I will forever be grateful for the legacy of idealistic law and justice bequeathed to me and all-American citizens in the fervent admonition of the honorable lawyer, Constitutional legislator, Vice-President, and U.S. President John Adams when he stated that “we (the American republic) are a nation of laws and not of men.” I wish I could have extended my appreciation to him personally, but the man, Adams, has been dead since 1824, having lived 126 years before I was born. Yet, despite my own sincere gratefulness to him and the other dedicated Framers of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, there are currently those federal officers of the 21st Century, elected, appointed, and hired as bureaucrats who, having come from the 20th Century, personally despise what Adams said and would rather the republic become and act as a ‘nation of whimsical and flippant men (and women) and not of laws.’
The crux of this article deals with the open and utterly flagrant disregard for federal, and especially U.S Constitutional, law by the aforementioned federal officers of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States Government as the federal Judiciary continues to routinely usurp, with undue fanfare, its designated and defined role as only an interpreter and judge of the constitutionality of cases falling under the U.S. Constitution and the legislated and codified laws of the United States of America. This insipid disregard for, especially, Constitutional law, by the men and women who have sworn to uphold it, has been going on since before 1925, while during that pivotal year a simple and ordinary act of Congress, the Federal Judiciary Act, quietly altered the specific requirement of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, as the representatives and senators of the 69th Congress completely ignored the necessity of the Article V constitutional Amendment process requirement. This was an egregious and inexorable first-step to the complete illegal transformation of the federal Judiciary, and especially the U.S. Supreme Court, from a branch of federal government designated originally by law as only a judge of the constitutionality of federal laws into an illegal quasi-legislative organ of government. The unconstitutional Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 changed the specific constitutional requirement for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear “all” cases rising under the U.S. Constitution and federal law, which make their way successfully through the federal appellate judicial system to a stage for hearing, by right, before the highest court of the land, to that of a “pick-and-choose” certiorari writ system where the Supreme Court can arbitrarily refuse to hear important cases that it would have ordinarily heard by standard order before 1925.
This Congressional Act, though illegal on its face, was presented as a bill (dubbed the Certiorari Bill) on the floor of the U.S. Senate in early 1925 sponsored by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Howard Taft. As to why Taft knowingly sponsored an unconstitutional bill in the Legislative branch, well, in a nutshell, the answer to this question is, simply, that the man had gone about pragmatically arranging the successful passage of the Certiorari Bill into a law before its congressional presentation by the shady illegal deals he made with U.S. senators and representatives in the smoke-filled backrooms of the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court, and, perhaps, in illegal speak-easies and burlesque parlors while sipping fine Kentucky bourbon. Taft, who was also the 27th President of the USA, was an intimidatingly large man (six feet and over 300 pounds) and was widely known as a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist (one who firmly believed that the end-result of any endeavor justified the legal, or illegal, means used to obtain it). Basically, he was an accomplished liar, who had fully succeeded in persuading President Warren G. Harding, in 1921, that the President had him in his hip-pocket as his nominated choice of a dutifully servile and obliging Supreme Court Chief Justice, which proved very detrimental for Harding’s administration after Taft’s formal nomination and confirmation by the U.S. Senate, as the new Chief Justice immediately showed himself to be just the opposite.
There was, of course, a political agenda set in place to augment an activist U.S. Supreme Court after the implementation of the 1925 Federal Judiciary Act and the writ of certiorari process that made the nine justices of the high court into essentially a pragmatic means of determining the success of political objectives set in motion by conspiring Legislative branch senators and representatives and extra-governmental social activists, such as Margaret Sanger, the original outspoken proponent of eugenics, lobotomy, birth control, and abortion. How else, but by purely political discussion and subjective prioritization, could the nine justices have arbitrarily selected the appellate cases most “worthy” of being heard from the docket of appellate cases that “deserved” to be heard? The writ of certiorari process turned out to fundamentally be a writing contest for federal appellants. Whichever appellant had the most appealing and persuasive writing content ended-up getting heard by the high tribunal.
Essentially, Margaret Sanger, supposedly trained as a nurse, gained national sensation in 1925 by vehemently proposing the same barbaric and racist agenda for the USA that Adolf Hitler had proposed in his 1925 book, “Mein Kampf” (interpreted as “My Struggle”) and which he ultimately implemented against the Jews and any other group of human beings that did not fit into his master-race schema in his Nazification of Germany from 1933 until 1945. Having attained legal recognition from five of the nine Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice Taft and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, three of the pending federal appellate cases against eugenics and birth control, due review by the USSC, were eliminated through the certiorari process as the Court refused to hear them. Yet, Buck v. Bell (1927) was selected by writ of certiorari, heard, and decided by the Court, in which it voted 8-1 to approve compulsory Nazi-like sterilization for socially undesirable men and women. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority decision, in which he stated, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute the degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”
Consequently, because of that judicial approval of eugenics, between 1928 and 1975 over 100,000 women throughout the USA were deemed socially incapable of producing normal healthy children and were sterilized by order of the federal and state governments. This depravity also extended to over 40,000 men around the country during the same time-period who were adjudged by federal and state courts as having the diminished capacity of siring normal healthy children and were neutered, or chemically castrated, by court order. Just in California, for 70 years beginning early in 1909, over 20,000 men and women were sterilized, often without their full knowledge and consent. California led the country in the indiscriminate sterilizations of both men and women. Furthermore, from 1950 until 1973 before Roe v. Wade, over 7 million unnecessary abortions also occurred in the USA, the majority of which were performed in California abortion clinics. When I say unnecessary abortions, I mean that more than 7 million healthy unborn fetuses (unborn children) were clinically murdered (aborted) because of the flippant attitudes of sex partners, and the unwanted pregnancies produced by indiscriminate sexual intercourse. In a public statement made by Margaret Sanger, in 1951, the frenzied woman stated to her clamoring disciples that, “young couples should be more concerned with the quality of their passions and sexual compatibility than mere pregnancy, the inconsequential by-product of the sexual union. For this reason, abortion should be used to the full extent of its capacity to regulate population.” Something to seriously consider is that after Roe v. Wade, from 1973 to the present-day, over 90 million unnecessary abortions have been performed in the USA, a number which is tantamount to the total population of the republic in 1908. With the same basic immoral and pragmatic mindset that led Willian H. Taft and Oliver Wendell Holmes to their judicial approval of eugenics and sterilization in Buck v. Bell, 1927, Chief Justice Earl Warren and six other justices rendered a majority decision in favor of Roe and indiscriminate abortion in 1973, while two justices, Rehnquist and White, dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Byron White stated the provocative legal issues that I will discuss further in this article.
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
In every U.S. Supreme Court decision that, over the history of the American republic, that has been at odds with the proper Constitutional judicial power vested in the federal judiciary by the Framers, there have been dissenters, such as Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist who have fervently decried the judicial miscarriage of justice and the blatant usurping of Article III, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. These dissenters, such as Bryon White, have fully realized that the law, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, and the Framers’ intent of the perpetuation of that manner of interpreting the Constitution are the most important aspects of U.S. Constitutional law. First off, the presiding force of the inalienable rights of the States, or the People, proclaimed in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights was intended by the Framers’ to be in perpetuity for the preservation of the liberty of the People. This amendment simply states that the federal government has no more power and authority than that specifically detailed in the text of the original U.S. Constitution. In other words, no other power could be inferred or interpreted from spurious interpretation than that specifically stated.
At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, in 1790, the federal government was severely limited in its power over the States, and the States were ordained with all the powers and rights reserved unto them by the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In the same exact way that all the first nine amendments’ guarantees of freedom and liberty were inalienably sacrosanct, and that no other amendment could be legally added to the U.S. Constitution to add to, or detract, from those sacred inalienable rights, the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights ensured that the States retained all powers and authority not specifically delegated to the federal government nor denied to them by the Constitution. That was a great deal of power reserved unto the People, and the Framers understood that a constitutional republic of States could only persevere through the ages in liberty under such a specific delineation and separation of powers.
