In 1819
Thomas Jefferson gave America this warning:
Evolving Law, with
no moral Right or Wrong:
For the first hundred years of American Independence, the Constitution
was considered the Law of the land. Toward the end of the
nineteenth century Charles Darwin wrote his famous book "Origin of the
Species." The dean of the Harvard Law college, Christopher
Columbus Langdell, read Darwin's book, and he reasoned, if man evolved
from apes then law should also be an evolving idea, which changes as
man changes. By the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the
concept of Legal Relativism began to be formulated. The
encyclopedia describes the basic tenets of relativism:
The display of the Ten Commandments is offensive to many court judges because it points to moral values of right and wrong, which is contrary to Legal Relativism which many judges adhere to. Christopher Langdell formulated a system of Case Law, 4 in which Judges would no longer refer to the Constitution as the cornerstone of our law, but would refer to other Judge's rulings in other cases. As time goes on there are more and more court cases to draw opinions from with more and more divergent ideas with no standard for right or wrong.
Case law is a similar idea. You get each Judges opinion from another Judge as to what the Constitution means, never going back to the source. Eventually you have a wide array of "case" opinions with which to chose from both pro and con on just about any situation. As the Twentieth Century began, the concept of Legal Relativism and Case Law were taught in more and more law schools across America. Today on the Supreme Court, six of the nine Justices believe the Constitution can be rewritten from decision to decision, depending on the current national or worldwide trends. Recently Justices Breyer and Ginsburg (Clinton appointees) for the first time cited foreign legal precedents as primary authority for its decision. We no longer look to our Constitution as the cornerstone of truth but, to other countries which have decriminalize conduct which the majority of American's consider immoral, and thus, the Texas sodomy law was overturned in 2003.
Judicial
Activism:
Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), the Court's Chief
Justice from 1930 to 1941, declared that:
The concept of the Constitution being an organic document that changes through time and can only be interpreted by judges is a widely held view in the judicial system today. This view by the judiciary is similar to the medieval Catholic Church view, which held that only priest were able to read and interpret the Bible for the people. This is an elitist view point which says only judges on the court are worthy or capable of deciding what is right for the people.
[T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from from its role of assuring--as neutral observer--that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many American do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Six Supreme Court Justices have chosen not to be good citizens willing to acquiesce to the choice of the majority; but rather, they prefer to place their own will above the will of the People. This can be seen in decision after decision which the court heavy handily stiffs Religious Freedom, and overturns the Constitution's First Amendment. This spite for all things Religious is directly opposed to the will of the People, the majority who believe in God.
the Court’s opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Santa Fe v. Doe descenting view by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Judges all across America are quick to declare a law Unconstitutional if they feel it does not meet their view of how things should be. As an example, in November of 2004 President George W. Bush signed into law a ban on Partial Birth Abortions. This Bill had taken many years to draft and pass through the Congress, and the majority of the People support this ban, yet within one hour of the President signing the bill ONE judge was able to block the law from going into effect!
Most Federal Judges are appointed for life, with little fear of impeachment. They do not have to answer to anyone, and so the abuse of their positions goes unchecked. I agree with the words of Thomas Jefferson at the top of this page and below.
"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped." 6 Thomas Jefferson
I believe that the time has come to correct this apparent
flaw on our Constitution that allows Judges to go unchecked subverting
the Constitution of the United States. The approval process of
judge nominees in the Congress has become so politicized, split along
party lines, which has led the Democrats to mount a filibuster against
the Presidents Judicial Nominees: thus blocking a vote in the
Senate. Since many judges feel they are in the business of
creating laws rather then interpreting the Constitution, I feel it is
time to make them accountable to the People. Congress has a new
bill which addresses this problem. . .
[ Summary & Conclusion ]
[ Getting Involved ]
[ Site Map ]
Constitutional Restoration Act, stopping activist judges.
[ Supreme Court Cases on Religious Freedom ]
Last Update May 2006