Archive for the 'From the Director' Category

Feb 25 2016

Newsletter – March 2016




Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

The funeral Mass for Justice Scalia held at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. (largest Basilica in North America) was packed to overflowing on Saturday, February the 20th.  As with all great men, even their detractors come to pay their respects.

Without knowing he was doing so at the time, Justice Scalia left us with a parting critique on his Court and its threat to American democracy. He did so in the dissent he wrote in the Obergefell case (homosexual marriage case) on June 26, 2015. He began with these words.

“I join the Chief Justice’s opinion in full.  I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

He continues:

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

He returns to his earlier point for emphasis:

”A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

In the next paragraph, he picks this theme up again.

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

He adds:

“But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Justice Scalia was one to choose his words carefully. He used the term “judicial putsch”.  Webster’s defines “putsch” as “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.”

Unless Justice Scalia’s words are heeded (and you will want to read through his entire dissent which is enclosed) the death knell for American democracy has been sounded by him and could just as well have been added to the funeral Mass.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

P.S. Justice Scalia, of course, knew that he would not change his brethren on the Court by lecturing them.  He was issuing a clarion call to all of us in the nation to stand against this.

In this government of, by and for the people there is a way and perhaps the only way to bring about the change Justice Scalia has called for – a CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT.

Justice Scalia in truth has given us a modern day update on what were the prophetic words of Thomas Jefferson when he spoke out as President against John Marshall’s self-proclaimed power for the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution (see back of the enclosed proposed constitutional amendment which could just as well be renamed the SCALIA AMENDMENT).

As President of the United States Thomas Jefferson stated in 1803:

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.  It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Justice Scalia in his dissent echoes Jefferson’s use of the word oligarchy when he refers to an “unelected committee of nine”.

Abraham Lincoln echoed the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address:

“If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court… the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers…”

Justice Scalia echoes both Jefferson and Lincoln in his dissent:

”This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

The need for a constitutional amendment to be aptly termed the “Scalia Amendment” needs to be a part of the political debates this election year.

Comments Off on Newsletter – March 2016

Feb 25 2016

Supreme Court of the United States




Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574














on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

June 26, 2015

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.[1] Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.[2]

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”[3] denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,[4] prohibiting the free exercise of religion,[5] abridging the freedom of speech,[6] infringing the right to keep and bear arms,[7] authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,[8] and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”[9] can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[10]

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[11]

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.[12] We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.[13] That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”[14] One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”[15] The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”[16] Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.[17]

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers [18] who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans[19]), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.[20] They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,[21] cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.[22] Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”[23] (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”[24] (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”[25] (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”[26] With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.


1  Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, p. 14.

2  Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 15–17).

3  U. S. Const., Art. I, §10.

4  Art. IV, §1.

5  Amdt. 1.

6  Ibid.

7  Amdt. 2.

8  Amdt. 4.

9  Amdt. 10.

10  United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).

12  See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8).

13  Ante, at 10.

14  Ante, at 11.

15  Ibid.

16  Ante, at 10–11.

17  Ante, at 12–18.

18  The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14–571 and 14–574, pp. 1–5.

19  See Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015).

20  Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003).

21  Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (Alito, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7).

22  If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

23  Ante, at 13.

24  Ante, at 19.

25  Ibid.

26  The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).

Comments Off on Supreme Court of the United States

Dec 19 2015

Bulletin – December 2015



 The decision forcing homosexual marriage on all 50 States (Obergefell v. Hodges) was decided by the narrow vote of 5 to 4. Four of the judges, including Chief Judge Roberts saw this as an abomination. Four other judges (the liberal arm of the court) said it was the best thing since sliced bread. Justice Kennedy, as you know, became the swing vote making the vote 5 to 4 in favor of homosexual marriage.

Now we learn that two of those judges (Ginsberg and Kagan) had been asked to perform, and had performed, homosexual marriages after homosexual marriage was legalized in Washington, D.C. These two judges refused to disqualify themselves (a judge is supposed to disqualify or recuse him or herself if they have a conflict of interest in a case.) Chief Judge Roberts was not exactly “Captains Courageous” in standing up to them and insisting that they disqualify themselves from participating in the Obergefell case.

Which brings us to a golden opportunity: if your state did not have homosexual marriage on it’s books prior to this abominable decision of the court on June 26, 2015, all your governor needs to do is use the principle of interposition (by which he interposes his authority between the citizens of his state and the federal government in order to protect the health, safety, and morality of his citizens. This is a legitimate principle of constitutional law. All he needs to do is by executive order say that two judges who voted for homosexual marriage (“same-sex” marriage) had themselves performed homosexual marriages. It was all over the Sunday Washington Post Magazine insert a year or so ago that Justice Ginsberg had performed the homosexual marriage of the director of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to his male homosexual partner. No one could believe it. What was a Supreme Court justice (judges do have authority to marry people) doing giving in to such a request — to walk over to the Kennedy Center and perform a homosexual marriage in a candlelight ceremony that was invitation only? Our tax dollars at work! And, she feels that she would be fit to decide a question of whether not homosexual marriage should be legal when she has just finished performing one. Justice Kagan also performed a homosexual marriage. Unbelievable! Well, that’s two down, and if you subtract 2 from the vote of 5 in favor, you have only 3 left standing. That makes the vote on homosexual marriage 4 to 3 against with CHIEF JUDGE ROBERTS and the conservative block of the courts saying that it is wrong, that no place was it contemplated or is it to be found in the Constitution, and therefore it is not to be made legal. This goes back to being a state-by-state decision.

