IS THE JUDICIARY FUNCTIONING AS WAS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDERS?
by Rosalind Graham
(Jan. 4, 2010) — With the utmost respect for you, Chief Justice Roberts, I am compelled to contact you and comment on The Wall Street Journal article in which you allegedly ‘decry’ what you describe as ‘brawling’ over Judicial nominees.
This ‘brawling’ description of the Constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the United States Senate to advise and consent, on Presidential nominations to the courts of our country, reflects a frankly appalling lack of understanding, ON YOUR PART, of the state of our country, and the perils we face in the immediate and far reaching future.
Judicial activism is at the core of the problems we are facing in this country and we, the people, are fighting to restore the judicial system to its proper place within the Constitution. The only way we, the people, can achieve this laudable goal is to ‘brawl’ in the halls of the U. S. Senate and fight tooth and nail to see that judicial activists are not confirmed to lifetime positions from which they can destroy the country with impunity.
We are inundated throughout the country, and at every judicial level, with blatantly activist judges, already appointed and confirmed to lifetime positions on the courts of the nation, who are inventing and creating implausible rationales to justify inflicting and mandating their own personal agendas on all citizens, of what the future of the United States should be — AS INDISPUTABLE LAW.
The Founding Fathers miraculously granted us a system wherein the sole mandate of the judicial system was to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not to rewrite it based on personal objectives. Our system was designed to adjudicate, based solely on Constitutionality, what Congress in its collective wisdom created as law on behalf of the citizenry.
And, most importantly, the judicial system was NOT created to thumb its nose at the will of the majority of citizens and especially NOT to obliterate the mandated will of the people of the United States with the flourish of a pen — based on personal vendettas.
Perhaps you missed the awakening of the American people to the destruction of the Constitution being perpetrated upon us by judicial activism? It was shouted loud and clear on November 2, 2010, after the behavior of the judicial system and of Congress relative to Congress’s passive acquiescence in confirming and granting known activist judges a lifetime opportunity to insidiously advance incremental Constitutional reconstruction.
As just one example leading to the 2010 revolution, I cite the judicial activism in Iowa in which judges decided that the people of Iowa were not allowed to amend their own state Constitution to define the sanctity of marriage to be restricted to that unique relationship between one man and one woman. — AFTER THE PEOPLE OF IOWA VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO DO SO. The people then decisively voted out all three of those judges who were up for retention and who were responsible for that abhorrent and unconstitutional decision. YET THAT DECISION RENDERED AGAINST THE MAJORITY WILL OF THE PEOPLE REMAINS THE LAW OF IOWA — WITH NO RECOURSE BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.
The core of the responsibility of the judicial system lies with those who are appointed to the courts. It is NOT the Constitutional responsibility of the U. S. Senate to maintain an artificial balance on any court in the land between judges who uphold the Constitution and those who don’t, as is routinely used as justification today to confirm known liberal nominees; as witnessed by the two most recent nominees and confirmations to the U. S. Supreme Court — not to uphold the Constitution but rather, TO MAINTAIN AN ARTIFICIAL BALANCE AND THE ‘STATUS QUO.’
Advise and Consent in no way can be construed to mean a responsibility to confirm judges, at the sole discretion of the president, if the president nominates anyone who will clearly strive, with an obvious agenda, to reconstruct the Constitution rather than uphold its core tenets and principles. The responsibility of the Senate is to confirm only those appointees who will uphold the existing Constitution, AND TO DECISIVELY REJECT THOSE WHO CLEARLY WON’T.
We, the people, in our awakening, have sent an enormous number of new people to Washington to answer to the will of the people, replacing those who did not hear and accept our will. And we are making it clear that if the newcomers don’t stand up for the Constitution they, too, will quickly be replaced. Answering to the will of the people means confirming judges who will uphold the Constitution.
There is a cadre in Washington and especially in the higher echelons of the current government that is determined to rewrite the Constitution by any means possible. When we, the people, and the existing Congress collectively refuse to submit legislatively to those who wish to refashion the Constitution, the standard procedure is to resort to the judicial system — where judicial activists are glad to oblige with impunity. Therefore, to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, the judicial system must be revamped to stop this unconstitutional takeover of the country by judicial fiat!!!
The only method available to we, the people, to restore the judiciary to its proper place in the Constitution and to counteract the agenda of those who specifically wish to reconstruct the Constitution, is to engage in any degree of ‘brawling’ that is necessary to confirm only those judges who will uphold the Constitution.
