"...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.
All 1787 Constitutional Convention Delegates Would Support John Roberts’ Nomination
By Mary Mostert (07/21/05)
John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to fill the spot on the Supreme Court left by the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor, would be considered by all sides during the 1787 Constitutional Convention as a perfect candidate for the job of judge on the nation’s high court. It appears that no one is disputing Roberts legal training and expertise. He is considered by both enemies and friends as an exceptionally knowledgeable attorney and a man described by both liberals and conservatives in the legal profession as “the best of that trade.”
What is now the issue dividing the nation is exactly the same issue that was debated for four months during the very hot summer of 1787 when the finest minds in America met in Philadelphia to consider ways to correct the defects of the Articles of Confederation, which were clearly leading to anarchy in the infant nation. Two of the major problems with the Articles of Confederation were (1) There was no executive head of the nation – only the Continental Congress, to make decisions and (2) There was no federal judiciary to settle legal disputes among States or disputes that affected the entire nation. There were only the 13 State courts.
On June 5, 1787 the issue being discussed was the Edmund Randolph resolution that “a National Judiciary be established – to be chosen by the National Legislature (the Congress). The judges would “hold their offices” not for a period of time but “during good behavior.” Judges, of course, can be and on a number of occasions HAVE been removed from office through impeachment. However, the resolution to have CONGRESS choose judges was debated and rejected.
There were, according to the minutes of the debate that day, which I mention on page 129 of my recently released book The Threat of Anarchy leads to the Constitution of the United States, three notions about how judges would be chosen in the new Constitution:
James Wilson of Virginia opposed the appointment of Judges by the National Legislature because experience had shown the consequences of “such appointments. by numerous bodies” was “ Intrigue, partiality, and concealment” and therefore such appointments needed to be made by “a single responsible person” to provide “unity” in the nation.
John Rutledge of South Carolina “was by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single person. The people will think we are leaning too much towards Monarchy. He was against establishing any national tribunal except a single supreme one. The State tribunals are most proper to decide in all cases in the first instance.”
Then Doc. Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania “observed that two modes of choosing the Judges had been mentioned, to wit, by the Legislature and by the Executive. He wished such other modes to be suggested as might occur to other gentlemen; it being a point of great moment. He would mention one which he had understood was practiced in Scotland. He then in a brief and entertaining manner related a Scotch mode, in which the nomination proceeded from the Lawyers, who always selected the ablest of the profession in order to get rid of him, and share his practice among themselves. It was here he said the interest of the electors to make the best choice, which should always be made the case if possible.”
It strikes me that President Bush’s choice of John Roberts would be supported by all three of those holding these three positions if they were alive today. If the lawyers chose the new Supreme Court judge, as in Franklin’s tongue in check suggestion, they undoubtedly WOULD choose John Roberts just to get rid of their competition. When he agreed to serve as a judge, he also agreed to a massive, million dollar cut in salary – which now other lawyers have a crack at making.
And, of course, he was nominated by the national chief executive under the Constitution, George W. Bush.
Third, he is clearly supported by the majority of the U.S. Senate.
John Roberts would be a shoo-in if the founding fathers on all sides of the issue during the 1787 Constitutional Convention were now in control of the Senate. So, why is there any discussion of whether or not he will become the next Supreme Court justice?
It is very simple. There is a very strong lobby that has arisen within the Democratic Party and their special interest supporters who are desperate to change the US Constitution. They want the choose judges through mob rule, sometimes referred to as “democracy.” The delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention were determined to set up a representative government that was controlled externally by periodic elections and internally by a balance of power. NONE of the three branches of the government, executive, legislative or judicial were to have any control over the other two branches.
James Madison defined that in Federalist paper 51 as follows:
“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”
Today we are watching a direct attack on the Constitution by groups such as the National Organization for Women, NARAL, a national abortion rights group and even John Dean, Chairman of the Democratic Party, who have mounted a massive campaign to block the Constitutional process in Bush’s nomination of John Roberts. Even John Dean does not argue against Roberts’ legal qualifications. What he and other opponents are asking is for the minority Democrats on the Judiciary Committee (which of course is not even MENTIONED in the Constitution) to prevent the Senate from voting on John Roberts’ nomination.
In other words, they hope they can accomplish an unconstitutional coup d’tat to seize control of the judicial system. Those who support the US Constitution need to remind their Senators what it actually says and remember to vote against those who are determined to ignore the Constitution.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Mary Mostert
Mary was involved in politics before she was old enough to vote and was writing articles for national magazines at the age of nineteen. She organized one of the first interracial youth groups in Memphis, Tennessee in the 1940s as a teenager, and was involved nationally and internationally in the civil rights movement and the peace movement.
Send Feedback To Mary Mostert
Site: http://www.bannerofliberty.com
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
|
|
