Tyranny and The Rights of Men
Governments hate to be thwarted, and they are very nasty when you tangle with them. What is happening in New London, Connecticut, is proof that tyranny will flourish when given the chance. The residents are being forced to pay back rent for occupying their homes until the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision on Kelo! They are also being paid according to 2000 prices, not current market rates!
That this has happened should come as no surprise to anyone; the Sups have reversed the purposes of the Constitution, making law act to protect Government rather than law acting as a break on government power. The Supreme Court has made it very clear to New London (and any other entity whose lust to seize property can overwhelm any political price to be paid) that they have carte blanche, and that there is no longer any ``controlling legal authority`` (as Al Gore would say) that they have to answer to. In short, the Supreme Court has removed Constitutional protections.
No one should be surprised if governments behave like thugs. Why, do you suppose, did Communists behave like Mafia? Why were the Nazis so vicious? Because they weren`t constrained by the Rule of Law. America has been greatly blessed by the Rule of Law. We are a nation with a Constitution, which acts as the highest law of the land-and we were a God-fearing culture which valued Biblical Law and obeyed civil law out of our duty under God. As a result, governments in the United States-Federal, State, and Local-found their power circumscribed by the Constitution, by Judeo-Christian morality, and by the sacred nature of the rights of freeholders. Kelo has taken the next step in the denigration of those restraints.
We have been walking this path for many years now, and the Supreme Court has been at the vanguard of this deteriorating condition. The Courts have given their blessing to numerous restrictions on the rights of property owners; the Fair Housing Act, the Rico forfeiture provisions, the erosion of search and seizure restrictions, Environmental restrictions, etc. These all fly in the face of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, yet the Court has stretched the Elastic Clause far beyond it`s elastic limit; it now resembles the comic book hero Plastic Man more than a serious governing document. The Courts have always found the public need to outweigh the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. (If you don`t believe that, think about the Dred Scott decision!)
Many of the Founding Fathers understood that this would happen with the Courts, and there was great concern about the possibility of a Judicial tyranny. That was why the Courts were given no rights to finance themselves, and no power to enforce their own orders. In Federalist78 Alexander Hamilton (a devout friend of big government) tries to assuage the fear of Judicial tyranny by pointing out the relative weakness of the third branch of government:
``whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are seperated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but hold the sword of the community. The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgement.``
His problem was he had no way of knowing that America would fall under the heal of a ``Fourth Branch`` of government, an unelected group which would seek to impose left-wing philosophy on the Nation through legislation and the Courts. The Media has dominated American life for a long, long time. Yellow journalism is an old term, and several moments in our history can be traced to it. (Remember the Maine? How about WWI? How about our defeat in Vietnam?) Liberals and their allies in the press (and later electronic media) have shriveled the will of the Executive and legislative branches (which both are responsible to the electorate) to impose a monarchy by Judicial fiat. They understand they cannot succeed with their program at the ballot box, and they certainly can`t convice people to voluntarily socialize, so they force it via the courts.
The fact is, the courts were set up to be subordinate to the other two branches of government, and if the other branches would assert themselves the courts would be powerless. Congress can cut off funds as well as impeach judges. The Executive branch is entrusted with enforcing court orders, and it could simply refuse. That is the dirty little secret nobody is talking about; nobody HAS to obey the courts! Hamilton makes that very clear in Federalist 78; the courts have the power of advice only. Their power stems from the other branches of government. Remember the Terri Schiavo case? The judge in the case flipped Congress the bird, and both Congress and the President failed to act in any material way. Congress could have sited the judge in contempt, the President could have enforced the Congressional subpeona, but the Executive and Legislative branches of government have gotten too used to rolling over to the Courts. The Abortion issue, for another example, could be ended by the Republican Congress and Republican President simply refusing to enforce Roe v. Wade. (Don`t hold your breath!)
Actually, that would be a calamitous decision, and should be used only in the direst need. (I think the Schiavo case clearly warranted it.) Still, it may have to be used at some point; the Courts simply have to be reigned in, and the threat of being overruled by the other branches of government would clearly act as a braking mechanism. As things stand now, the Courts know full well that their word is the absolute final judgment. Any parent knows that their child will grow completely out of control if allowed to make their own rules; in this same way our courts system has gone out-of-control. In short, the Courts have become spoiled brats, and it is time they were taken to the woodshed!
This Kelo decision is an example of the ease with which governments can strip the citizenry of their Constitutional and God-given rights. What has made America work has been the willingness of the nation to defer to Law over men. The Courts have determined that, much like Sylvester Stallone in the movie Judge Dred, they are the law, and their word is the embodiement of the fundamental rights of Man. What the Constitution, the Bible, the other branches of government have to say is immaterial; if they find a right to privacy, say, in the Constitution then, by all that is holy (themselves),it is there!
Congress must pass laws restricting Eminent Domain. It`s time the men and women we have all worked so hard to elect begin earning their pay. Such a law will undoubtedly be challenged in the Courts, and then we can see if the Supreme Court has the gall to strike it down. If they do, it may be time to launch the true ``nuclear option``, the Constitutional provision which says the Courts may advise, but that we don`t necessarily have to listen to them.
At least, one may dream!
For those of you who don`t think property is a fundamental right, read my American Thinker Article The First Right.
