Obama Loading Up Justice Dept With Judicial Activists

By Bob Ellis on February 5th, 2009

Page 1 Page 2

CB068300President Barack Obama has had trouble with several of his nominations since taking office. Several of his nominees have had issues with taxes, ethics, and more. 

But some of the people Obama wants to serve in the Justice Department–the department charged with upholding the nation’s laws–may be the most disturbing. 

For a number of years Americans have recognized the problem of judicial activism, though it continues to be an ongoing problem across the country.

Put simply, judicial activism is the misuse of legal and judicial power to change legal practice based on political ideology rather than the U.S. Constitution, law or precedent.

We have seen numerous examples of this over the past 60 years or so. One of the first and perhaps most egregious runs of judicial activism came under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s watch, as he filled the Supreme Court with judicial activists who would ignore the Constitution in support of his socialist government programs. We saw it again as the SCOTUS manufactured a “right” to abortion from “penumbras and emanations,” a “right” to sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, and the California Supreme Court’s “discovery” of a “right” for homosexuals to call their unions “marriage” in contradiction of established California law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

It was clear before the election that Obama views the constitutional limits on government as an obstacle to his vision of wealth redistribution. From the list of people Obama has nominated to run the Department of Justice, it would seem he is lining up judicial activists to facilitate his vision to “remake America.”

 

Nominee: Thomas J. Perrelli (Associate Attorney General)

Perrelli is another recycle from the Clinton administration where he served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno and eventually rose to Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

LifeNews reports Perrelli acted as a lawyer representing  Michael Schiavo in his effort end the life of his disabled wife, Terri Schiavo.  Though living with and producing children with another woman, Schiavo eventually obtained court permission and succeeded in dehydrating and starving his wife to death in 2005.  

Nominee: Elena Kagan (Solicitor General)

Elena Kagan is reported to be a lesbian and a radical proponent of homosexual rights.  She has been an ardent opponent of the Solomon Amendment which requires universities to allow military recruiters and ROTC programs in order to receive federal funds.  Despite her brief to convince the SCOTUS otherwise, the Solomon Amendment was upheld as constitutional.

She also advocates allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military. According to The Crimson, Kagan said the military’s longstanding prohibition on homosexuals in the service is “terribly wrong in depriving gay men and lesbians of the opportunity to serve their country” 

 

Nominee: Dawn Johnson (Office of Legal Counsel) 

Dawn Johnson worked for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the late 1980s; the ACLU is one of the most radical, activist legal organizations in existence.  Johnson was also the legal director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the most pro-abortion organizations in the country. Johnson is another Clinton retread, having served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.  

This is a quote from Johnson on unborn children, courtesy of the Family Research Council: 

“In recent years, however, courts and state legislatures have increasingly granted fetuses rights traditionally enjoyed by persons. Some of these recent ‘fetal rights’ differ radically from the initial legal recognition of the fetus in that they view the fetus as an entity independent from the pregnant woman with interests that are potentially hostile to hers.” D. Johnsen, “The Creation of Fetal Rights:…”, 95 YALE L.J. 599 (1986).

Is it so outlandish that a “fetus” should have the same rights as a “person”? Especially when considering that the “fetus” has human DNA (“persons” are usually human, and humans are usually “persons”), and the human DNA of this “fetus” is unique from the DNA of the pregnant woman, and the “fetus” has all the genetic information it will ever need for the rest of it’s life at conception. Would Johnson argue that a female toddler less legal recognition than an adult woman because the toddler lacks development?

Another quote from Johnson provides insight into why she considers access to abortion to be of paramount importance:

That may also well reveal that some (not all) such political forces are more interested in objectives other than reducing the number of abortions. Among them may be controlling the nature and understanding of motherhood and diminishing women’s equality and sexual freedom

Indeed. Sexual freedom and liberation from the natural consequences of sexual intercourse (i.e. reproduction) is most likely at the heart of the majority of abortion advocacy.