You say to yourself that your governor will never do that because he’ll be afraid that he will be maligned in the press and that the homosexual rights organizations will sue him. Stop and think about it! This is a very interesting situation. Those organizations that would think about suing him are going to have to realize that the case is eventually going to be appealed and wind up back before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now stop and think — how are those two judges, who refused to disqualify themselves the first time around, going to not disqualify themselves this time around because the question before the court will be whether or not they should have disqualified themselves in the first place?

TAKE IT AND GO WITH IT! Send it to your governor pointing out the principle of interposition, State’s rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, etc. This is an ideal time to put it into practice. Tell your governor, if the lawyers on his or her staff advise against it, to fire them and get some other lawyers (and perhaps check to see who they are planning on marrying.)


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – December 2015

Nov 28 2015

Supplement – November 2015





Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,


Our nation and indeed the world, longs for victory over our common enemy: ISIS.  King David, long ago, wrote a psalm of praise for victory over enemies: Psalm 9.  The pastors of our churches need to take it up at this time and preach it in their homilies and sermons to their congregations.


But before “victory” must first come the battle.  As battle-worn as America is these past 14 years since 9/11 2001, the battle is not over yet.  Indeed, a new phase has begun in this war of terror.  We need the God of Heaven’s Armies on our side.  How do we do that?  King David and others told us.  Moses had learned and taught the lesson.


God is an all-loving, all-forgiving God, but His patience is tried when we cast Him aside for other gods.  He is a jealous God and rightfully and righteously so!  Moses and King David would be among the first to tell us that God sometimes punishes his people, whom He loves, by allowing their enemies to overrun their camps and to scale the walls of their cities fine (the twin towers).  There are examples in scripture where God even raises up a fierce, merciless enemy to punish His people who have turned their back upon Him and have begun to embrace as a people, as a nation, those things which are abominable to Him.


It is one thing when individuals sin against God and commit that which is abomination.  It becomes quite another thing when the King (or in a democracy, the President) of a nation champions that which is an abomination to God (the killing of preborn children; homosexuality) and appoints members to the nation’s high court (in the U.S. our Supreme Court) to memorialize immorality and the breaking of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ (abortion) in the law.


On June 26, 2015 our own nation’s high court sought to make sodomy a sacrament.  They sought to elevate it to the altars of the people’s houses of worship.  Sin is sin in the eyes of God.  The desire to change that on the part of the King with an edict of the courts cannot and does not change that. But it’s the same old story, God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.


Billy Graham spoke to the nation from the Washington National Cathedral three days following 9/11 at the invitation of President Bush.  His words were appropriate then and have become urgent today.  (Click here to view a portion of Billy Graham’s speech.)


On June 26, 2015, (the Supreme Court’s legalization of ‘homosexual marriage’) the stench of the sin that this nation is permitting and even fostering reached high heaven.


Not one of our governors has had the courage to stand against this.  Only a few humble court clerks.  They know it’s wrong and even if it costs them their job, they refuse to issue ‘marriage’ licenses for that which is not a marriage, but which only makes a mockery of God’s holy institution of matrimony.


Psalm 9 is King David’s psalm of praise for victory over enemies.  It is God and God alone that gives the true victory.  American needs a national ‘Day of Prayer and Remembrance’, calling for a spiritual renewal in our land and asking God for forgiveness.   This President will not call for it. The governors need to step forward and have the courage to do so.  They need to borrow a page from the statesman Ronald Reagan who, before he took his oath of office for his second term, let it be known that his mother’s Bible, upon which he would place his hand, would be opened to Second Chronicles 7:14 because he believed it was a message to our nation at that time.





Yours very sincerely and respectfully,


R. Martin Palmer


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Supplement – November 2015

Nov 16 2015

Bulletin – November 2015



November 16, 2015

The French investigation of Friday night’s atrocities in Paris is a wake-up call, revealing Europe’s worst nightmare, namely that ISIS used refugees coming in on rubber rafts as the “Trojan Horse” to smuggle experienced, trained fighters into the bosom of Europe.   The Syrian passport of one of the “suicide terrorists” found near his body, had been stamped as coming through a Greek island this past October 3rd. The late night news carried that all that was left of this terrorist’s body after he detonated his suicide vest was a finger, but that finger gave them a fingerprint which matched the passport.  That finger pointed to the truth for all the world to know.

As tens of thousands of Syrian refugees fled civil war, hurrying through European countries, many had speculated “What would prevent terrorists from simply pretending to be refugees and coming in with them?”  Each European country, anxious to herd them into the next, said “Oh no, ISIS would not come in little rubber rafts, they have other ways of getting in.”

Ben Carson wisely says, “Why would they not come in this way?”  It would be foolish not to, with such an easy means of entry.  He, along with most everyone in the Congress right now, is questioning why the White House still wants to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States.   The Administration’s spokesperson said that they will do “careful background checks” on all 10,000.  (The term the Administration uses is “vetting”.)  The head of one of the congressional intelligence committees explains that there is no way to “vet” 10,000 fleeing refugees.  There are no computer records on these refugees from Syria.  In other words, one must take a refuge’s word as to their identity, background and why they want refugee status.

ISIS is smart.  They’re savvy.  They have been called the most sophisticated terrorist group the world has ever seen.  Here goes a tide of refugees flowing right out of their country (the Trojan horse on wheels).  All they have to do is pick some of their elite, trained fighters and put them through charm school and I’m afraid they’d be able to convince the current Administration that they should be given a cabinet position upon landing on American soil.  This would be comical – if it wasn’t so tragic. In the face of such a wake-up call to the world on ISIS, why does the current occupant of the White House seemingly refuse to change course on his determination to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees?  Hopefully, by the time you receive this bulletin, he will have changed course. Many knowledgeable people in his Administration have to understand the common sense need to heed the wake-up call that Paris received the other night.

