| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 59° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
June 29, 2005
Activist judges will create a Third World America
In trying to demonstrate a possible untruth on my part, Sen. Reid claims to have, in fact, read many opinions written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Citing the case of Hillside Dairy vs. Lyons, he claims Justice Thomas would have overturned legal precedent that one state cannot interfere with another state's commerce. Nice try, but he obviously didn't read the decision or the dissent by Thomas on just one of three parts of that decision. He wrote: "I join in Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II which holds that Section 144 of the Farm Act of 1996, does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge. "Although I agree that the Court of Appeals (the activist 9th Circuit) erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because the negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application." Once I had researched this, I wasn't sure Sen. Reid had even read the Farm Act of 1996 that created this mess in the first place. This entire battle was over charging milk price supports that have been authorized continuously by Congress since the Great Depression. Perhaps it would be better for Congress to write laws that can be clearly understood. I think Justice Thomas feels the same. Then Sen. Reid states, "In their wisdom, the founding fathers include filibuster in the Constitution to ensure consensus and compromise." Hogwash. I have read the Constitution on several occasions but did not remember ever coming across filibuster in it anywhere. So I wouldn't make the same mistake and tell half-truths or outright lies, I went to www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7 and found the following under Q139: "The short answer is because there is nothing there to find; the Constitution does not contemplate the filibuster in any way, directly or indirectly. So, then, what is all this talk about the Framers, the Senate, the filibuster, and its relationship to the Constitution? "By way of definition, the filibuster is a delaying tactic that is a part of the rules of the Senate. It is a word that comes from the Spanish word for 'freebooter,' which means 'pirate.' The origin seems to be that a person who filibusters is plundering the time and focus of a deliberative body, like a legislature." In essence what this means is the liberal activists of the Senate, led by Sen. Reid, have stolen the right of a legally elected president to select those individuals recommended to him as qualified for the position. To them, control of the courts is everything because without that power they would not be able to perform the transfer of money from the private to the public sector in such huge quantities. Their power to coerce would then die with it. Evidence of this was again demonstrated June 23 when the activist four joined the weakest of the moderates, Kennedy, in a narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision that will, over time, cause the demise of our system if not corrected. Basically, this decision allows local governments to seize private property for any use they deem to be public, even if that use is solely to enrich the government doing the taking. No emperor, king or tyrant could have asked for more. What individual citizens can expect is to eventually live in a society much like those nations we now refer to as Third World. Private property ownership is not a right there, either. What is most disturbing about these events is the take many reporters and news sources seem to have. John Brummett states "governors, legislators and citizenries need to understand and accept ... judicial review, and never defy the courts." History has proven since the days of the inquisition that judges are not specially endowed with any greater knowledge or understanding of anything to a greater degree than the rest of us. It has also shown what happens when judges start making up the laws themselves, and this has never, ever been good for the people they have lorded over. Another journalist believes states should "explicitly write into their statutes language restricting the use of eminent domain." I agree with the principal, but the courts today are showing absolutely no regard for any statutes that get in the way of their secular agenda. Some on the Supreme Court have gone so far as to ask why our legal system doesn't look to the laws of foreign countries as a guide for changing our system. Our Constitution, complete with the Bill of Rights, was written to protect us from abuses of power like these. Now, thanks to the excessive personal preferences of the activist wing of the Supreme Court, those safeguards are being removed. Anyone wanting further evidence of how activist judges are destroying America should read Mark Levin's book "Men in Black." Then get involved. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
|