And consider this quote on parental rights and responsibility from an internal NARAL memo, cited in the book Bearing Right by William Saletan:

“In practice, both consent and notification laws amount to a parental veto power over a minor’s decision to an abortion. Do not, as part of an affirmative legislative strategy, introduce even a liberalized version of a parental consent or notification law.”

Parents, stay out of the lives of your children! Don’t you realize your children actually belong to the state…and the state is a veeeeeeeeeery lenient and permissive parent.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Page 1 Page 2

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Pages: 1 2

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Page 1 Page 2

  • cinemaphile85
    "Odgen is also pushing for homosexuals to be allowed to serve in the military."

    Gay people are already allowed to serve in the military. I think what you meant to say is *openly* gay people - or "open homosexuals," if you insist.

    His comments make a lot of sense. Prejudice tends to go down when you're in regular contact with different people, and there really is no rational basis for discharging openly gay servicemen and women.
  • The stupid "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is a mockery of law and order. It's an official policy to ignore official rules; it took a real idiot to think that one up.

    I think what you mean is that, like the frog in the warming pot, as long as the temp doesn't go up too quickly, people tend to compromise truth and morality over time and familiarity. It's just easier than holding the line, especially when the herd is telling you the line isn't important.

    Though that may happen with some even among the good folks of the military, it will remain a bad and impractical policy that undermines readiness. We don't put men and women in close living conditions (that are common in the military) because we would be putting people with an element of sexual attraction (frequently unwanted) in intimate settings together--a policy which makes both human and practical sense.

    To avoid doing the same things when allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, we would need to segregate homosexuals and heterosexuals of the same sex--something not very practical in military and combat environments.

    We should not sacrifice practicality and military readiness in order to accommodate immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practices. National defense is far too important to jeopardize with such foolish games.
  • cinemaphile85
    Geez...tell us how you REALLY feel.

    I'm glad Ogden had enough foresight to use the word "rational" in his statement. Because there is nothing rational about what you just said.

    Could you please explain what exactly you think will happen if gays were able to serve openly in the military? Based on what you said, you seem to think that:

    -Gays are always looking for their next hookup, and if they were allowed to serve openly, they would treat military service like a weekend at Fire Island during Pride Week.

    -Gays don't have self-control or respect for their colleagues - in other words, when a gay soldier is showering with a straight soldier, he just can't resist making a pass at him and doesn't care if the recipient is uncomfortable.

    -Allowing gays to serve openly would mean that any and all forms of homosexual expression will be tolerated (as if things like heterosexual rape in the military and unwanted flirtation among opposite-sex soldiers are tolerated as well).

    -Straight soldiers are too insecure to deal with sharing close quarters with openly gay soldiers. For them, holding a gun is no big deal, but holding another man's hand is just too icky to think about!
  • Are you living in the real world, cinemaphile85? Do you think the rest of us aren't? One of those seems to be the case if you expect us to believe, or believe that you believe, homosexuals don't get sex on their minds...especially in close proximity to those to whom they are attracted.

    As I explained with regard to why the military doesn't quarter men and women together, they get sexual notions, often unwanted by one or the other party. Homosexuals don't get sexual notions? Excuse my while I go laugh myself silly?

    ...

    Okay, I'm back now.

    I've seen the problems homosexual overtures cause in the military. I recall two friends who were propositioned by homosexuals, one of them by his roommate in a two-person barracks room. Once that cat is out of the bag, there's no going back to just "paling around roomates" again. There's the issue of unwanted sexual attention when you come out of the shower, when you're changing, when you're sleeping. Soldiers have far, far, far more important duties to be concerned with than submitting to politically correct mandates that affect their all-too-minimal privacy in military situations.

    Segregating male soldiers' living quarters by homosexual/heterosexual, and doing the same for female soldiers, is impractical and detrimental to the mission--especially when it's done just to accommodate an immoral sexual practice in the military.

    Military service isn't a right. It's a privilege. Many people who can't or won't abide by military priorities are denied service every day--and frequently these incompatibilities are neither immoral or unhealthy as homosexual behavior is.