There is an explanation of why certain individuals are not able to admit they are wrong; why they will not take advice; why they will not change course even in the face of logic.  That explanation was given in a diagnosis made by the preeminent physician, Dr. Edmund Pellagrino (Click here to view resume).  He is both medically and technically qualified to make the diagnosis. You’ll learn the story of his diagnosis of Obama in the enclosed November letter which curiously came back from the printer midday Friday before the events that unfolded Friday night.  We are dealing with a mental health issue – Dr. Pellagrino’s diagnosis of narcissism (Hitler was a narcissist.)

If they let the 10,000 in, all they have to do is miss their guess on 8 of them (only 8 terrorists struck Paris).  What if they miss their guess on 80?  How about 800?  How many cities could you hit simultaneously in the U.S. with 800 (8 per city equals 100 cities – they choose the cities).  If ISIS were to hit 100 major U.S. cities simultaneously havoc and the need for Marshall Law will have been created.  Is this what this Administration wants?  And the Emergency Powers Act that many have been talking about?  Is this Administration unwittingly or knowingly playing into the hands of terrorists?


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – November 2015

Nov 16 2015

Newsletter – November 2015




Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

We need to pray for our current President.  He appears to be entirely disrespecting our nation’s Constitution. Why?  He seems to do so because he thinks only he is right.  When the Constitution is in the way, it must bend to his will. Executive orders have become the ‘order’ of the day.  Why? Having risen to power in this nation, he now seeks world acclaim (and future power). Why?  He lays future stepping stones for himself on the world stage at the expense of his own nation and our allies (Israel to name one).  Why?

Human personality is, in truth, a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.  As a mere layman in these matters, I’m not qualified to furnish a definitive answer to the question “Why?”.  In the spring of 2010, however, I had occasion to be present at an evening meeting of preeminent physicians of the Washington metropolitan area.  I filed suit in March of that same year on behalf of these same physicians to challenge the Healthcare bill working it’s way through the Congress.  We challenged it as a violation of the ‘ORIGINATION CLAUSE’, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, because it was ‘originating’ in the Senate instead of the House of Representatives where all bills that would result in a “tax” must originate.  I had been asked to brief the doctors on the status of their case.

The exceptionally brilliant physician, Edmund Pellegrino, entered late and announced to his fellow physicians in the room “I have finally diagnosed Obama. He’s a NARCISSIST.”   A ripple of nervous laughter went through the room (as though they were trying to decide if he was serious or saying it in jest) Dr. Pellegrino instantly raised his hand and stopped the laughter.  He said, “No, I’m serious.”  That’s all he said. That’s all he needed to say.  His fellow physicians knew and understood the diagnosis all too well.  They did not question him for a second.  They knew who was speaking. They respected his diagnosis no different than if he’d entered the room and said he had diagnosed someone with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Every physician present would have known what that was and what it meant for the patient.  Of course, a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma is made with medical tests and x-rays and you have to be seeing the patient one on one to be able to take the x-ray and draw the blood, and send it off and get the lab reports back.  Perhaps because I was present (a non-doctor and not privy to the work of doctors and information they may share among themselves confidentially) no further discussion took place at that time.  We returned to the report that I was to give as a lawyer.

The doctors were understanding that the healthcare bill, as proposed in the Senate, was not about health and not about care but about CONTROL.  This is the succinct way they expressed it to me. Many would agree that they were right, for the healthcare bill has since come to be named after it’s chief protagonist.  Dr. Pellegrino was later to write me a letter commending me for my work on behalf of his friends and fellow physicians.

Not wanting to show my ignorance at the meeting that night as to what the word ‘narcissist’ meant, I came home and started where I always start, with my children’s Worldbook Encyclopedia.  Under the word ‘narcissist’, I found that the word itself came from greek mythology.  The entry in the Worldbook Encyclopedia reads as follows:

Narcissus, (Nahr SIS uhs), in greek mythology, was a handsome youth who was courted by many lovers for his beauty.  He, however, haughtily rejected all of them, including the nymph Echo.  As punishment for his cruelty, the gods condemned Narcissus to contemplate his beauty reflected in a pond on Mount Helicon in Greece.  Day after day, he lay beside the pond gazing lovingly at his reflection until he wasted away and died.  When searchers looked for him, they found only a flower now called the “Narcissus”.  Echo also wasted away from her love for Narcissus finally becoming nothing more than a voice in the woods.  The best-known version of the Narcissus story appears in the Metamorphoses, a collection of tales by the Roman poet Ovid.” (Worldbook Encyclopedia 2000)

Having educated myself somewhat, I telephoned the following evening, and spoke with a physician in the group who was a dear friend and asked that he share his wisdom with me on the medical term ‘narcissist’.  I asked him concerning Dr. Pellegrino’s diagnosis of the current president as a narcissist (a conclusion he came to only after carefully and patiently observing from a distance over a two year period the personality traits, words and actions of Obama) – I asked this wise physician what world leaders come to mind for him that would have been a narcissist.  He thought for a couple seconds and replied with only two words “Well, Hitler”.

There is no reason to doubt the diagnosis of this preeminent physician.  He is more qualified than any other, really, to make the diagnosis in the nation and was hesitant to do so for 2 years.  He had to be sure he was right before he announced it.  He needed certitude before he shared it with his fellow physicians because he knew what the diagnosis would mean.  It’s treatable, if at all, only with the cooperation of the patient.  But the very nature of the disease, (and it seems it should be called rightfully a disease, because look where it led the German Nation), forestalls the one who suffers from it from even admitting he needs help to begin with; let alone seeking that help.  Will he love this nation enough to seek it?  The nature of the malady causes him to love himself more than his nation.  The nation must bow to his will.  The nation must be subservient to his wishes, will and desire.  He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t learn. He always blames others.  In his mind, he is never wrong.  He and he alone knows what’s best for the Nation.  Yes, we have known others in history that fit this description, including the abominable one the doctor whose advice I sought mentioned to me.  History does not necessarily repeat itself, but it rhymes.