I strongly suggest you rethink ‘brawling’ and understand that we, the people, are in a ‘war-to-the-death,’ metaphorically speaking, for the heart, soul and future of the United States of America that our Founding Fathers granted us; and if ‘brawling’ achieves a Constitutional future for the country, then may the Lord bless the United States of America in its ‘brawling’ to save the country!!
It is so much more important to have judges who will uphold the Constitution than it is to have every judicial slot filled!!!! At least if the slots are vacant, the Constitution isn’t destroyed as quickly. SO, STAY OUT OF THIS CRITICAL FRAY while we, the people, fight this out to a conclusion — that is our proper role under the Constitution, NOT YOURS.
Supreme Court justices are not appointed to lifetime positions, but rather, as the Constitution states, they “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”.
I have been reading these articles and opinions for some time now,and even though I
still remain somewhat computor iliterate, I have managed to submit an occasional
opinion. I think it is time for serious considerations.
we have seen court case after court case of legitimate grievances be ignored by our
government; we are witness to inumerable letters being ignored or given insulting
responses by every elected official; we are witness to an Honorable man with courage
and conviction be humiliated through an illegally convened court marshal. In all this the
will of the people and justice are continually ignored. We are continually being told “we
the people” have no standing.
It is now the time of year “we the people” have the opportunity to ignore the oppressors;
show them they have no standing. This is hardly a new idea but I submit it is time for a
serious commitment to some form of action.
All it would take is for a significant number of patriotic citizens to refuse to file their tax
forms,of course those who are expecting refunds would see it as folly,but there are
enough who will be accused of owing especially if small and large bussinesses would
co-operate. We could put such a burden on the i.r.s. and the goverment it could
conceivably shut it down.
For any who think this is too extreme, think back, not just over the last two years which
are justifacation enough, but back to the inception of the i.r.s.,which all who have
educated themselves on it know it has never been Constitutional.
I can see no other more effective course of action that would take little effort to organize
and should be bloodless at least on our part. How many of us have the courage and
resolve to force redress,or must it all rest on the back of Lt.Col. Lakin.
We should all be tired of paying for our own oppression.
Rosalind-Very good on most all points. However it must be pointed out that Jefferson was very concerned about the role that the Supreme Court ( and many inferior courts) were awarded in the Constitution, subject only to the whims of those in power, and thereby wresting power from the decisions of the people into the hands of a few. That is why he called it “the despotic branch” in his letters, and wished after-the-fact that they had done it a little differently. We now see the wisdom for his concerns. In your letter to Chief Justice Roberts, whom I respect a great deal, this could be pointed out. That won’t change anything really concrete, yet, but I’m sure he knows this already. That is why it needs to be emphasized to him. He can’t change the rule, only WE can. But when this happens, he and the others, will know that there is a great groundswell of people that know what is going on now, and demand a return to our founding principles, and he and his fellow Justices should be bound, “as with chains”, to the Constitution.
I, Rosalind, am very pleased that my open letter to Chief Justice Roberts is being read, and that it is generating responses. I would like to reply to keep this important conversation going:
Thank you, ‘thinkwell’ for responding to ‘Hemming, James,’ though I hope it is a stretch to suggest my pointing out that 70%, or so, of the voters in Iowa voting to amend their State Constitution amounted to ‘mob rule.’ I certainly did not mean to suggest that!! Rather I found such an overwhelming vote to amend the State Constitution to be the finest of Democratic principles, and the finest of examples of working within the core and the tenets of both the U. S. Constitution and the Iowa State Constitution. And I was particularly proud of Iowans that took the next step in voting out all of the judges that were up for retention.
I would like to address ‘Hemming, James’ as well:
Mr. Hemming; I find it interesting that you concentrated your comments on what, to me, was merely one of a plethora of examples of judicial activism I could have chosen and used, almost as an aside, to demonstrate how, in my opinion, the judiciary oversteps its legitimate Constitutional limitations.
HOWEVER, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, the people of Iowa did NOT vote for anything that is contrary to either the U. S. Constitution or more specifically to the Constitution of the State of Iowa — which is where they voted to codify by State Constitutional amendment the definition of marriage within the State of Iowa. Would you please document for me, by clause and section of the U. S. Constitution, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa, that it is anywhere unconstitutional to address the institution of marriage; as I cannot find any direct or implied indication the Founding Fathers addressed any mention of marriage in any of our Founding Documents. Nor am I aware of any federal legal precedent codifying any definition of marriage or codifying any prohibition thereof.
By the way: According to ‘Wikipedia’, thirty-one (31) states already have state Constitutional restrictions limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Restrictions that have withstood Constitutional scrutiny. Thirty-one states can individually define marriage as it suits the citizens of each of those states but the citizens of Iowa cannot???
