When did the "Supreme Court" become immune from the restrictions of the "Constitution"?

Who hasn’t heard the old axiom, I think you’re listening, you’re just not hearing.

When I listen to the attacks on Gingrich talking about the decisions of the “courts” in this nation being responsible to complying with the constitution—I’m confused.

Once in my life, I was talking with one who believed that government was to be the central planner of our society. He made a statement, I didn’t get. We only need to get the bill passed, and then the court will tell us what it means.

It was probably the first “critical theorist” presentation I’d ever heard. To this day, I wonder just how stupid, or absolutely ignorant I must have seemed to him. For my question, what do you mean?

Is it not interesting, when the courts are suppose to comply with the “constitution” we have so many decisions that are so far from what the “constitution” says, there is no possible way to even make a correlation. Yet once the “decision” of the court is made—it is absolute, they are the sovereignty of what is and what isn’t. They answer Clinton’s question—and we must comply.

Who hasn’t questioned some of the decisions of our courts? What is worse yet, the courts are not answering any question of what the “constitutional” merits are. They are dictating the application of how the bills they review will be instituted.

There are probably a million decisions we could look at as an example. My favorite is the “Supreme Courts” decision on the 14th amendment. Or perhaps we should look to the “Dread Scott case” where we de-franchised that people aren’t people, they are property. Or should we say where they by their decision, using the precedent of the “Dread Scott” decision, that they can determine when life really is—at what point of development, is a baby really a baby—when is it life, and what inalienable rights did the fetus reject of the constitution at conception?

No let’s get real. We must know the 14th amendment was for those who were identified as property, born as such, who were now citizens. There was never a discussion, or any reason to have one born in this nation—when their mother intruded into our borders for the specific reason to give birth, to claim this heritage—of the design of the Supreme Court, not the amendment of the “Constitution”.

So we accept this travesty of unconstitutional decree. Should not have someone at that point said wait a minute? We have no discussion of this problem in all of the records of the discussion of the 14th amendment—where did this come from?

Should we not wonder where the concept of “right of privacy” came from? Let’s see—a woman has the right of privacy—what she does with her body. Interesting, does that also mean if I make “meth” in the privacy of my home—that I shouldn’t have the “right of privacy” to do whatever I want. Is not my right of privacy the same as the rights of privacy that others have as a defense to do what they do?

Our courts have so removed themselves from the responsibility of their duties, it’s beyond reason. For one to challenge that perhaps they should not have—as it is not identifiable in the “constitution” as their duty—the power to dictate legislation, or the application of design of our “congressionally” passed legislation.

We have problem, as we have allowed those who have exceeded, or circumvented the separation of powers, and the “Responsibility” of some betting on a trifecta of power among the separations of power. Our nation is designed to pick the exacta continually, where we have a process, democratically, to have a scenario where no one branch of our government is “sovereign”.

It is bad enough that the branch of government designed to be the maker of bills—the congress—has abdicated this power. While the administrative and the judicial have no problem taking the reins and by totalitarian dictate—be the central planners for this nation.

Views: 13


You need to be a member of Tea Party Nation to add comments!

Join Tea Party Nation

Comment by Christina Mcabe on December 19, 2011 at 10:25pm

Some people are still trying to insure a better composition for the Supreme Court-and the lower courts.  As an example, here is a note from a free, e-mail newsletter I subscribe to below- also at www.LifeNews.com :


Senate Republicans Stop Another Obama Pro-Abortion Judge
Senate Republicans on Tuesday successfully filibustered the nomination of pro-abortion judicial nominee Caitlin Halligan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered to be the nation’s second most important court.

With lawmakers voting 54-45, Senate Democrats failed to get the 60 votes they needed to move to an actual vote on Halligan’s nomination.

Several pro-life groups opposed Halligan’s nomination and urged senators to vote against cloture. All of the Senate’s conservative Republicans voted against cloture and they were joined by moderates who have upset pro-life advocates by supporting the judges in the past — with Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts opposing Halligan. On the other hand, pro-abortion Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted for cloture.

Meanwhile, every Senate Democrat, including “pro-life” Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, voted for allowing a vote on the pro-abortion nominee.... 

Complete Article at:



PS  LifeNews.com is completely free. They operate on: donations; volunteers; speakers fees; and adds in their free, daily e-mail newsletters.

Tea Party Nation is a social network

© 2016   Created by Judson Phillips.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service