As the entire federal government had been intended by the Constitutional Framers to remain small and limited in its legislative, executive, and judicial powers, the Legislative branch was constrained, in Article I, Section VIII, to only the creation of laws necessary, or essential, and proper, to the proper execution of only the specific federal powers enumerated in Article I, Section VIII. In other words, law and common sense dictated that federal legislators (Congress) could not use Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this Constitution in the federal government, or in any department of officer thereof,” to justify legislating a law to force the People, or States, to only birth their children in federally approved hospitals, and nowhere else,” using the power contained in Article I, Section VIII, Clause VII, “To establish post offices and post roads.” For how, in the name of sophistry, could the federal government justifiably condone the use of the specific legislative power to establish post offices and post roads to concoct a law affecting the birth of children? No reasonable person would even suggest doing this in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, it was quietly done to create the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress could find no federal power or authority in Article I, Section VIII to create a law controlling civil rights, so it arbitrarily used Article I, Section VIII, Clause III, the Commerce Power Clause, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” to create the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Congress used the Commerce Clause to create laws ordering the People of the States to treat each other in a specific manner. The subsequent expansions of Civil Rights Act of 1964 were predicated on the egregious U.S. Supreme Court rulings declaring in 1965 and 1966 that the use of the Commerce power Clause to legislate and regulate civil rights in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was constitutional. The additional use of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to supersede the 10th Amendment power of the States was also unconstitutionally applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to supposedly give the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the “teeth” it needed for enforcement. These absurd uses of the U.S. Constitution to justify the legislation and enforcement of laws that the federal government had no real constitutional power to create are just as ridiculous, but as plausible, as a federal law that could possibly be passed to mandate the placement of identifying RFID chips into all newborn children to ensure that the kidnapping of newborn babies would be effectively eliminated. In effect, if the federal government could use the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify its authority over civil rights, it could use any of the Article I, Section VIII powers to justify any control they want to assert over the People, or the States.
I was thinking one day long ago, when I was in my youthful prime and living in California, about the liberty I had under the U.S. Constitution to take a long-distance run anytime of the day or night, in any temperature, in rain or sunshine. As I was thinking this, running along in 95-degree heat and thoroughly enjoying myself, a California cop in his car slowed down beside me and shouted, “You shouldn’t be running in this heat!” I shouted back just as vociferously, “Leave me alone. It is my liberty to run in any type of weather I choose!” The cop frowned at me and said, “There should be a law!” During the early, middle, and late-20th Century, this was a prime example of the type of fascist mentality that readily existed among many Americans with authority that has precluded, in so many dynamic governmental circumstances, the appropriate application of John Adams’s wise statement, “We are a nation of laws, and not of men.” It was the type of mentality that caused Nazi and American eugenics and abortion to inexorably flourish rampantly under the pretense of law and jurisprudence and gave rise to a federal government that flagrantly ignored U.S. Constitutional law and underhandedly made it a reality that a nation of a few whimsical and immoral men and women was the rule rather than that of a nation of laws.
In a July 12, 2018 “Washington Times” commentary on the judicial mindset of federal Judge, and President Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, noted columnist Cal Thomas did something that most supposedly literate and educated American writers are loath to do in this day-and-age. He made cogent reference to the one standard of definitive source of understanding about the U.S. Constitution, the 1787 “Federalist Papers,” and deferred to the wisdom of the Framer, Alexander Hamilton, who was chosen by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to write about the constraints set upon the federal judiciary in the proposed Constitution, especially upon the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas did well in citing the words of Hamilton in his “Federalist 78” to latently embellish and reinforce the 20th Century words of Justice Byron White in his Roe v. Wade dissent. As Cal Thomas wrote,
“In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or wealth of the society… It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment… ” Further quoting Hamilton, Thomas wrote, “About the Court, Hamilton said: “[A] limited Constitution… can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it is to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing… To deny this would be to affirm… that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
It is quite obvious that a great majority of the justices of U.S. Supreme Court have, since 1925, ignored the constraints levied upon them as judges and arbiters of federal and Constitutional law, and have pursued their own political and social agendas to serve as quasi-legislative activists rather than as prudent jurists. Had there been, rather, a majority of justices set upon the course of Constitutional correctness according to the judicial intent of the Framers, the Federal Reserve Act would have certainly been judged as totally unconstitutional in 1913, as well as the Federal Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964. Moreover, Roe v. Wade would have been regarded by the Court as exclusively a 10th Amendment State issue and would not have been heard originally by a federal court and ultimately by the Supreme Court. Homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and marriage in general, would have been declared as purely State matters, and, in most cases, would have been decided by the State courts in favor of morality and holy heterosexual marriage. There also would not have been 90 million heinous murders of unborn children committed in the USA since 1973. The republic would be much different today than it was in 1925 and 1973, with a greater thriving population and, as Abraham Lincoln had quipped in his Gettysburg address 155 years earlier, a real rebirth of liberty and freedom.