The malady feeds on power which is it’s aphrodisiac and like the drug addict, it must have more and more of the drug to achieve the same high.  In politics, the individual climbs the ladder of political power, reaching for a pinnacle that is never attained.

We remember Obama was elected to a state legislature as a relative unknown; followed by being elected to the U.S. Senate as a relative unknown; and we remember when he announced that he was running for president some of the newscasters apologized that they did not even know how to pronounce his name – he was a newcomer!  This is very curious!  He sought the offices boldly and with certitude, speaking with authority in an almost mesmeric way, because he truly believes, as did Narcissus, that he is the be all and end all.  This is a very dangerous combination on the world stage.  We need to stop criticizing.  We need to respect the high office of the President. We need to pray for the man who currently occupies that office.  We need to pray for our nation and it’s superintending influence on world affairs.

Let’s turn our attention, just for a moment, to the man who made the diagnosis, Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, MACP.  When I first met him in 2010, he was 90 years of age, but he bounded in to that meeting that night as though he could outrun anyone on the tennis court.  Indeed, his mind was as sharp as that of a 29 year old.  I remember being surprised as I watched him get into the back seat of a Cadillac to catch a ride with other physicians as he left the meeting.  He simply crawled across the back seat to get on the far side to make it easier for a younger doctor to come in after him and sit on the side near the other window. Unbelievable!  He not only was gifted by his Creator with a wonderful constitution, but with an absolutely brilliant intellect that was respected worldwide.  President Bush prevailed upon him to chair the Nation Bioethics Advisory Commission because he knew the respect his name would carry with the scientific community.

Dr. Pellegrino passed from our midst on June 19, 2013, and like a giant sequoia tree that’s been felled in the forest, left a gap that may never be filled, just as there has not been to date another Albert Einstein, there may not for years to come, if at all, be another Edmund Pellegrino. A very humble man, when I met him that night, really.  As I peruse his curriculum vitae, I realize that merely being in his presence was a great honor.

At page 7 of the enclosed curriculum vitae (biography) of Dr. Pellegrino, we find listed honorary degrees from Yale and fifty other colleges.  He received the Achievement in Life Award from Encyclopedia Brittanica in 1979; a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Catholic Health Association in 2004; the Lifetime Achievement Award, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities in November 1998; the Laetare Medal from University of Notre Dame in May of 1998; the Patrick Healy Award for Lifetime Achievement and service to Georgetown University, May 2nd, 1998.

the Abraham Flexner Award for Distinguished Service to Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, November 1, 1997; the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, 1994 Editorial Board Award for Excellence, May 1995; the Society for Health and Human Values Award, 1994.  The Christian Medical Society Award in 1993; Distinction in Bioethics Award, International Bioethics Institute, 1993; Benjamin Rush Award for Citizenship and Community Service, American Medical Association, 1992; Special Dedication Issue: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1990;(Good heavens, was this an entire medical publication devoted just to him on the cover and throughout it’s contents?) Special Dedication Issue: The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Volume 6,Spring 1990; Presidential Medal Georgetown University, 1990; Honorary Fellow, American College of Legal Medicine, 1988; Mercy Hospital Foundation Medal of Excellence, April 28, 1988; Edmund D. Pellegrino Professorship of Medicine, Endowed Chair, State University of New York, Stoney Brook, New York, 1986; Calvary Medal, 1986; Samuel Cardinal Stritch Award, 1986; Aquinas Medal, University of Dallas, 1986; Certificate of Meritorious Service, Medical Society of D.C., 1980.

And that’s but a partial recitation of the list found on the back of the enclosed CV. Click here to view Dr. Pelligrino’s entire CV.  This man built a reputation not by making snap judgments.  When he pronounced the judgment of a diagnosis and raised his hand to say he was serious a hushed silence of respect came over the entire room.  I am simply reporting what I saw and heard. You be the judge.

Around our thanksgiving tables this year, as we give thanks for family and for this great nation, the light on the hill for the world to see these many years, let us pray that that light will not go out and let us pray for this current president and let us pray that there will be a peaceful transition to the next president (a narcissist cannot allow that someone could take his place or that someone would know better than he).

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer


P.S. Perusing his CV, you will see that he was Phi Beta Kappa in college and his years of medicine and positions held are a who’s who of U.S. medicine and the world.  He had been elected to Who’s who in America, World Who’s Who in Science, Who’s Who in the East, Who’s Who in Healthcare, Who’s Who in Germany.

In his medical career, my eyes pick up Yale (my grandfather was a graduate of it’s law school) where Ed Pellegrino was president and chairman of the Board of Directors Yale New Haven Medical Center, Professor of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine in Connecticut, member of the joint faculty of the Institution of Social and Policy Studies. We also notice that he was president, of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., Professor of Philosophy and Biology, Catholic University, Professor of Clinical Medicine and Community Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine – Good Heavens!  I get hoarse reading this into dictation and I’ll stop here before my secretary’s printer runs out of ink.  There is no more to be said about the bon-a-fides of this man to have made the diagnosis. Let’s be sure and include our president in prayer around our thanksgiving table.  A diagnosis like this can be a matchhead on an unsettled world stage that is flowing with gasoline.