As another aside, I do agree with your statement ” . . .it’s not for the courts to decide but for the voter.”
That is what the Founding Fathers wanted — a government by, of and for the people — and why it is written that even the Supreme Court can be overridden by legislation enacted by Congress, and the States, as in a Constitutional Amendment.
Thank you, ‘Toria,’ for your thoughtful comments which certainly add to the discussion and to ‘California Birther/Dualer/Doubter,’ ‘Leo Patrick Haffey’, and to ‘Harry H’ as well.
‘David Schied’ your letter certainly highlights judicial misconduct!!! I didn’t know how to direct my letter to Chief Justice Roberts specifically and felt the forum of The Post & Email would spread my thoughts
widely. Now your thoughts will receive wide spread attention as well.
Rosalind,
This is a great letter – It certainly sounds like you let it all out. However:
I think a word needs to be said in defense of Chief Justice Roberts. As Chief Justice he DOES play a role in advocating for a functioning Federal Judiciary (He may have chosen the wrong word(s) – “Brawling”). The caseload on the Judiciary with so many spots unfilled results in “Justice Delayed” which, as we all know, is “Justice denied”. The other point about John Roberts is – he is generally regarded as a “STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST” – So he’s on “Your / Our” side. Maybe you could find it in your heart to cut him some slack?! At least he takes his work seriously.
ELmo
Bravo to Rosalind and Hemming James and Thinkwell and California Birther and all else who commented here. These are all “reasoned arguments” without ridicule of someone who holds an opposing viewpoint. Bravo to all for acting as participants in a “Representative Democracy” should act – if dissenting, then with reasoned dissent.
Most of all Bravo to Sharon Rondeau for providing the opportunity for diverse viewpoints – The MainStream Media could take notice here !!
ELmo
The US is not a Representative Democracy. It is Constitutional Republic.
The Founding Fathers Rejected Democracy
by Dr. Harold Pease
The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was “Republic,” which is not synonymous with “Democracy.” The word “Democracy” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.”
Read the rest here: http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/the-founding-fathers-rejected-democracy/
AuntieMadder,
It is customary, in some quarters, to use the phrase “Representative Democracy” to explain what a “Republic” is. This is very common usage and is not meant to imply that a “Republic” is a “Pure” “Democracy”. It is just a term used to help people understand that in a “Republic” the electorate does not vote directly for or against the laws, but they directly elect “Representatives” to cast votes in their stead; that is, to represent them in the “Republic’s” seat of government. Now mind you, the representative is not compelled to vote as the majority would dictate, but rather as his/her (better?) judgement should require. The quality of this pool of representatives is directly related to the involvement of the Electorate (Term Limits are called Elections and Representatives with poor judgement should be voted out of office by and informed Electorate). As one such Representative put it:
“Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays rather than serves you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”
– Edmund Burke-
(Supporter of the Colonial Rebellion and member of Parliament 1765-1780)
Hope this is helpful
ELmo
Agreed. The US is a republic (rule of law) and not a democracy (rule of the majority).
A “Representative Democracy” is Self-contradicting. Democracy is self-governance by majority rule meaning nobody is elected to represent and vote for you and you as well as everyone else instead vote collectively to pass laws, decide what will be in them, decide cases and controversies with only juries and no judges, etc.. But for a system of Government like that to actually work all those things would be duties of all the People not compensable as employment but that would also allow for more resources to be used on improving everyones overall quality of living as a whole. Current Government officials constantly distort what the structure of Government is and what it is supposed to be. We are a United Republic of Republic States with limited and defined delegated Powers which are enumerated in the National and State Constitutions. The only positions which were authorized and are considered to “serve” the People are the members of Congress or State Legislatures, the President or Governors and the Judiciaries But yet take for example there are well over 400 Federal Agencies composed of unelected Officers who are all appointed and unaccountable to the People and they hold Powers that were never authorized by us but are also Powers which we may not exercise but they can. The idea of this hybrid theory is also what’s bankrupting our country, we have overgrown federal and state governments which provide grossly inadequate service that expects their pensions and salaries to be paid no matter what, payment which comes from “investment” in the residential property of the People whom they charge at Usurious rates.
The only way to fix or dysfunctional Government is to Abolish it and Start from Scratch. We can ALL decide later how it will be formed and function. Please Post this Petition for Public Signatures and get as many signatures possible.
“A Declaration by the People to Abolish the State and Federal Constitutions, Governments and Laws made in pursuance thereof.”