    The United States military is under no reasonable obligation to accommodate an unnatural, immoral and unhealthy sexual practice. Nor should it.
  • cinemaphile85
    Bob,

    I never said that gay people don't get sexual thoughts. Maybe you were too busy laughing at me to notice.

    What happened to your friends is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. The guys who propositioned them should have known better, and I hope they were discharged. But you are using those two isolated incidents to conclude that all gay people will do the same thing if they're allowed to serve openly. That's not true, and only a person who thinks that gays are just oversexed animals who can't control their urges would think such a thing. The reality is that many gay soldiers are discharged not because they've propositioned their colleagues for sex or were caught having sex with other gay soldiers. Many times, it's simply because someone finds out that they're in a gay relationship.

    Your irrational anti-gay prejudice is so overwhelming that I see no point in continuing this part of the discussion. I will, however, point out that we both agree on one thing: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be abolished.

    I think it's ludicrous that the military is throwing millions of dollars away on a policy that amounts to a modern-day witch hunt and an invasion of privacy. I think gays should serve openly and be subject to the same codes of behavioral conduct as everyone else; specifically, no form of sexual harassment should be tolerated. But to ban all gay people from serving in the military because they *might* proposition their same-sex colleagues or have sex with other gay soldiers is just asinine.



    Let me ask you something. Since you don't want gay people in the military at all, how would you achieve that goal? What solution would you propose?
  • I do not conclude based on the incidents concerning my friends (one WAS discharged, the other remained in the service because the case against him wasn't solid) that all homosexuals would necessarily do that if allowed to serve openly.

    But if they are in fact allowed to serve openly, why shouldn't they consider themselves free to proposition other men? Seriously, why shouldn't they?

    Any male solider should be free to express a romantic interest in a fellow female soldier (subject to rules governing fraternization, of course), so--in the scenario mentioned in the last paragraph--should the homosexual soldier not consider himself free to express a romantic interest in a fellow male soldier?

    And if he does, and that romantic attention is unwanted, and the object of his interest is placed in intimate living conditions with him due to military necessity (e.g. barracks room, tent, bunker, foxhole), you're going to have problems.

    Which is why we bunk male and female soldiers separately. And if homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, you're going to have to bunk homosexual men and heterosexual men, and homosexual women and heterosexual women, separately. You've gone from two segregated communities within the military (with justifiable reason, based on their innate, natural and morally neutral physical characteristics) to four segregated communities--two of which are based on a sexual practice that can be chosen or denied, is not natural and is immoral.

    The silliness of military accommodation of an immoral sexual practice aside, I doubt the military, for practical and financial reasons, enact that four-way segregation. Which means you're going to have problems...problems that, given the military's critical mission, simply shouldn't have to be dealt with.

    We should do away with this asinine "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and go back to the policy we used to have until that idiot Bill Clinton came along: homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Period.

    And to answer your question, we'd accomplish that the same way we did throughout American military history until Clinton's asinine policy. If someone admits to homosexual behavior, or solid evidence is presented by another person, after an investigation confirming the evidence, they would be discharged. It always worked before, and there's no reason it couldn't work again.

    And the military could get on unencumbered with their job of defeating the enemy.
  • cinemaphile85
    Why shouldn't gay soldiers consider themselves free to proposition same-sex soldiers? (I know I've been using gender-specific pronouns too, but let's try not to ignore lesbian soldiers). Well, for one thing, the military could just make a rule that personnel are not allowed to proposition each other for sex. And if that rule is broken, reprimand them accordingly.

    Also, if a gay soldier knows that a certain colleague is married or in a relationship, one would hope that that would be enough to deter any kind of sexual advances from taking place. You may think that gays are evil, but that doesn't mean we don't understand the concept of personal boundaries. If the gay soldier in question is a professional, he or she should know the difference between appropriate and inappropriate interaction.

    As for your solution, I really don't see how it differs from the current policy. The only real way to keep gays out of the military is for recruiters to ask potential enlistees about their sexual orientation and just assume they're anwering truthfully. But even then, what's to stop someone from lying?
  • Such a broad rule is neither appropriate nor enforceable--nor is it fair and reasonable in any way to the good people of the military.

