A Gavel Or A Sword?
By William Bailey (09/23/03)
Throughout my life, I have always thought of the gavel as being a symbol of justice and a sword as a symbol of power. Likewise, I have always maintained a high regard and respect for the members of the Federal Judiciary. That is . . . until lately. I have come to the conclusion that the current members of the Federal Judiciary (with some few exceptions) have turned the gavel into the sword. A sword that is cutting out the very heart of the Constitution of the United States and “whittling” away at the foundations on which this nation was built.
Based on recent rulings at all levels of the Federal Judiciary, it would appear that the Judicial branch is attempting to become the most powerful of the three branches of government. That’s not what was intended by the founding fathers. The duties, authorities and responsibilities of each of the three branches are clearly set out in the Constitution. You know . . . the one their oath’s say they will “support and defend”.
One has to wonder, based on the “goings on” in the Federal Judiciary, what is the current status of the first ten amendments to the Constitution . . . the ones known more particularly as the “Bill of Rights”. Has the sword been wielded so mightily and heavy-handedly that they are only vestiges of what was originally intended ?
It would be quite easy to come to the conclusion that “free speech” (the First Amendment) depends on who you are OR what group you represent OR what it is you wish to talk about. To say that it is “selectively” applied would be a gross understatement. The First Amendment is also the one that clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. There are no words in that language having to do with “separation”. You can read it and read it and read it . . . the words just aren’t there. Both of the documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence make reference to the Almighty. Are we to be told in the near future that both of those documents are “un-constitutional” because of those references ?
The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . “. Every day, computer users have to deal with someone who is violating this provision. The “hackers” who try to gain access to computers not belonging to them. I don’t care what label you want to put on it, it’s stealing . . . it’s theft . . . it’s an effort to gain possession of something that doesn’t belong to them. Have the Federal courts taken any major action to deal with this ? If they have, it’s not being very effectively enforced since it happens thousands and thousands of times daily.
And, what about the last of the ten . . . the Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This one has been all but obliterated. The encroachment of the powers of the Federal government on the rights of the several states has been, and continues to be, abominable and ludicrous. Yet, it goes on.
The gavel of justice has become the sword of judicial power. And, that sword is methodically and surgically at work destroying the very thing that created the judiciary, the Constitution. It almost goes beyond being a sword . . . it’s almost a surgical scalpel.
Quite frequently, in making reference to the members of the Federal Judiciary, you will hear it stated that, once confirmed, their terms are for life. Sorry . . . that’s not what the Constitution says. Here’s what Article III, Section 1 has to say about the term(s) of judges, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour . . . “. There is no mention of a lifetime term for judges. Again, you can read it and read it and read it, but you won’t find those words anywhere in the Constitution. Unfortunately, appointments to the Federal bench have become “lifetime” appointments, but that does not mean that, once seated, a Federal judge cannot be “unseated”, whether it be at the Supreme Court or an inferior court. It is obvious that there are members of the Federal Judiciary who seem to think that their appointments are “lifetime” and that little, if anything, can be done to them. But, they are wrong. The Constitution says they are wrong.
Let’s come back to the document that started this whole experiment in freedom and liberty, the Declaration of Independence. All should heed these words, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” “Consent of the governed . . . “ that’s us, “We the People”. We are the “governed” the government we have should be that to which we give our consent. Not a government that is created by a group wielding a sword instead of a gavel.
It is time for the Federal Judiciary to stop the march toward being the pre-eminent, most-powerful-of-the-three branches of government and get back to what the Constitution says you are . . . one of the three co-equal branches. After all, “you ain’t all that”. Put the sword away and restore the gavel !
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
