"...an utterly corrupt new religion called environmentalism..."
If the history of this planet's climate over millions of years is any guide, we are about to enter a new ice age.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
The Stuggle of the Judiciarchy
By R J Rummel (07/21/05)
So, President Bush has a nominated federal appeals court judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and we are on a the verge of a mamouth struggle over his approval. But, judging from Robert's qualifications, the battle may be less mamouth than I anticipate. Conservatives seem unified in their support, which would not have been true of some other possible nominees, and while the far left is gearing up to oppose him, some Democrats seem ready to break ranks.
Why is this so important, just this one nominee? He may be a swing voter on deeply contentious issues, or as some Democrats say, he may unbalance the Court. Now, many Americans are repulsed by high conflict. These are the why-can't-we-get-along people, the ones who believe amity and handshakes should rule. But, they simply don't understand the Court's power and what is at stake.
First, the Supreme Court is more powerful than the President or Congress. It can overturn any policy, or law. It can establish its own law. Consider. It can decide whether one's private property can be taken by government to give to another for private gain or tax purposes. It can decide whether one can be taxed and how much. It can decide if foreign terrorists captured in Iraq can be treated as enemy, or criminals subject to trail by jury. It can decide whether a lower court judge can take over a whole school district and run it as though a dictator. It can decide whether women can get an abortion. It can decide whether two or more of the same sex can marry. It can decide the limits of freedom of speech, and yes, even approve its suppression (McCain-Feingold in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission case). And it can decide whether lower courts can throw out a referendum approved by a huge majority. And so on and on for central public issues that decide how free Americans will be.
It is common in political science to teach about the balance of power established by the Constitution. You know, the independent courts, legislature, and executive, each jealous of its own power and contesting against that of the other two branches. And this is what exists constitutionally, formally. But in practice and through the aggrandizement of power by the Supreme Court, it is now the ultimate power of the land. What we have, in practice, is nine unelected men and women, as THE FINAL AUTHORITY over the balance of power. THEY determine what the balance will be. THEY are the final legislators. Even a very conservative or libertarian John Roberts, if he is such, would not make much of a difference. This is because of the very heavy weight on the Court of Stare decisis, or all past Court decisions. It is so well establish in our judicial norms and law that the Court can rule on the constitutionality of what Congress and the lower courts do (interpret this conventional phrase as "change the law"), that there is no way to reform this, except by changing the constitutional basis of the Court by a constitutional amendment.
For the future of freedom, and as a freedomist, I humbly suggest that the Court be treated as what it is, a supremo legislature, and that the number of justices be increased and all be elected. I leave to the drafting committee of such an amendment whether they should be elected at large, or by state or region.
Since the power of the Supreme Court justices makes them an oligarchic elite -- the court a judiciarchy -- ruling over the Presidents and Congress, is not the United States an oligarchy rather than a democracy? No, for still the ultimate power resides with the people through the ballot box, the constitutional amending process, and their as yet wide freedom of speech. Many more decisions of the Supreme Court such as its recent affirmation of government seizing private property for private use, and public rage will show democracy's power and ultimately who is boss.
Original Blog
(Printer friendly version) Email: R J Rummel
R.J. Rummel is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science. He has published twenty-four nonfiction books (one that received an award for being among the most referenced), four novels, and about 100 peer-reviewed professional articles; has received the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association in 1999 for having intellectually most challenged the field; and in 2003 was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Section, American Political Science Association. He was a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize finalist.
Send Feedback To R J Rummel
Site: http://www.freedomist.net/
UPSSA
United Progressive Socialist States of America
|
"Mexico, Canada partnership underway with no authorization from Congress"
The United States Is Being Overthrown By Our Politicians - "A silent but all-reaching coup is taking place within the
United States. This coup is not being directed by bomb-laden Muslim terrorists, nor will it ever be covered by the mainstream media.
The seditious act is being carried out by our very own elected officials, with President Bush leading the insurrection."
"The FDA has conveniently used the excuse of looking out for consumer safety to increase their perverse regulatory power,
undermine free speech, disrupt commerce, and generally get in the way of helping people improve their health. The "half-truth" of
the safety issue is used as a ploy to reduce the rights of Americans, one freedom at a time. Once again, the FDA is seeking more
police power to intimidate supplement companies. This is one step in an overall FDA master plan to eliminate therapeutic nutritional
supplements from the free market. Those who lose are the American public." The FDA - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
|
|