    There is no reasonable way to distinguish between non-sexual romantic interest and relations, and ones carried to sexual behavior. And regardless of whether any homosexual overtures were carried to sexual contact, the romantic interest and desire itself would likely prove unnerving and create morale and unit cohesion problems.

    Restrictions which are limited in scope, such as those on on fraternization (e.g. officers/enlisted, in the direct chain of command, etc.) are not unduly burdensome or restrictive, since the opportunities for other romantic relationships exist.

    Telling military members they cannot consider one another as romantic partners is unfair, overly restrictive, and simply impractical to enforce. You would also likely see many service people walk out the door, and make it harder to recruit. And all to deal with the accommodation of an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual behavior? Give me a break.

    It also doesn't matter whether the object of their romantic intentions is in a relationship with someone else. They may simply not want homosexual attention placed on them, especially if forced to live in close quarters with one another.

    The current policy "doesn't ask" recruits whether they are homosexual. In the old BC days (Before Clinton) this was asked before someone signed up. If a homosexual keeps quiet about their inclinations and doesn't do anything to reveal they are homosexual, no one knows and their service eligibility is not affected. That was essentially the case before (with the exception that it was an entry question back then). So under the current policy, provided the homosexual soldier doesn't tell anyone and doesn't make any advances or propositions, they can still serve. Essentially the problems caused by homosexuals in the service are avoided under such a scenario. But "Don't Ask Don't Tell" still leaves us with an asinine policy that (a) opens the door to problems that could have been avoided if we had just asked the question before admitting the person into the military, and (b) comprises an official policy that says "I don't want to know" about a potential problem.

    Stupid.
  • cinemaphile85
    So what it basically boils down to is that homophobic soldiers shouldn't have to face their insecurities and discomfort with gay people.

    If someone can be tough enough to kill another human being and sacrifice his own life without a moment's hesitation, yet is so "unnerved" by the mere possibility that another dude might be checking him out in the shower (even if his suspicions are unfounded) to the point that it would actually affect his job performance, I'm not sure I want someone like that defending my country. I would tell that person to either grow up and be a professional, or to do us all a favor and see a good psychologist, because he clearly has some personal issues to work out.


    And it doesn't seem like you've given much thought about how things were before DADT. When a recruit was asked to specify his sexual orientation before enlisting, what was stopping him from lying? By putting a closeted gay recruit in a situation like that before DADT, the military is basically saying, "The only way we'll let you serve your country is if you lie."

    Yeah, the military is no stranger to immorality.
  • What it basically boils down to is that good soldiers shouldn't have to accommodate the immoral and unnatural sexual behavior of another soldier, and military readiness and morale shouldn't be compromised to accommodate immoral and unnatural sexual behavior.

    If a homosexual wants to serve in the military that bad, they should grow up, show a little maturity and put the good of the country ahead of their own petty desires. And if they need to see a shrink--one who isn't bowing at the altar of political correctness himself--to help them adjust to normal, moral sexuality, then that's what they should do.

    Before Clinton's silly policy, the military expected homosexuals to do the most honorable thing possible, and tell the truth and not hinder military readiness if they insist on homosexual behavior.
  • Haggs
    Bob, I agree with your definition of judicial activism. I think that's exactly what President Bush did with the Justice Department under his watch. He and his cronies stacked the department with conservatives in order to support his political ideology rather than the U.S. Constitution, law or precedent.

    But you probably don't mind that Bush did that because you're a conservative and a hypocrite.
  • How, Haggs. Specifically how?

    I'll give you a hint so you don't waste egregious amounts of time: defending the United States is Constitutional and rather clearly authorized in said Constitution.

    So I'll ask again: specifically how?
  • jacksmith
    I AM SO ANGRY!

    Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer are two of the finest, and most competent public servants you could possibly hope for in these appointments. They have been assassinated by the Washington healthcare lobby through their paid Bush Republican henchmen in congress. These Bush republicans are the same people blocking the economic recovery plan put forth by the Obama administration.