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/alter-and-abolish/
sooner or later you’ll have rule on prees Obama healthcare bill better known as Obamacare.what article,section or admeme gives him the right to pass a healthcare like he did.no were in the 10th admenment is left to states rights where is the constitution a flaud document like pres Obama says it is?
Just a thought – Robert Bork could be an excellent Czar of Judicial Activism. Just read his America That I Don’t Recognize.
One problem with James Hemming’s argument is that voting to restrict marriage to one man and one woman is not unconstitutional as he thinks it is. This restriction applies equally to everyone. The line has to be drawn somewhere; we are already seeing polygamists and advocates of other sick “marriages” wanting their “constitutional rights” to marry however the hell they please. Discrimination is justly applied in many cases besides marriages, and there is nothing unconstitutional about that. In this case, the judges have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of voters to shape society as they see fit.
Well Stated! not by a “brawl” but by a well reasoned argument.
The only method that we have to legally remove criminals brought to the federal bench by the BHO regime is to vociferously DEMAND that said CRIMINAL JUDGES be IMPEACHED by congress post haste.
state judges are a different matter entirely. We can vote or indict, prosecute and convict those BHO CRIMINAL cohorts out of office.
In the coming years there will be many CRIMINALS hung in effigy at the ballot box or by Jury Verdict, euphorically, figuratively, legally and freely speaking, of course.
I think that this would be a good time and place to release my letter to “chief just-us” John Robert as written early in 2010, to which this national “leader” neither acknowledged nor responded. The letter was delivered “certified” and was written as follows:
I think that this would be a good time and place to release my letter to “chief just-us” John Robert as written early in 2010, to which this national “leader” neither acknowledged nor responded. The letter was delivered “certified” and was written as follows:
____________________
2/18/2010
Attn: John G. Roberts, Jr. – Chief Justice of the United States
c/o James C. Duff – Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20544
Re: Complaint on Clarence Maddox, Circuit Executive for the Sixth Circuit Court; and NOTICE OF CORRUPTION in the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit Court
Dear Chief Justice John Roberts,
I have enclosed a copy of a recent letter I wrote to Clarence Maddox in complaint of repeated derelict actions that he has taken in regards to numerous “judicial misconduct” complaints I have filed against the judges of the Sixth Circuit, submitted in detail and with a plethora of supporting evidence.
The basis of my Judicial Misconduct complaints are simple: for the past six (6) years many of my civil and constitutional rights, including my rights to equal criminal protection and my victims’ rights, have been completely disregarded while local school district administrators freely disseminate to the public – under the Freedom of Information Act – copies of an erroneous 2003 FBI criminal history report and numerous three-decade old clemency documents (set aside, pardon, and expungement) I provided to these school district officials in exercise of my right in 2003 and 2004 to successfully “challenge and correct” the accuracy of the reports being propagated by the FBI in 2003 and in 2004. The actions of the Michigan school district officials constitute criminal “theft and conversion of government property”, a violation against the United States government as well as a criminal violation of my rights under numerous state and federal laws.
Nevertheless, despite being notified about all this and being provided even sworn and notarized witness testimony from multiple recipients of all these documents received illegally by FOIA request, the U.S. District Court judges and the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court continue to allow these government crimes to occur unabated. They also refuse my repeated requests that a federal Grand Jury or a Special Grand Jury be convened, or at least notified about these government crimes, as it is the DUTY of the Special Grand Jury, under 18 U.S.C. §3332(a), to “inquire about offenses against the criminal laws of the United States alleged to have been committed within that district”. I construe these judges’ refusals as not only a “misprision of felony” but also an “obstruction of justice” by interference with the proceedings of the special grand jury.
My multiple and ongoing State and Federal cases continue to be dismissed without litigation on the factual merits of my claims; and while both State and Federal prosecutors also refuse to address my combined reference to laws, specific allegations against specific individuals, and the specific Evidence of these crimes being committed. Moreover, they completely disregard the facts and evidence showing that local and State law enforcement and prosecutors, themselves, have been feloniously perjuring and mischaracterizing my crime reports, submitted to them by me personally with multiple copies of all of the above. This goes so far beyond “miscarriage of justice” to “JUDICIAL CORRUPTION” as to be nearly unbelievable. Yet the proof is all in the court records, and in my complaints about the judges of the Sixth Circuit, most significantly including the former and current “chief judges” Danny Boggs and Alice Batchelder.
