U.S. Constitution: Why the Liberal Judges and Liberal Media are so Dangerous

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." --James Madison, Federalist No. 10, 1787

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Reading Madison's quote, it becomes apparent that judicial review, and the liberal activist judge's political agenda that comes into play when they hear a case, are such dangerous propositions. In the case of judicial review, in fact, the concept goes against everything the U.S. Constitution was supposed to be about.

Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, all of the powers belonged to the States. The States decided for themselves how to regulate commerce, immigration, the right to bear arms, and every other issue one can think of. After a number of events, including Shays' Rebellion in 1786, the founders realized that the confederation in place under the Articles of Confederation (America's first Constitution) would not be able to protect the fragile union. There needed to be a new government, a federal government, a central government strong enough to form a better union, establish a federal judicial system to oversee cases affecting federal issues, serve as a mediator between the States to resolve the issues that divided them, protect the union with a military, and make sure that an overall general welfare envelope the States that were united under this new government by providing for the aforementioned issues, which in turn would secure the liberty fought for in the American Revolution for themselves, and all future generations (See 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 defence, 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).

Creating a central government, however, also posed a great risk, for it was central governments that were the culprits when it came to the rise of tyranny. The new Americans needed a lion strong enough to serve the union, and protect the union, yet a cage strong enough to restrain that lion so that it didn't eat the people.

The Constitution, with its limiting principles, would serve as that restraint on the new federal government.

The States, in order to allow the federal government to perform the tasks necessary to protect, preserve and promote the union, transferred some of their authorities to the federal government. The powers vested in the new system were limited, and those were the only authorities given. The States created the federal government, and wanted to make sure it remained limited to the authorities it was given, and if the federal government needed more power, it could only be the States that could give the government any new authorities. The Tenth Amendment explains it nicely, basically saying that any powers not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, remained a State authority (10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people).

To put it in a nut shell, the Constitution (that includes all amendments) tells the federal government what it is allowed to do. If the authority is not given to the federal government by the States, the federal government is not supposed to have that authority. If the federal government desires a new authority, the Congress can propose a new amendment, and the States then can decide through ratification whether or not to give the federal government permission to have that authority. The States, likewise, can give, or take away, powers to or from the federal government through the amendment process (Article V. Convention).

Like all centralized governments in history, the United States Government yearns for more power. The people that govern think they should have access to more authority than what is provided by the U.S. Constitution. And this is not a recent development. The drive for more federal authorities, regardless of whether or not the Constitution provides for those authorities, became an issue early on. Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall were a couple of the early statists that pushed the envelope, working to circumvent the Constitution in their quest for big government, and a federal leviathan that granted itself power at will.

Alexander Hamilton, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, argued for bigger government. He proclaimed that the President should be an American King, the United States should be an empire, and through mercantilism the government should be able to manipulate the economy, and gain political and financial favors and fortunes by playing favorites with the corporations. The rest of the delegates had other ideas that were contrary to Hamilton's suggestions, and in fact Hamilton's fellow New Yorkers, who held an extreme opposite opinion to his (they were Anti-Federalists) actually walked out of the convention, leaving Hamilton alone to represent New York - alone, and with no vote since one man could not represent their State through a voting power.

Having failed to make America a new empire with a strong centralized government at the helm, Hamilton turned to economic manipulation, and the courts. Alexander Hamilton created the Bank of the United States (the first of two) that worked much like today's Federal Reserve so as to guide the economic policy, and manipulate the markets. During the process of creating the national bank, Hamilton also conjured up the concept of Implied Power, which also has served as a means of circumventing the Constitution so that the federal government may do as it pleases.

Through his buddy, Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's statist goals also made headway in 1803. The statists wanted the courts to be able to interpret the Constitution so that they could bend and twist it at will. In the case Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote in his opinion that the federal courts have the power of Judicial Review. What this means is that he decided the federal courts have the authority to decide if laws passed by Congress, and signed by the President, were Constitutional. By giving the courts this power to interpret the Constitution, the States were cut out of the constitutional process, and if the right people were put into Congress and the White House, they could use the courts to verify that their tyrannical actions were Constitutional, even if the opposite were true (the 17th Amendment in 1913 completed the process of cutting the States out of the picture, taking away State representation from the Congress).

