is up to the Supreme Court to intercede, if, and only if, those Americans harmed, have the time and financial wherewithal to spend years and millions-of-dollars fighting the U.S. Government.
Unfortunately, for Americans, the Supreme Court has opted to reinterpret the Constitution granting more government power while eroding individual freedom and private property rights. As a result, even if an American has the time and can afford to spend millions-of-dollars to challenge the U.S. Government all the way to the Supreme Court, the likelihood of the case being heard; and, even if heard, to prevail, is highly unlikely.
Thomas Jefferson warned us about this. “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.” When it comes to recent Supreme Court cases dealing with the curtailment of individual freedom, 5-to-4 decisions illustrate Jefferson’s charge that the justices have “the same passions for party” as the rest of Americans.
To curtail the Supreme Court Justices’ . . . “passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps,” we must bind the justices to one specific method of constitutional interpretation; they must be restricted to interpreting the Constitution under a doctrine of “rightful liberty” or freedom.
For example, the Supreme Court is made up of nine justices. At this time, all attended Harvard and Yale Law Schools and all but one graduated; Justice Ginsberg attended Harvard Law, but, graduated from Columbia Law School. These justices are considered some of the best jurists in the country from top-rated law schools, yet many of their opinions are 5-to-4 split decisions. Even among the majority and minority opinions, the justices falling into either camp, tend to issue their own separate opinions while arriving at the same conclusions. However, they use a different argument or approach to constitutional interpretation than other members within their respective camps.
If nine of the best legal experts in the country cannot agree on what a statute or legislation means, how are average Americans to understand such legislation? When Supreme Court Justices cannot agree on the meaning of legislation, then maybe the statute ought to be void-for-vagueness. Further, if there is a lack of unanimity among the jurists, similar to the rules for federal court jury verdicts, any legislation, that attempts to restrict or take away the “unalienable Rights . . . [to] Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” or individual property, ought to be void and unconstitutional.
There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Constitution was written to restrict government; to protect the individual against an energetic and tyrannical government; to protect the minority from the majority or enthusiastic minorities with an agenda; and, to protect individual private property rights. Over time, these restrictions and protections have been turned upside down with the assistance of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, to take politics out of the Supreme Court and restore freedom, the rules of the Supreme Court must be changed. The Supreme Court must accept all cases dealing with the infringement, restriction, or elimination of an individual inalienable right and the confiscation or taxation or regulation of private property. In addition, the nine Justices must reach a unanimous verdict; otherwise, the decision should automatically be in favor of the individual against the government, and, the statute or legislation should be deemed void and unconstitutional.
Changing the rules of the Supreme Court, along with taking power away from Congress by repealing the 16th Amendment, the right of Congress to tax incomes, and, separating Education and State, are just several recommendations found in The United States Government is Illegitimate, available through www.JeffersonianGroup.com or from www.Amazon.com.
If Americans are not able to make these changes, the great experiment in individual freedom, which began in 1776, “may yet be defeated by the high birth rate of unwilling or indoctrinated ignorance.”
Dum Spiro, spero—While I breathe, I hope.
Slainte mhath,
Robert G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.