Remember, it is not the writer that is making the diagnosis.  The writer is simply sharing the diagnosis of this great man and preeminent physician, Dr. Edmund Pellegrino.  He was not known to use hyperbole or make snap judgments.  Indeed, following Obama’s election in November of 2008, it was nearly two years before he was willing to go public and then only with his most trusted fellow physicians with his definitive diagnosis.  In addition to Yale, he held honorary degrees from no less than 51 colleges and universities, all of which honored him by extending the lauds of an honorary degree to this ‘Hippocrates’ of modern medicine.  You have Dr. Pellegrino’s diagnosis of Barak Hussain Obama; a narcissist.  You have Dr. Pellegrino’s curriculum vitae in hand.  Take it to your thanksgiving gatherings and open the dessert course to discussion around that family table.

My wife, an RN, (a former head nurse, Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland) is concerned about me sharing this diagnosis that was made by Dr. Pellegrino.  She says she’s not comfortable with it.  I point out that it is not me that is making the diagnosis, but this national and world renowned authority.  She agrees.  She seems to be worried that if I send it around they may, as she puts it “come after you”. My address is at the top of this letter.  There is plenty of parking at the side of this building. (I am reminded of my dear friend Daniella Brabner-Smith, a German war bride to Professor John Wesley Brabner-Smith who founded the International School of Law in Washington, D.C.  Daniella’s uncle was hung by Hitler with piano wire for crossing Hitler’s path. The response of a narcissist.)

Truth must be made known and it’s the truth that will set us free.  The nation needs to be set free from the grip of this diagnosis of Dr. Pellegrino.  You notice I say diagnosis.  It’s the problems that beset man, not the man himself that has this nation increasingly in the fix it’s in.  An eagle scout can become a danger to others if he drives drunk.  A priest or a cardinal himself can become a lethal weapon behind the wheel of 2000 lbs. of moving steel if he’s intoxicated.  It’s not the man that’s the danger to his fellow man, it’s the substance he has ingested into his body that has caused him to be intoxicated.  A narcissist cannot help himself.  He cannot help but ingest larger and larger doses of the aphrodisiac of power.  It’s the intoxicating substance that makes the man’s actions dangerous to the 300 million people that he’s behind the driver’s wheel for.  We are in the backseat and we are feeling helpless as backseat drivers.  In his valise on the front seat, he has tapes of past speeches to give to the Queen of England and other political leaders.  The rearview mirror is turned down so he can see himself; not even watching the danger that may be approaching from behind (ISIS).  When he sees a barricade ahead on the road with big letters “STOP” (U.S. Constitution), he crashes through it.  He’s on his cell phone to his lawyers talking and texting while driving, checking out his plan to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation.  He feels he and he alone is right and has no respect for the law, the Constitution or the nation’s courts.  He’s upset because his program is yet to begin (delayed nearly a year after Texas and 25 other states won an injunction that was upheld by a federal appeals court on Monday, November 9th).  He demands it be taken directly to the Supreme Court.  He has judges (unelected political appointees) that are doing his bidding.  Those of us in the backseat of this ever speeding car need some help.  We need a larger voice.

Truth has a certain patent clarity about it once you get it around.  I’m not into computers, but if any of you have a young person at your Thanksgiving table with the ability to scan Dr. Pellegrino’s CV and his concluding diagnosis about our current president (you are welcome to scan as well this letter – or at least that portion of it that reports Dr. Pellegrino’s announcement to his fellow physicians that he finally diagnosed Obama).

We must pray for this president.  We must pray that he will stop driving drunk with power.  The reins of power that he took up in the oval office are a sacred trust laid down by such men as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and all the great presidents of the past.  We remember Ronald Reagan who was reported by one of his aides to have declined to take his jacket off in the Oval Office after they all came back in to the Oval Office on a hot, sweltering summer day from a ceremony in the Rose Garden.  The aide recalled that his own shirt was sticking to him from perspiration and he took one look at Ronald Reagan and he said “Mr. President, if you take your jacket off, you would be more comfortable.”  He said he’ll never forget the response of Ronald Reagan who said, “I could never take my jacket off in this office.”

What was one of the first pictures we saw circulated widely on the internet after the current president took office?  Sitting with his feet propped up on the desk in the Oval Office, jacket off, collar open.  Can somebody find that picture that went viral on the internet and send me a copy?  I’d like to examine it more closely.  Did he have a mirror in his hand, or was there a mirror on the wall across from his desk that he could keep looking into.  Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?  We have a lot of politicians anymore (Good Heavens! They line up to get paid.)  We have no statesmen!  Try that statement around your Thanksgiving table.


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – November 2015

Oct 17 2015

Newsletter – October 2015




Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

Albert Einstein said there are only two things that might be infinite: the universe and human stupidity.  And, he confessed, he wasn’t sure about the universe.

Imagine 300 million people allowing themselves to be ruled by one unelected man!  On June 26, 2015, one man – Justice Kennedy – was the tiebreaking swing vote that legalized homosexual marriage.  His judgment was called into question by Four members of the Supreme Court, including Chief Judge Roberts, saying it was the craziest thing they ever heard.  Four other judges said it would be the best thing since sliced bread, making a toss up between the good guys and the bad guys, depending upon which side you’re on.

Our forefathers did not intend the Supreme Court to be the “Supreme Deity” with authority to change the moral order of the nation, and yet one unelected man has swung the vote of an oligarchy of 9 unelected judges (not the people’s elected representatives). Human stupidity and cowardice allows it.

Thomas Jefferson, who was neither stupid, nor a coward, predicted that the Supreme Court would eventually become an OLIGARCHY if the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison (by which the court contrived sole power to “interpret” the Constitution) was allowed to stand. It did and it has.  As Jefferson predicted, “INTERPRETATION” has given the court the thoroughfare on which to accelerate and expand it’s power until today we see it has Crowned itself as the “Supreme Being”.