Understand that first, the courts gave themselves this power (some may even say "seized" this power, or "stole" this power). The States never authorized the federal courts to be the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution. Second, one must realize that the federal courts are a part of the federal government, and to determine if something is constitutional is to determine if the federal government may possess the power being discussed. So, when the Supreme Court decides that a federal law is constitutional, as we have all been conditioned to believe is the way things are supposed to go, the federal government is literally deciding for itself what its own authorities are.

Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and filled it with limiting principles?

Today's judges take that ill-gotten power to the hilt, and the liberal media cheers them on, as if they think it is a good thing that government intrudes more and more in the lives of the citizens. Because of the media, and the indoctrination we receive through a liberal-infiltrated education system, we have been conditioned that the courts have the powers they say they have, and there's nothing we can do about it since that's the way it has always been.

Fact is, there is something we can do about it. It may take a couple generations, but we have to start the process, and we have to teach the next generation how to continue the process - otherwise, there may not be a free America for our children and grandchildren in the future.

The Founding Fathers gave us four tools for taking back our country. One of those methods is a last resort, and the tool the founder's used - violent revolution. The other three tools for taking back America are what we are working to use now.

A peaceful revolution is used through voting, being active in your local area, and taking active steps to change the government from the ground up by putting patriots into local offices while also working to put statesmen (as opposed to politicians) in Washington. The peaceful revolution is achieved by speaking out at townhall meetings, being active in organizations like your local Tea Party, and being in constant contact with your representatives.

Nullification requires your involvement at the State level. It is up to you to be a voice for the Constitution, reminding your State representatives that it is the States and the People that are the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Vote in people who understand this at your State level of government. Call them. Email them. Write them. When the federal government tries to force a State to abide by an unconstitutional federal law, urge your State to nullify that law by ignoring it, and to ignore the federal court orders that demand the State comply. If the law is unconstitutional, the States do not have to abide by them. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, a contract that is breached every time the federal government passes unconstitutional laws. California, for example, should ignore the federal courts when they tell the State that Proposition 8 (California State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman) is unconstitutional, because marriage is not a federal government issue. It is up to the States to decide how that issue is approached.

Finally, the founders gave us as a way to change the Constitution, and the federal government, the amendment process. We are taught that the only way to amend the U.S. Constitution is by the U.S. Congress proposing amendments, and that is not true. In fact, originally the Founding Fathers were not going to give Congress that authority. The decision to give Congress the authority to propose amendments was granted during the final days of the Constitutional Convention of 1785. Originally, on the States were going to be allowed to propose amendments. In fact, The Bill of Rights were proposed by the States.

Article V. of the U.S. Constitution keeps in place the power of the States to propose amendments. This process is called an "Article V. Convention." Whenever two-thirds of the States apply for a convention, the U.S. Congress is tasked with the responsibility to set up a place and date for said convention. The States can then send delegates, chosen in a manner as each State deems fit, to propose amendments. On voting to determine if the proposed amendments should go to the State Legislatures for ratification, each State gets one vote. This is a way to change the Constitution without federal government influence. Through the Article V. Convention we can add amendments to the Constitution requiring the federal government balance the budget, require bills pass constitutional muster before going to the President for signature, and clarifying the limited powers of the courts (like taking away the unconstitutional power of Judicial Review for good).

All 50 States have applied for a convention (nearly 750 applications since 1791), and the federal government has refused to call one. The federal government fears an Article V. Convention, and will do anything it can to avoid allowing such an event to take place. This is why we must make noise, and educate people about this very important tool given to us by the Founding Fathers. If we work and work and work at this, eventually the noise will get so loud that we will come to a tipping point, and the federal government will have no choice but to call a convention.

These tools mean nothing, however, if the people do not get involved and demand their use.

We have been afraid of the courts, and the cesspool of Washington, for too long. Get active, get involved, and let's take back America. . . together!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary