We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)March 4, 2004 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the bill in the 108th Congress and needs to be introduced in the 109th Congress.

Saturday, January 15

How Many Millions More Must Be Murdered, Before ‘We The People’ Demand Adherence to the Constitution?

The Sierra Times mission statement reads in part:


"The Sierra Times is not affiliated with any political party. We consider ourselves independent, yet we have been labeled left-wing, right-wing, and everything in between. We try, whenever possible, to be fair in our news reporting, giving both sides of an issue the opportunity to be heard. This goes especially for our editorial commentaries.

Zealots, on the other hand, get little tolerance here. We find 'extremism' on either side to harm the overall debate. The lone exception is regarding the Constitution of the United States, where we must in fact admit that we are extremists in defending it."[1]

The mainstream liberal media operates according to an implied mission statement which could be summed up by stating: Regarding the Constitution of the United States, we must in fact admit that we are extremists in destroying it.

The mainstream conservative media tries to be fair and balanced, but the relevant evidence to convict them of zealously defending the Constitution is probably little more than sporadic, excited utterances of hearsay. The Sierra Times proclaims the Bill of Rights as "our 'mission statement'." How often do you read or hear the major personalities in the conservative media mentioning anything about the Constitution?

The Northwestern University Law School website contains a paper, "The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury,"[2] presented by Michael S. Paulsen, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School,[3] for the Constitutional Theory Colloquium Series, that was held on February 18, 2004.

Professor Paulsen begins his lengthy presentation with these introductory comments:


"Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison,1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.

As befits the name of the court from which the doctrine emanates, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review - the power, in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous words in Marbury, ""to say what the law is""2 - is supreme. The Congress, the President, the states - indeed, ""We the People"" who ""ordain[ed] and establish[ed]""3 the Constitution - are all bound by the Supreme Court's pronouncements.

[….] Indeed, the Court's authority over constitutional interpretation by now must be regarded, rightly, as one of the pillars of our constitutional order, on par with the Constitution itself.

So the myth goes. But nearly every feature of the myth is wrong."

Professor Paulsen writes at length, because the voters are victims of unconstitutional, and extra-constitutional propaganda declaring the unelected, and unaccountable judges on the U.S. Supreme Court as the de facto tyrants of the United States. When, in fact, they are the de jure subordinates which the Constitution emphatically states that they are in the text and internal logic of that document which federal judges routinely defy in their unconscionable edicts permitting mass murder, euphemistically termed as ‘abortion,’ ‘choice,’ ‘privacy.’

The candid citizen, after examining the text, and internal logic of the U.S. Constitution, is led to only one inescapable conclusion about the federal judiciary that is stated in Federalist #78:


"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power [1]; that it can never attack with success either of the other two;

[Footnote 1] The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ""Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.''" ""Spirit of Laws.''" vol. i., page 186.

Madison confirms that conclusion in Federalist #51: "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall derived the doctrine of judicial review from Hamilton's other comments in Federalist #78, the ‘Supremacy Clause’, and the ‘Loyalty Clause’ in the Constitution. Using the same simple logic as Marshall, Presidents Jefferson [4], Jackson [5], and Lincoln [6] expounded upon the doctrine of ‘Executive Review,’ which is as constitutional a doctrine as judicial review, with one supremely important difference. Congress can override a presidential veto, but the United States Supreme Court possesses no power to force any President to comply with their unconstitutional edicts. Thirty states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances,[7] and thirty states stand ready to overthrow Roe.[8] It is not the United States Supreme Court, and most certainly not the Constitution that bars them from doing so – and here is why: Congress can invoke Article 3 [9], and the President is not constitutionally, legally, or ethically mandated to enforce the criminally insane edicts of Roe and progeny. The pro-life, and pro-constitution constituency must stop blaming the Constitution, the judges, and the anti-constitutional constituency whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the Constitution, and push this nation beyond the "point of no return." The blame lies squarely where Federalist #51 puts it - with the Congress - and in the Office where "the buck stops,"[10] as President Truman's sign on his desk read.

When federal courts shred the very fabric of the Constitution as was violently done in Roe and subsequent cases; Congress and the President are obligated by their oath of loyalty to the Constitution - the Supreme Law - to immediately check those courts and restore Constitutional order - anything less is an absolute dereliction of Constitutional duty leading to tyranny.

When a common criminal commits homicide, does the press say that he 'overruled' or 'struck down' a state law forbidding same? The criminal broke the law, just as the criminals dressed in black robes bearing the title of Justice of the United Supreme Court do, every time they break state laws prohibiting abortion with the tacit approval of the press, and pro-life organizations. Could it be that the press and pro-life organizations rely on legal advice tainted with the "Myth of Marbury?" Does the pro-life constituency habitually rely on politicians who are indoctrinated with the same myth? Or is the politician who hides behind the long robes of the federal judiciary when voters demand adherence to the Constitution simply afraid, like the small child who hides behind his mother's long dress?

How do the citizens and their elected representatives know when the federal courts have erred? Justice Curtis answered that excellent question in his dissent from the majority in Dred Scott v. Sandford:


"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." .