    I am BURNING MAD America. And you should be too. Tome Daschle and Nancy Killefer were exactly what we needed to help turn this country around and fix our economy, and catastrophic healthcare crisis.

    If I were their boss I would tell them to get right back to Washington. And dare congress to not approve them. How ridiculous is it to reject highly qualified people that this country needs just because they made a mistake on their taxes. Don't stand for that anymore America. They apologized, and paid their taxes, and that should be it. Their country needs them. But President Obama has to do what he thinks is best. I understand that. I'M JUST SO MAD at the anti American Bush Republicans.

    Like many of you I have been trying to enjoy the after glow of this Beautiful historic election. But I see that the republicans in congress and their cohorts aren't going to be good sports, and LOSER'S!

    SO BE IT!

    In spite of President Obama's repeated offers, and gestures of collegiality to Republicans. Bush Republicans have seized upon every opportunity to stab President Obama in the back. And by doing so they are stabbing you, and the rest of the American people in the back. Well, you don't have to put up with that. And you shouldn't put up with that. President Obama has only been on the job two weeks. And he inherited two wars, and the worst economy since the great depression.

    We had an election. And president Obama, and the democrats won BIG. And Bush Republicans lost miserably!

    The Bush Republicans are the ones responsible for the worst economic crisis since the great depression. And the Bush Republicans are responsible for the worst healthcare crisis in American history. A healthcare crisis that is killing hundreds of thousands of you every year. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies.

    President Obama, and the Democrats should take back all the concessions they granted the Bush Republicans, and tell them to put up! or shut up!

    Everyone, start calling and contacting these Bush Republicans and tell them to stop blocking President Obama, and the Democrats recovery plan. And stop trying to block, and corrupt healthcare reform. Tell them to get on board with President Obama and the Democrats, or GET OUT!!

    If these Bush Republicans refuse to cooperate I want all of you to immediately begin the process of removing them from office by every legal means possible. Including impeachment, and recall. I want you to bring the full weight and power of the movement down on their heads that swept President Obama, and the Democrats into control of the whitehouse, and congress. Take no prisoners. Use all the techniques you learned over this past historic election. Be flexible, creative, adaptable, and relentless like you were in the past.

    To my cyber warriors I call on you again. You are among the best and the brightest. I call on you to move this fight from the cyber world to the living rooms, dens, and work places of the voters these Bush Republicans misrepresent. I know I can count on you. This is a fight worth fighting.

    To my fellow World citizens. As an American I invite, and welcome you and your advise, input, and help. By delaying Americas recovery, and healthcare reform, these Bush Republicans are delaying our commitment to your recovery, and to being the better America for you that we aspire too.

    I had hoped it would not come to this after our historic election. I had hoped that the Bush Republicans would respect the overpowering will of the people, and the World. But I guess not. All the Bush Republicans really care about is them-selves. Well, SO BE IT! Lets finish the job.

    Sincerely

    jacksmith --- Working Class :-)
  • jacksmith, when I read your comment, I wasn't sure if you were joking or if you were serious. I admit, there's still some doubt.

    Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer (among others like them) are exactly what we need...to finish off this once great nation. We have already traveled far down a road to socialism, lawlessness, an amoral society, and a big-government nation where the citizen is slave to that government (instead of the other way around, as it was intended).

    So what if those entrusted to run our government and protect the freedoms of the people cheated on their taxes and broke the law? After all, it's not like they're entrusted to execute the laws of our nation fairly and correctly, right? Oh wait, I guess that IS their job. Well, it's not like citizens created equal and living in a free country expect them to live by the same laws as the little guy? Oh wait, I guess that IS what Americans have traditionally expected.

    "The Bush Republicans are the ones responsible for the worst economic crisis since the great depression." Really? Did you miss the part where Republicans were trying to warn anyone who would listen that the government creations known as Fannie and Freddie--along with the foolish regulations the government forced on the private financial industry were about to implode? And the Democrats insisted everything was fine? Perhaps you did miss it; after all, our "mainstream" media didn't do much to let you know about it.