So what’s the solution: The solution is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to divest the court of their self-proclaimed power to “interpret” the Constitution.  One has been proposed and may be found at  Click on the icon “Thomas Jefferson Amendment.”


Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

Attorney at Law, Admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court since October 1977


Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – October 2015

Sep 02 2015

Newsletter – September 2015



Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

If we are to remain fully human, our nation needs to purge the horrors committed by Planned Parenthood.  We need to start by defunding Planned Parenthood. Governors are proving to have more courage than the Congress.

Dee Becker, whom you all know as a great stalwart for Life, has written the enclosed letter to her Governor which she shared with us.  You may wish to write a similar letter to your own Governor. We need to challenge them to take action immediately against these unconscionable acts of Planned Parenthood.

The states of Arkansas and Utah recently joined Alabama, Louisiana and New Hampshire in defunding Planned Parenthood.  Twelve other states have opened “investigations” into defunding Planned Parenthood. Both the U.S. Congress and the states need to defund it while any investigation is pending, otherwise “investigations” are simply stalling tactics for Governors and members of Congress without courage. We need to be asking the question “Would our Governors and elected Representatives have us first launch an “investigation” into whether or not we should vote for them and take polls or would they have us vote for them simply because we believe in them?  Do they believe in the right, and do they have the courage to act on the right and stand against the wrong?  Or do they want to have ‘investigations’ while they are waiting for the polls to come in or for the uproar to die out?”

The Obama Administration is threatening to cut off Medicaid funding to states whose Governors act to defund Planned Parenthood.  Several years ago, Texas defunded Planned Parenthood.  At the time, the Obama Administration threatened to cut off Medicaid funding to the state.  Governor Perry responded by having the state of Texas itself fund Medicaid.  The Governors need to borrow a page from Governor Rick Perry’s book and act immediately while directing their state Attorney General to challenge the Obama Administration in court (Yes, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court) on the unconstitutionality of the current Administration threatening to use Medicaid funding as a political tool.

The Alabama State Finance and Taxation General Fund Committee recently approved a bill to make selling aborted babies’ body parts a class B felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison, under Alabama state law.  A twelve to one vote on the proposed bill sent it to the full state Senate.  We will want to watch to see if this passes in Alabama and more states need to follow this example.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer


P.S.  In a last ditch effort to win favor for continued funding, Planned Parenthood is saying that they provide other health services to women.  We need to share with our Governors and Representatives the enclosed story of a college co-ed whose parents misdirected her to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care when she discovered she was pregnant. Read her story and see what happened.


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Woman Recalls Planned Parenthood Visit:

“They Said They Don’t Have Doctors for Pregnant Women”

When the fifth Planned Parenthood video was released, America got a startling peek inside the Houston Planned Parenthood “mega-center.”

But for a young woman named Addison, it was a second look.

The building, which resembles a cash register, has a whole floor devoted to surgical abortions, which we now see also houses a fetal parts procurement center. But since Planned Parenthood tries to present itself as a women’s health center, that’s how Addison ended up there – a decision she says she still regrets today – even though she stood up to them when they repeatedly suggested she abort her baby.

At the age of 17, just four years ago, Addison was a freshman at the University of Houston, which is near this Planned Parenthood. Her pregnancy that October was a shock, and she was further surprised when she found out Planned Parenthood wouldn’t help her – because she wanted to keep her baby.

Addison’s parents, five hours away and uninformed about the true nature of Planned Parenthood, innocently suggested she go there for an official pregnancy test and prenatal help. She was uninsured, due to her dad’s changing employment, and her parents had always heard the rhetoric that Planned Parenthood was there to help uninsured women and provide them with a full range of their health care needs. Abortion was never an option they considered.

Addison and her fiancé headed to the Houston Planned Parenthood for a blood test. There were no freebies for uninsured Addison here; her fiancé had to pay $70 for the test. “They told me the charge first thing,” she says. But that wasn’t the part that drove her off.

They sat in the waiting room for two hours, and when they called her, they wouldn’t allow her fiancé go back with her for the test, despite the fact that she was uncomfortable and hated needles. So while he sat waiting, Addison was taken to a back room, then to an exam room where she waited another hour before a Planned Parenthood employee came in. That employee proceeded to ask her questions about how many sexual partners she had, about her sexual relationship with her fiancé, and other personal things. Then she asked Addison the magic question: “Do you want to have an abortion if you’re pregnant?” When Addison told her no, the woman replied, “Well, you are only seventeen. You really need to make sure you’re ready for parenting and consider abortion.” Addison was only there for a pregnancy test and prenatal care and was opposed to abortion.

When Planned Parenthood later called to confirm Addison was pregnant, the staffer said, “We know you said you didn’t want an abortion in your visit today, but we wanted to make sure that is still the case?” Addison says, “I said I did not want an abortion and hung up.”

But she called back for prenatal help anyway:

The same day I called them and told them that I had a blood test and it confirmed pregnancy, and I needed to see if I could see a doctor about prenatal care, and what I could and couldn’t do [to] keep the baby healthy.

They then told me that unless I had a sexually transmitted disease or wanted an abortion that they could no longer help me. I said “So y’all do not help pregnant women?” They told me no, that they didn’t have doctors for pregnant women.

Addison says she discovered that the six-story building that advertised itself as a women’s health center and claimed to care for poor women was really there for abortion, STD treatment and birth control. She says she thought to herself, “I thought this was Planned Parenthood, not once-you’re-pregnant-we-can’t-help-you.”