(Thanks to the American Thinker for the inspiring link.)
That this has happened should come as no surprise to anyone; the Sups have reversed the purposes of the Constitution, making law act to protect Government rather than law acting as a break on government power. The Supreme Court has made it very clear to New London (and any other entity whose lust to seize property can overwhelm any political price to be paid) that they have carte blanche, and that there is no longer any ``controlling legal authority`` (as Al Gore would say) that they have to answer to. In short, the Supreme Court has removed Constitutional protections.
No one should be surprised if governments behave like thugs. Why, do you suppose, did Communists behave like Mafia? Why were the Nazis so vicious? Because they weren`t constrained by the Rule of Law. America has been greatly blessed by the Rule of Law. We are a nation with a Constitution, which acts as the highest law of the land-and we were a God-fearing culture which valued Biblical Law and obeyed civil law out of our duty under God. As a result, governments in the United States-Federal, State, and Local-found their power circumscribed by the Constitution, by Judeo-Christian morality, and by the sacred nature of the rights of freeholders. Kelo has taken the next step in the denigration of those restraints.
We have been walking this path for many years now, and the Supreme Court has been at the vanguard of this deteriorating condition. The Courts have given their blessing to numerous restrictions on the rights of property owners; the Fair Housing Act, the Rico forfeiture provisions, the erosion of search and seizure restrictions, Environmental restrictions, etc. These all fly in the face of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, yet the Court has stretched the Elastic Clause far beyond it`s elastic limit; it now resembles the comic book hero Plastic Man more than a serious governing document. The Courts have always found the public need to outweigh the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. (If you don`t believe that, think about the Dred Scott decision!)
Many of the Founding Fathers understood that this would happen with the Courts, and there was great concern about the possibility of a Judicial tyranny. That was why the Courts were given no rights to finance themselves, and no power to enforce their own orders. In Federalist78 Alexander Hamilton (a devout friend of big government) tries to assuage the fear of Judicial tyranny by pointing out the relative weakness of the third branch of government:
``whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are seperated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but hold the sword of the community. The Legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgement; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgement.``
His problem was he had no way of knowing that America would fall under the heal of a ``Fourth Branch`` of government, an unelected group which would seek to impose left-wing philosophy on the Nation through legislation and the Courts. The Media has dominated American life for a long, long time. Yellow journalism is an old term, and several moments in our history can be traced to it. (Remember the Maine? How about WWI? How about our defeat in Vietnam?) Liberals and their allies in the press (and later electronic media) have shriveled the will of the Executive and legislative branches (which both are responsible to the electorate) to impose a monarchy by Judicial fiat. They understand they cannot succeed with their program at the ballot box, and they certainly can`t convice people to voluntarily socialize, so they force it via the courts.
The fact is, the courts were set up to be subordinate to the other two branches of government, and if the other branches would assert themselves the courts would be powerless. Congress can cut off funds as well as impeach judges. The Executive branch is entrusted with enforcing court orders, and it could simply refuse. That is the dirty little secret nobody is talking about; nobody HAS to obey the courts! Hamilton makes that very clear in Federalist 78; the courts have the power of advice only. Their power stems from the other branches of government. Remember the Terri Schiavo case? The judge in the case flipped Congress the bird, and both Congress and the President failed to act in any material way. Congress could have sited the judge in contempt, the President could have enforced the Congressional subpeona, but the Executive and Legislative branches of government have gotten too used to rolling over to the Courts. The Abortion issue, for another example, could be ended by the Republican Congress and Republican President simply refusing to enforce Roe v. Wade. (Don`t hold your breath!)
Actually, that would be a calamitous decision, and should be used only in the direst need. (I think the Schiavo case clearly warranted it.) Still, it may have to be used at some point; the Courts simply have to be reigned in, and the threat of being overruled by the other branches of government would clearly act as a braking mechanism. As things stand now, the Courts know full well that their word is the absolute final judgment. Any parent knows that their child will grow completely out of control if allowed to make their own rules; in this same way our courts system has gone out-of-control. In short, the Courts have become spoiled brats, and it is time they were taken to the woodshed!
This Kelo decision is an example of the ease with which governments can strip the citizenry of their Constitutional and God-given rights. What has made America work has been the willingness of the nation to defer to Law over men. The Courts have determined that, much like Sylvester Stallone in the movie Judge Dred, they are the law, and their word is the embodiement of the fundamental rights of Man. What the Constitution, the Bible, the other branches of government have to say is immaterial; if they find a right to privacy, say, in the Constitution then, by all that is holy (themselves),it is there!
Congress must pass laws restricting Eminent Domain. It`s time the men and women we have all worked so hard to elect begin earning their pay. Such a law will undoubtedly be challenged in the Courts, and then we can see if the Supreme Court has the gall to strike it down. If they do, it may be time to launch the true ``nuclear option``, the Constitutional provision which says the Courts may advise, but that we don`t necessarily have to listen to them.
At least, one may dream!
For those of you who don`t think property is a fundamental right, read my American Thinker Article The First Right.
(Thanks to the American Thinker for the inspiring link.)
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 4:58 AM
1 Comments:
Now that is one of the many reasons I come here and put up with blogger losing so many of my comments. Outstanding and right on the mark.
Post a Comment
<< Home