Even the press should be able to tell the difference between strict interoperation according to fixed rules, and penumbras emanating [11] from the feral fantasy of a federal judge. The President, each member of Congress, and every pro-life citizen should have a sign on their desk that reads, "The Myth Of Marbury Stops Here!"

The press would likely contend that, if the conservative politicians took the Supremacy Clause, and Loyalty Clause seriously, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis. But the average home schooled child who has been taught the Constitution by his liberty loving, patriotic parents would likely respond with - It would resolve the one we have been in since 1973!

The Honorable John N. Hostettler of Indiana on June 24, 2004, before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. commenting on the issue of "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States," [12]described the plague of propaganda parroted, and perpetuated by the pernicious press:


"Mr. Chairman, as a nonlawyer, I count it a high privilege to serve as a Member of this Subcommittee. However, as a student of the United States Constitution, I would not be truthful if I said that I have always understood as perceived by this nonlawyer to be a disconnect between the plain wording and construction of the Constitution and the opinions handed down by the Federal judiciary as, quote, "''constitutional,''" end quote.

But this perceived disconnect was explained to me with such clarity by, and rightfully so, a lawyer when I read the testimony of Dr. Leo Graglia, before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, of May 15, 1997. Dr. Graglia, who is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas law school, profoundly observed that, quote, "''the first and most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution,''" end quote. At that point, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized that I cannot confuse what is taught in our Nation's law schools and what is expounded by so-called constitutional scholars on the 24-hour news talk shows with the work of folks like Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Washington, and others at Philadelphia in 1787, or for that matter the first Congress in 1789 or the 39th Congress in 1866."

Congress has another member who understands the difference between the Constitution, and unconstitutional edicts supported by nothing more than the Marxist spin that Hostettler described. He represents the 14th District of Texas, and his name is Ron Paul.

Four years ago, he included this comment in "A Republic, If You Can Keep It."[13]



"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: ""Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"" ""A republic if you can keep it"" responded Franklin."

There are many distinguishing features between a Republic with a written Constitution, and judicial oligarchy that deviates further from the rule of law with each evolving opinion. The major difference is that laws, not men govern a republic, whereas law-breaking men govern those in servile subjection to a judicial oligarchy. If the pro-life constituency was as serious about demanding legal protection for life as the homosexuals are about demanding legal protection for their life-style, Roe v Wade and progeny would have been relegated to the trash bin of unconstitutional opinion containing Dred Scott, and Korematsu.

In the world of politics, those who don't act serious will never be taken seriously. There is plenty of room for compromise on a host of issues, but there must be no compromise on the fundamental purpose of government in securing the right to life. Politicians promoting exceptions according to the slogan of 'safe, legal and rare,' are as responsible for breaking the law as the judges who join majority opinions promoting abortion.


In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.[14] On March 4, 2004, "Mr. Paul (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland)" introduced "We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."[15] The bill returns abortion, sodomy, and establishment clause issues to the states where competent citizens with consciences can mend their broken laws, and prevents the U.S. Supreme Court from breaking them.

We the People Act will probably be reintroduced in the 109th Congress prior to the summer session. The pro-life and pro-constitution constituency needs to make reintroduction a certainty, and passage a prerequisite for retaining office after the next elections.

I greatly appreciate Sierra Times commitment to the Constitution, and Christian Patriots For Life support of the scientific/medical, Biblical/ethical, and constitutional arguments for life. It is the only pro-life organization presently supporting We The People Act, and return to constitutional sanity. Christian Patriots For Life[16] is as committed to destroying the Blackmum Wall [17], as Reagan was to the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

REFERENCES THE CANDID CITIZEN CAN PRESENT TO THE PRESS & POLITICIANS:

#1 About The Sierra Times: An Internet Publication for Real Americans.

http://www.sierratimes.com/mission.htm

#2 The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/mainpages/curriculum/colloquium/Michael%20Paulsen.pdf.

#3 Michael S. Paulsen, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School.

http://www.law.umn.edu/facultyprofiles/paulsenm.htm

#4 Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820: "You [William C. Jarvis] seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots." 9

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/thomasjefferson/thomasjefferson.html

#5 President Andrew Jackson on Executive & Congressional review:

"The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/veto/ajveto01.htm

#6 "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html

Ex Parte Merryman - Lincoln simply ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s order.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h248.html

#7 30 States Ready to Outlaw abortion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html

#8 30 states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

#9 Expert testimony on Article 3.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM

#10 President Harry Truman's sign. The saying "the buck stops here" derives from the slang expression "pass the buck" which means passing the responsibility on to someone else.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm

#11 " The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html

#12 The Honorable John N. Hostettler of Indiana on June 24, 2004, before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. commenting on the issue of "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States,"

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM

#13 "A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

#14 In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

#15 We the People Act (HR 3893 IH).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893.IH:108th%20CONGRESS

#16 Christian Patriots For Life.

http://www.cpforlife.org/pro_life.htm

http://cpforlife.blogspot.com/

#17 Blackmum Wall.

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/

This Article Published 01. 17. 05 at 13:10 Sierra Time, SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?