Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement


Justin Smith makes an excellent case for President Trump to nominate a Pro-Life and Constitutional Originalist to SCOTUS. Justin specifically posits the nomination to be Appellate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

 

JRH 7/9/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Choose Pro-Life for Justice Kennedy’s Replacement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/8/2018 8:41 PM

 

Under our God-given rights, Our Founders saw the law as a tool to preserve liberty and freedom for all, through the Western and Judeo-Christian principles and virtues that made the U.S. Constitution and our bicameral system possible. They did not see liberty under the law as anybody’s right to do anything, regardless of its reprehensible nature, and they certainly never intended to place America on a path where evil is called “good”, as the nation witnessed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v Wade. The Court was never supposed to be the final arbiter of law, becoming a tyrannical entity that seemingly answers to no one and places itself above all.

 

In this sense and in conjunction with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s impending retirement, President Trump is wrong not to question potential Supreme Court nominees regarding their position on Roe v Wade and whether or not they would overturn it, if given the opportunity. Any reluctance to do so is from a political concern and ignores the fact that Roe v Wade was given the force of de facto law by a Supreme Court that enforced its will and did not judge the case on any actual constitution basis, since the so-called “right” to abortion did not exist in the Constitution and they manufactured it out of thin air.

 

President Trump suggested that it somehow wouldn’t be “appropriate” to question his nominees on this. So, is murdering over 60 million unborn children since 1973 appropriate?

 

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), an overt progressive, stated that she could not support any candidate who might be willing to overturn the despicable Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling. She suggested that many years of “precedents” must somehow be viewed as “set law” as she parroted Democrat talking points and the likes of progressive Democrat activist Justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

 

What about the hundreds of years of precedents that upheld the sanctity of life and protected life well prior to Roe V Wade?

 

Any person who views overturning the activist decision of Roe v Wade as a “big mistake is essentially willing to usurp an unborn child’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They are either horribly ignorant or terribly callous in turning a blind-eye to the murder of a human person, committed in each abortion; but in either case, they are taking the position that protecting innocent life is not a moral good.

 

If Supreme Court precedents are set law, why isn’t Plessy v Ferguson and Lum v Rice still the law of the land? If these cases had not been overturned, America would still have segregation under the “law”. These were overturned by a later Court, because the Supreme Court is fallible.

 

However, ever since Marbury v Madison (1803) and the Court’s assumption that it was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, America has seen the Supreme Court define its own power, and increasingly and regularly, America has seen the Supreme Court usurp power and act as if it is dominant over Congress and the Office of the President, which is contrary to the Founders’ Original Intent. Marbury has been cited by the Court to invalidate laws in over 200 cases, even though Marbury v Madison does not contain any actual assertion that the Court has exclusive authority to bind other parts of government.

 

Thomas Paine, one of our Founders, once noted, “All power exercised over a nation … must be either delegated, or assumed … All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.”

 

The rights Thomas Jefferson lists in the Declaration of Independence are certainly open to interpretation, but according to our Founders, their metaphysical basis, found in nature itself, is not. However, activist Justices have now long impressed their notions of what they believe the Constitution should say, upon all America. As a result, America was handed rulings that removed prayer and the Ten Commandments from schools, pornography on demand, abortion and homosexual “marriage”.

 

Some call retiring Justice Kennedy a “moderate” because he voted along conservative lines fifty-seven percent of the time, but how anyone reaches this conclusion is disturbing, especially once one looks at some major cases. Kennedy voted too often to advance the deviant and perverted homosexual agenda in America, although this segment of society represents only a mere 3 to 4 percent of the population. Kennedy knocked down Texas’s sodomy laws, the upheld Roe v Wade twice and he voted in favor of homosexual “marriage”, aiding in making a mockery of traditional marriage and the only true meaning of marriage — the union between one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony before God. This is not a “conservative” or a “moderate”.

 

By the time this is released, Pres. Trump will have made his pick for the Supreme Court. Let us all pray that he chooses Amy Coney Barrett, the 46 year old Justice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,  who is a pro-life Catholic mother of seven and a strong Constitutionalist. Ms. Barrett was also awarded the top student award from Notre Dame Law School in 1997.

 

President Trump cannot deny, that these illiberal anti-Constitution proponents of abortion stand firmly opposed to the conservative philosophy, which is the protector of America’s founding ideas, those ideas of life and liberty so many American patriots have died defending. As such, President Trump and Congress should unabashedly state that they will move to place a pro-life nominee on the Supreme Court, such as Amy Barrett, because modern Justices no longer seem capable of just determining the constitutionality of any particular law, in accordance with the Founders’ Original Intent; rather, they seek to wield the Supreme Court like a club to meet the demands of whatever political agenda at hand at any given moment, during a time that the anti-Constitution progressive Democrats have certainly made no secret that defending baby murder is an integral part of their fight to accept or reject any candidate for the Supreme Court.

 

As Christians, we are bound to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to reject the lies and the evil of an abortion industry that murders the image of God approximately 1.5 million times a year in America. No one should ever call such a heinous crime a “right”.

 

And in the meantime, America must put forth the necessary effort and work to reign in an out-of-control Supreme Court, as the admonishment and prophesy of Brutus, one of the great anti-Federalists guiding the Constitution’s ratification debate, has become our present-day reality: “The Supreme Court under this Constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul … There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under Heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of Heaven itself.” [Italic bold by Editor]

 

America must stop un-elected Supreme Court Justices from arbitrarily exercising power over the entire nation, our federal and state governments, in a manner that abrogates part of the Constitution itself, as it sets forth to define good and evil from the high court. And America must stop the reprehensible abortion industry and overturn Roe v Wade, and right the historic wrong that has perpetrated the worst mass murder in history, upon a nation that purportedly seeks to be blessed by God.

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

******************

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com