I wish you, Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the Director of Administration, James C. Duff, and the body of the United States Supreme Court, to ALL be put on formal notice about these treasonous actions going on in the judicial offices of the Eastern District of Michigan and in the Sixth Circuit. I also wish to receive back from you, in a timely fashion, your personal written response to this letter, which is being written as my Complaint directly to you as the “chief administrative officer” and the spokesperson for the judicial branch of the United States; and therefore as the supervisory official ultimately responsible to the people of the United States for the performance of James Duff as the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
Respectfully,
Since when does it violate the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman?
Excellent letter Ms. Graham. Your words needed to be said. I hold Chief Justice Roberts responsible for what this country is having to endure. He has failed his leadership role, time and again, beginning with cases that directly addressed the Constitution and represented all the people of America (Article 2 Section 1) eligibility of the President. Then he ignored further, by meeting with Mr. Obama/Soetoro ex parte, while cases were pending before the committee and had not been ruled on, and further by not instructing Congress regarding their role in the electoral voting process and finally swearing in, not once but twice, a person with known questionable qualifications. Since this time, case after case comes before the Judicial Committee, further raising questions of Constitutional Issue, refusing to recuse two new justices for conflict of interest, even though the attorney requested such. Once the Obamacare bill reaches the Supreme Court, we can only imagine the outcome, with a failed history regarding this acting president that refuses to follow the law, writes unconstitutional law, defies the Constitution and the people of this nation. The actions of this Supreme Court has caused more harm than good and is not the intent of their role within the formation of government and this country. As long as we continue to voice our complaints in an intelligent manner, we have not become complacent and will ‘hold the line’ to our beliefs.
> decided that the people of Iowa were not allowed to amend their own state Constitution to define the sanctity of marriage to be restricted to that unique relationship between one man and one woman. — AFTER THE PEOPLE OF IOWA VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY TO DO SO.
I see a little inconsistency in your argument.
1. The American People overwhelmingly voted for Obama. That however doesn’t mean they are allowed to override the Constitution’s prerequisites for Presidency. Neither may the Iowan People vote for something that is contrary to the Constitution.
2. You reject the courts protecting the U.S. Constitution in the Iowa case, yet everyone here wants to have SCOTUS resolve the NBC issue or have a court-martial declare Obama ineligible, protecting the Constitution as they are required to.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the courts may step in if the Constitution is violated and the people cannot vote in violation of the Constitution – or the other way around.
Just because you do not like the resolution in the Iowa case does not mean you can effectively advocate what the Obots are saying: that “the people voted for Obama and that is more important than the Constitution” and that “it’s not for the courts to decide but for the voter”.
I don’t think you realize that is the argument you’re making here.
The flaw in Rosalind Graham’s argument was in not showing how the apparent contradiction and hypocrisy noticed by Hemming James only exists on the surface. Among other things, our Constitution (and those of the States) enumerate and protect the inalienable rights of the individual against the tyranny of the whim of the majority, i.e., mob-rule of a completely unfettered pure democracy – hence we were founded as a Republic.
Rosalind Graham’s mistake was basing (or at least appearing to base) her argument solely upon mob-rule instead of upon Constitutional principle, which nowhere protects the nonexistent “right” to same sex marriage (and which is why the will of the People should never have been thwarted in this case).
Your argument here Thinkwell is one of the most overlooked facts regarding the functions of a Constitutionally Protected Representative Democracy (Republic). Tyranny of the Majority is something the framers absolutely wanted to guard against.
ELmo
I wanted to leave this Madison Quote with my 1st Comment to Thinkwell (But I couldn’t remember it exactly and I had to look for it). It is particularly (I think) central to Thinkwell’s point (Madison was the quintessential “Framer”).
He (James Madison) Said:
“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.” -James Madison- (Often called “The Father of the Constitution”).
FYI The “Tyranny of the Majority” quotation most often heard is from Lord Acton.
ELmo
As I read that part of Rosalind Graham’s letter, I had the same thoughts about the US govt by design not being a democracy . Then, it hit me that the vote that Graham mentioned was taken at the state level, not at the federal level.
It’s a fact that at least some of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson and Madison, to be sure) rejected democracy at the federal level and that the US govt is not a democracy (in spite of the leftists in the state-run media and state run education who insist that it is). And while we can guess that the Founding Fathers may not have been too keen on rule by democracy at the state level, either, it’s my understanding that they left that decision up to each state. Therefore, the state of Iowa was perfectly within its bounds by the US Constitution to allow the citizens of Iowa to vote for or against same sex marriage.
I’m no scholar, and I expect that at least one of you here will correct me if I’m wrong about this, something I welcome. I’d rather stand corrected than sit stupid.