Eventually, she ended up at a hospital with cramps, and found out she was 10 weeks along instead of the four she had estimated, but her baby didn’t make it; Addison had a miscarriage.

Addison’s eyes are now opened to the nature of Planned Parenthood as an organization:

I think normal people have a misconstrued view of what [Planned Parenthood] is. I am 100% against abortion. I have seen so many people struggle to get pregnant and think adoption is an amazing thing. I wouldn’t give my child up because I have my fiancé and family to help, but if I didn’t, adoption would be an option.

Addison was one of the women the abortion powerhouse claims to exist to help, but she was charged full price for the blood test she received (despite being uninsured), and she was sent away when she didn’t want to consider abortion, an option offered to her several times over the course of her short relationship with Planned Parenthood. To Addison, the “women’s health care” claims listed on the many Planned Parenthood websites really mean “we’ll examine you, give you birth control, and kill your baby if it fails.”

Today, Addison is 21. She and her fiancé are married with a 6-month old son. But when the fifth undercover Planned Parenthood video was released, the pain and anger came back to her in a flash. She still wonders if, had she been able to get prenatal care, she might have sustained her pregnancy. While she will never know that for certain, the idea haunts her.

Throughout her pregnancy with her son, she was amazed by the care and compassion of her own OB/GYN, and she says she learned so much about how to care for her body and keep her baby healthy—something she asked Planned Parenthood to help her do the first time around. “I had no idea what you even needed back then and no idea how I could get that help,” she says.

To her, the fetal parts revelations coming from that same clinic – Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast – make sense to her. She says:

No wonder they wanted to abort my baby. They could charge me for an abortion and make money selling its body parts.

Addison learned the hard way that Planned Parenthood wasn’t about affordable women’s healthcare. She’s just thankful she didn’t let Planned Parenthood talk her into aborting her child.

LifeNews Note:  Susan Michelle Tyrrell writes for Live Action News.


Congress Must Defund Planned Parenthood Immediately


*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

CLICK HERE to view Ms. Dee Becker’s (Charter Member and Vice President, March for Life, Washington, D.C.) letter to the Governor of Delaware regarding the responsibility of defunding of Planned Parenthood.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

We are made in the image of God

We are not made for spare parts



Comments Off on Newsletter – September 2015

Jun 23 2015

Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment



New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

June 23, 2015

The current United States Supreme Court session ends June 29th. Before that date they will be handing down their “opinion” regarding the right of the States to defend traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Our Supreme Court continues to “legislate” for the people – something they have no business doing. All power to legislate is vested in the people through their elected representatives in the Congress (Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

The Supreme Court continues to legislate as they wish to legislate (just as they did in Roe v. Wade) by leveraging this ill-gotten power that the court and the court alone claims it should have of “interpreting” the Constitution. Such power to interpret is nowhere found in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson predicted that if the Supreme Court were permitted to continue down this ill-gotten road, it would place us under the despotism of an OLIGARCHY! Jefferson’s words were prophetic.

In this government that Lincoln called the government of, by and for the people it’s time for the people to take back this ill-gotten power that the U.S. Supreme Court is using to lead the people around like a bull with a ring in its nose.

Kindly click here to find a revised copy of the Thomas Jefferson Amendment we posted in the past.  It occurred to us that it’s not enough to divest the Court of the power to “interpret” the Constitution. It’s important at the same time to transfer this power to the branch of government that should have it – the Congress. This proposed amendment does that in short, succinct language by saying that all power to “interpret” the Constitution will be reposed in the people through their elected representatives. This automatically would divest and divorce the Court from its ill-gotten power that they claim they should have of “interpreting” the Constitution.

Many of these earth shaking opinions are handed down by a bare majority vote of the nine.  If you have a decision that is decided by a 4 to 5 vote, one judge becomes the swing vote.  Look at the opportunity for abuse if someone out there is able to put pressure on that one judge.

Recently the news carried that the Chinese hacked into our government computers and stole the personal information on 4 million federal employees.  The news further carried that this could be used to blackmail federal employees in sensitive positions.  Presumptively, there are no skeletons in the closet of any of our Supreme Court Judges, at least we hope not.  This is all the more reason why any interpretation of the Constitution should be vested wholly and solely in the elected representatives of the people.  You might be able to blackmail one judge, but you can’t blackmail the entire Congress.

If we can get the need for such a constitutional amendment into the upcoming presidential debates, we will be accomplishing a wonderful thing, not only for preborn children, but for our living grandchildren and their children to be.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer
Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

Jun 22 2015

Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Thomas Jefferson Amendment”


Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson

All power to interpret the Constitution shall be vested in the Congress, which from time to time shall render by majority vote, answers to questions of Constitutional interpretation certified to it by the United States Supreme Court.


As may be seen, the above proposed  amendment is simply one sentence long.  There follows a discussion of the reasoning behind the proposed amendment.



— Bishop Hoadly’s sermon preached before the king, March 31, 1717

In 1803, Chief Judge John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court contrived for his court the power to “interpret” the Constitution in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Some may ask “How did John Marshall have a right to do this if what he did was nowhere provided for in the Constitution?” Others ask, “How did he get to be a judge in the first place if he was a high school dropout and never attended college?” (It may be said in Marshall’s favor that he did not quit school because of a poor intellect but because he was needed to help raise his 14 younger brothers and sisters on the family farm.) At the age of 25, he studied law briefly at the College of William & Mary, which in those days did not require a high school or college diploma in order to take a few law courses. He was admitted to the Virginia bar as a lawyer. Pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, he lobbied for and received the powerful position of a Supreme Court appointment. Some would say he embodies the admonition of Alexander Pope: “A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pyerian spring.”

