Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,
Abraham Lincoln spoke of our government as one “of, by and for the PEOPLE.” The PEOPLE make the laws. They do so through their elected representatives in the Congress. The House and the Senate together pass a law and send it to the President’s desk for his signature. Under the Constitution, the President alone is the one who has the authority to veto a law sent to him by the Congress.
Young people may ask “How is it then that the U.S. Supreme Court VETOS a law that they don’t like and even rewrites the law the way they think it should be using a Supreme Court ‘case decision’ to do so?”
The U.S. Supreme Court is not an elected body. Our nine Supreme Court judges are political appointees only. It was never meant to be by our forefathers that nine unelected men and women would be allowed to amass the power they have over 380 million people.
Let’s take the Defense of Marriage Act as an example. It was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton to protect the institution of marriage and define it as being between one man and one woman. When the representatives of 380 million people pass a law and send it to the President’s desk for signature and he signs it, it becomes a law and that is supposed to be the end of it under our constitutional system.
We know what happened. A majority (5 out of 9 judges) of the U.S. Supreme Court decided that they didn’t like the Defense of Marriage Act so they took their pen, dipped it in the inkwell, and struck it down. That case was the last one that Justice Scalia had an opportunity to write a stinging dissent in before he died. He said that if this was allowed to stand (the Supreme Court doing what they did to set aside the Defense of Marriage Act) “we would lose everything we gained in the Revolutionary War: the power to govern ourselves.”
Young people may ask “How did it come about that the Supreme Court gets to disobey the Constitution?” It goes back to 1803 and a little noticed Supreme Court case at the time called Marbury v. Madison. Then Chief Justice John Marshall (a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson, who was President at the time and Marshall was jealous of Jefferson for being President) took it upon himself to boldly state in that court opinion that henceforth the Supreme Court should be the ones to “interpret” the Constitution. The grab for power was in itself unconstitutional because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it is allowed to be “interpreted” by anyone. Perhaps that’s because our forefathers said what they meant to say in plain language and never dreamed that someone would come up with the idea of “interpretation” in order to change their plain language and make it mean something else to suit them.
As inspired as our forefathers were and as meticulous as they sought to be, writing draft after draft of our nation’s Constitution with George Washington himself presiding over the Constitutional Convention, they never foresaw that the court (that is only supposed to uphold the law, not change it and rewrite it) would come up with this word “interpret” – and use it to seize unconstitutional power unto themselves.
If you had floated the word “interpret” among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, they would have thought that you meant getting an interpreter to translate the English into French or German or Spanish, etc. This is all the word “interpret” would have meant to them.
Thomas Jefferson was President in 1803 at the time the devilish mischief of the case of Marbury v. Madison was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. We might call it their first “supreme edict” because it laid the groundwork for all that was to follow, including the assault on the God-given values of our nation – the Supreme Court taking prayer out of the public schools in 1961; “interpreting” between the lines of the Constitution a ‘constitutional right’ for a woman to kill her nearest neighbor – the preborn child within the temple of her womb simply because this innocent child was unwanted or inconvenient to her or the father of the child who pressed her to kill the child.
Thomas Jefferson warned us that if the Marbury v. Madison case was allowed to stand the nation’s Constitution would become:
“… 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 jurisprudence, until all shall be usurped.”
Sometime back, when I was at the U.S. Supreme Court, I was looking in the gift shop of the Court – yes, they have a gift shop – even cookbooks written by Justice Ginsberg, if you can believe it – everything from soup to nuts, including Supreme Court pencils with a double eraser on the end shaped like a gavel (a favorite with the high school tour groups), I noticed a serious DVD entitled “The Supreme Court of the United States”.
It was an exclusive interview by the head of the history department at the University of Virginia who secured permission to come to the court and interview the justices after hours.
In a portion of it Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsberg and Stevens were seated in the well of the Supreme Court chamber itself (obviously after hours – it is very quiet, nobody is there) having a discussion about how things go at the court. I was especially interested in their discussion of their theories of constitutional interpretation.
Justice Scalia, of course, was conservative in his views and said matter of factly that he believed the Constitution said what it meant and that it means the same thing today as it did when it was written. He conceded that there were other views not his own (and we know what those are).
Everybody should get a copy of the U.S. Constitution out, peruse it and see if anywhere in there you can find authority for the Supreme Court to “interpret” it – and use the excuse of “interpreting it” to change it around, make it mean whatever they decide it needs to mean to match their personal predilections and prejudices and ideas of morality, or immorality.
If we can’t find that authority in there, someone needs to be asking the question “Why do we allow the court to continue to do this?” The temptation is for the two warring sides (conservative and liberal) to try to pack the court with men and women that think like they do and then say nothing about the Supreme Court “interpreting” so long as they have the majority in their favor.
This does not correct our problem and aright our ship of state. It only results in the warring fracture of the nation every time a Supreme Court appointment comes up. We have become so accustomed to 9 unelected political appointees lording it over 380 million people, including the Congress and the President, that we bow to them and fight over the next political appointee. Indeed, it’s even come to influence our presidential elections because we are told that the next President will be appointing one or more members to the Supreme Court.
Our forefathers never would have believed this mess! The poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson said it:
It is the little rift within the lute, That by and by will make the music mute, And ever widening slowly silence all.
The little rift within the lute was the Marbury v. Madison case about which Jefferson prophetically 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.” (rule by a few – nine ruling 380 million people)
We must correct this for our children and grandchildren.
There are only two ways to correct it:
- The Supreme Court itself would willingly give up this unconstitutional power that parades under the word “interpretation”.
- The PEOPLE themselves would petition their elected representatives to pass a law that henceforth the S. Supreme Court is to be without authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States. Ruling upon cases brought before it they are to only use the plain
language of the Constitution when called upon to decide a constitutional question.
The Constitution is not something that needs interpreting. It means what it says. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not like a law passed by the people, those 9 unelected political appointees have the same right as all of us to petition their elected representatives to change the law.
The Congress passes laws. The Supreme Court enforces the laws. Only the President has authority to veto the law and even he does not have the authority to rewrite it. If he vetoes it, it simply goes back to the Congress. They are the ones who rewrite it, not the President, not the Supreme Court.
One has to wonder that if when Chief Justice John Marshall was a little boy and his mother told him he could not go out to play until he finished his homework assignment if he didn’t decide that his mother’s plain directive needed some “interpreting” by him – and if she let him get away with “interpreting” her plain language directives. We have all paid the price ever since.
Yours very sincerely and respectfully,