If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Michael Gaddy, ©2015

The anti-Federalists, one of whom was Robert Yates, opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution for fear that a strong centralized government would encroach upon the citizens’ unalienable rights

(Oct. 21, 2015) — (Author’s note: Robert Yates, delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 from New York, would, along with fellow NY delegate John Lansing, leave the convention in Philadelphia on July 5, 1787, citing their reasons for leaving in a letter to NY Governor George Clinton that the representatives to the convention were exceeding the powers delegated to them by their state legislators.

Yates was on the committee which formed the first constitution for the state of New York. He was appointed to the New York Supreme court in 1777 and became the Chief Justice in 1790. Yates, along with Lansing and Governor George Clinton, would lead the opposition to the ratification of the Constitution in the New York Ratification Convention in 1788. Yates was imminently qualified to address the issues surrounding the proposed Supreme Court. This article will deal with Yates’ predictions on what the US Supreme Court would become in his writings under the title “Brutus.” History has proved Yates to be quite the visionary.)

The Supreme Court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government and subject to no control… I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a position so little responsible…” Brutus, 15th Essay, published in The New York Journal, March 20, 1788.

Yates was right on the money in his prediction; we have no effective constitution; the government we have is an oligarchy composed of nine lawyers, that is, as Yates predicted, subject to no control whatsoever and exalted above all other powers. That is why discussion of this or that in the Constitution is futile.

The Supreme Court has proved with the last two most published decisions; Obamacare and the gay marriage issue, that the law is whatever they say it is. Constitution; we don’t need no stinking constitution; we have nine clowns in black gowns.

There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions. The adjudications of this court are final and irreversible, for there is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions.” ~Brutus

Was this unlimited, non-appealable, judicial branch designed by the Federalists to gradually evolve over time into the oligarchy we have today? While that is subject to speculation, the fact Federalist John Marshall, who as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, spent 34 years establishing all the precedents the jurists of today required to overthrow any limitations on their powers, is unassailable.

Marshall proved himself to be a duplicitous liar over and over again. In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Marshall would state the Supreme Court could only rule on federal law, and not state statutes. It only took Marshall a few short years to prove himself a liar. In Fletcher v. Peck, the Supreme Court not only overruled a state law but struck down a state law that prevented the State of Georgia from stopping a corrupt land deal. In this decision, Chief Justice Marshall rejected the argument that the State of Georgia was the sovereign agent for the people of Georgia. The fed is now in control and state sovereignty destroyed.

In Marbury v. Madison, a case in which Marshall was personally involved in his previous position as Secretary of State and should have recused himself, the court established the precedent of “judicial review” which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. This established the court’s ability to void acts of congress which they might see as unconstitutional. While Thomas Jefferson challenged the Marshall Court ruling, and Marshall himself, the precedent had been set for the US Supreme Court to assume the power of the oligarchy.

“…this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature… The Supreme Court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away…” ~ Brutus

Again, Robert Yates (Brutus) correctly predicts in 1788 what our Supreme Court is today. Where are the constraints on this uncontrollable, tyrannical, despotic branch of government that operates on its own power, separate and apart from not only the legislature and the executive but also the people themselves? How many people in this country today believe that the law is whatever the Supremes say it is? How many people in government and those carrying a badge believe the same? If the Supreme Court were to declare any and all who oppose their ruling to be enemy combatants and to effect our disarmament, where are those who would oppose that ruling in the law enforcement community?

“This part of the plan is so modeled, as to authorize the courts, not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions.” ~ Brutus

I am sure there are those out there who have in their minds that should the Supreme Court become so despotic as to create laws that would eliminate any opposition to their reign, those in authority would step up and move to stop this gross usurpation of power. Dream on, Broomstick Cowboys.

Here are the words of a Sheriff in the great state of Colorado which fully illustrates ignorance of his constitutional duties. I assure you there are many more of him than there are of those who are properly informed who carry a badge.

“Although I have great respect and admiration for each of my colleague Sheriffs and police chiefs across the country, I take exception with the handful of public servants who have suggested that they would reject enforcement of any “unconstitutional mandates,” specifically related to the Second Amendment. The rhetoric, of the few, related to these significant constitutional issues has been interpreted by many who believe that a person in a position of authority might be able to determine the constitutionality of an issue. If an issue were to be arbitrarily deemed “unconstitutional,” the decision to curtail further enforcement responsibilities would be in direct conflict with the concept of the balance of powers, as defined by our founders… Public safety professionals serving in the executive branch, do not have the constitutional authority, responsibility, and in most cases, the credentials to determine the constitutionality of any issue. The authority and responsibility to determine the legality and/or constitutionality of a matter is to be accomplished by the judicial branch, as clearly defined in the Constitution.” (Emphasis added)

Any despot in history would be overjoyed to have this man on their staff. I offer the above only to address the belief by those who place faith in so-called patriot groups among the standing armies of this country that there are those who will challenge “the law” as interpreted by the judicial branch, in particular the Supreme Court.

Our current sheriff, when asked in a public forum if he would challenge the encroachment of the federal government on the constitutional rights of the citizens of our county responded, “By what authority?”

One could simply ask the residents of New Orleans how well those in authority protected their constitutional rights after Hurricane Katrina. Members of law enforcement and the military went door to door seizing privately owned firearms, even in areas of the city that were not affected by the flood waters. To believe this will not happen in significant numbers, should they be so ordered, is counter-intuitive to the concepts of Liberty and the lessons of history.

It is absolutely imperative if we are to return to a government which honors and protects the Creator-granted rights of the individual, a greater number of the people must come to the realization the only remedy is to be found in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and of the individual states and the courage to demand those rights be enforced.

The Anti-federalists correctly predicted where the constitution of the Federalists would take us without liberal doses of both knowledge and courage. Robert Yates (Brutus) certainly knew how the Supreme Court would be used to subvert our rights. Men such as Yates deserve much more credit than those who authored and perverted Liberty; Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall are prime examples.

In Rightful Liberty