Following the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision, which John Marshall authored, THOMAS JEFFERSON, then President of the United States, stated: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an OLIGARCHY.”

PRESIDENT JEFFERSON saw where this unconstitutionally usurped power would lead when he stated: “The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN added his wisdom at the time of his first inaugural address: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court . . . the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers . . .” Lincoln knew the Constitution, and as a lawyer himself he knew the importance placed by the framers of the Constitution on SELF government; not ‘COURT government.’

The preeminent constitutional law scholar PROFESSOR JOHN W. BRABNER-SMITH (founder of the International School of Law in Washington, DC, now the George Mason University Law School) summed up the differences between the court’s own system of judicial interpretation versus the original system put in place by the framers of the Constitution as follows:

THE SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION of the Constitution as the basis for determining our individual rights has, among others, the following fatally flawed characteristics:

  • The debate among the Justices as to the approach to be used in interpreting the Constitution will continue – leaving our nation with the uncertainty, conflicting opinions and decisions based upon the personal values of the individual judges.
  • Since there is no provision for the recognition of any “truth” or of any “principle” there can be no recognition of such a thing as “inalienable rights” in individuals.
  • Since there are no “truths” or “principles” to be recognized then there is no basis for classifying anything as “right” or “wrong” – everything becomes relative.
  • If by the term “ethics” we mean the establishment of a principle that is permanent then this system will not permit the establishment of an “ethic” but everything will fall under the general category of “situational ethics” where there is no right and no wrong but everything depends upon the facts of the situation.

This system will ultimately lead to tyranny of one form or the other, that is, the tyranny of “majority rule” or the tyranny of certain person or persons – the ultimate elimination of individual rights. . . . Professor John W. Brabner-Smith

Professor Brabner-Smith then contrasted the court’s own system above with that intended by our forefathers as follows:

The SYSTEM ENVISIONED BY OUR FOREFATHERS has, among others, the following characteristics:

  • All power not expressly given to governmental representatives, and this includes the   judiciary as well as the elected representatives, is retained by the people.
  • The “truths” that man is created, that there is a Creator, and that all men are endowed by their Creator with individual inalienable rights are recognized as the foundation of our government and can be taught in the public school as such.
  • The existence of a Creator who possesses the power to endow individuals with inalienable rights is acknowledged as a “presupposition” or as “self-evident truth” and not as a religious belief or a religious matter.
  • Powers are retained by the people as distinguished from all powers being vested in the government.
  • The “rights” vested in the individual cannot be taken away by amendments to the Constitution or by statutes or by the court.
  • The government can recognize or establish certain moral principles – recognize that certain actions are “right” and others are “wrong” – without becoming involved, as a nation, with any religion or religious belief.
  • The approach of the government will be to determine the proper restriction, limitation or suspension of the exercise of a right rather than approach the questions by an interpretation of some provision in the Constitution to see if such right exits.” . . . Professor John W. Brabner-Smith (founder of the International School of Law in Washington, DC, now the George Mason University Law School)

 THE SYSTEM ENVISIONED BY OUR FOREFATHERS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE “JUDICIAL LEGISLATION,” The Supreme Court and lesser courts are not intended to be legislative bodies. This proposed constitutional amendment embodies the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and would divest the judiciary of ‘interpretative power’ over the Constitution, ending its ill-gained power to LEGISLATE, thereby restoring the vision and original intent of our forefathers.

In plain language at the very beginning of the Constitution, Article I, Section 1, we find these words:

“ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” Article I, Section 1, United States Constitution

The Supreme Court’s own web page states in pertinent part: “Few other courts in the world have the same AUTHORITY of constitutional INTERPRETATION and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.” (They, of course, are referring to authority which Thomas Jefferson pointedly stated was never intended for the court. It was nowhere provided for in the Constitution.) The court, in speaking of its own self-assumed authority, not only declares  that few other courts in the world have this same authority but that “none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence.” Yes, they are correct. They have exercised quite a bit of “influence” over the lives of preborn children, and  all of us as adults. If Thomas Jefferson were living, he would pronounce the court to be our modern-day “KING GEORGE III” from whom we need to declare our independence.

It is time to call a halt!

The only remedy is a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution provides for amendments thereto as follows:

Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,  or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”

Jefferson was vociferous and adamant in castigating his distant cousin, John Marshall, for taking it upon himself to seize power to “interpret” the Constitution. Such authority was not to be found in the Constitution itself. Judge Marshall simply pulled it out of thin air. Successive generations of the Supreme Court have built upon this power that Marshall invented to the point where it has snowballed and we find ourselves ‘ruled by the Court’ – the “oligarchy” that Jefferson foresaw.

Lincoln’s words are worth repeating: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court… the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers….”

The PEOPLE, through their elected representatives, make the laws. It is the people, through their elected representatives, who should have the sole authority to interpret their laws if such an interpretation is indeed needed. Our Constitution presently has 27 Amendments. Were this proposed Amendment to be embraced by the people and passed, it would be the 28th Amendment. For purposes of circulating it for consideration, we’ve taken the liberty of temporarily naming it the “Thomas Jefferson Amendment” because it would accomplish what he wanted to accomplish back in 1803 when he was president. He wanted the Court itself to be without power to “interpret the Constitution,” an assumption he knew the framers of the Constitution shared.

Respectfully submitted for the

esteemed consideration of my countrymen

Rudolph Martin Palmer, Jr.

Attorney at Law Admitted to practice

before the U.S. Supreme Court since 1977.

Comments Off on Proposed Constitutional Amendment “Thomas Jefferson Amendment”

Next »

  • Suggested Videos

    Professor LeJeune speaks at the Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, DC.