    This just might have been the part of your comment that made me laugh the hardest: "In spite of President Obama's repeated offers, and gestures of collegiality to Republicans...." Wow, what a good one! President Bush went to Washington 8 years ago, bending over backwards to be nice to Democrats and set a "new tone"--even though people like me could have told him he was wasting his time...as was quickly proven to be the case. He even invited Ted Kennedy over to the White House for a movie...only to have Kennedy stab him in the back days later. And we saw nothing but Democrat backbiting for 8 years, even on the eve of the Iraq invasion and throughout the war. No loyalty to our country's need for solidarity in wartime, just pure venom. Republicans have practically thrown a party for Obama, in comparison

    jacksmith, you've drank the socialist Koolaid in massive doses. Your delusions about our country, how it was designed to operate, and about what it takes for a nation to succeed--and those like you who share in this delusion--are what have nearly driven this once-great nation into the ground.

    I pray with God's mercy the blinders may quickly come off and you can realize how profoundly and monumentally wrong you have been, and how gravely such foolishness is hurting our country.
  • Eric
    Anybody with an opinion on anything would be labelled a "judicial activist" because of it.

    I do, however, find amusement in the fact that both sides, left and right, look at all judge appointments by the other side as "judicial activism." The term is simply overused, overplayed, and now, unfortunately, meaningless.

    Appointing judges who oppose abortion would be judicial activism. Appointing judges who support abortion (which is protected by law, by the way) are judicial activists. So, what opinion on abortion, exactly, do potential judges have to have in order to escape being labelled "judicial activists?"

    I'll try to answer that question myself: it doesn't matter. No matter who you are, or what your opinion is, if you're at all conservative, there's a liberal douche accusing them of judicial activism. If you're at all liberal, there's a conservative moron accusing them of judicial activism.

    Earth to Ellis: The job of a judge is to INTERPRET the law. Of course the judge will be influence by their own beliefs/upbringing. That's the entire point. Our law is fluid, adaptive, and responsive to a changing society. When the people elected Bush, we had to deal with him packing the courts with conservatives. Now, the people have elected Obama, and we should expect him to do the same, packing the courts with progressives. The courts should follow our society, otherwise, what good are they?
  • Eric, since it didn't sink in the first time, go back and read the definition of "judicial activism" again.

    The Constitution says certain things, it does not say certain things. Judges and other legal officials are not paid, required or authorized to ignore what it DOES say, or make up stuff it does NOT say.

    If we want the Constitution to say something it doesn't say, we have the amendment process to add it. If the Constitution says something we don't want it to say, we have the amendment process to remove it.

    We don't get to add and subtract from the Constitution based on "interpretation." That is what is otherwise known as "lawbreaking."

    And when those entrusted to protect and defend the highest law of our land engage in such high-level lawbreaking, the people and their freedom are in big, big trouble.
  • Tom
    Fantastic. Bob, you may remember you and I had an exchange on the constitutionality of government welfare programs (I notice it got deleted, or at least hidden, though). These people posting here are pointing out the same things I said -- the law is way more nuanced than what you seem to think is so obvious. But I suppose in the end it does not really matter. Your interpretation that takes away previously recognized rights (lawbreaking, according to your own analysis) is not controlling legal authority (just as quotes from founding fathers aren't either).

    I could respect your opinions a lot more if you recognized them as such. Holding them out as "truths" just shows that you either don't really know what you are talking about, or think you are so much smarter than everyone else that it doesn't matter that other people have valid disagreement with your opinions.

    And please, spare me the conspiracy theories.
  • Yes, people who believe there are truths don't know what they're talking about. Just like the math teacher that told you 2+2=4.

    What kind of nut believes some things are really "true" and not just opinions, nuances and interpretations?

    How silly of me.
  • Tom
    Bob, glad you finally see how silly you have been. I almost thought you weren't getting it!!
  • ;-)
  • John K.
    Your entire problem is your presumption that what the constitution says is readily knowable. It's not. It requires interpretation. It is the job of the courts to make that interpretation, not Bob Ellis. Just because you don't like a judge's interpretation doesn't make that judge activist. Just because you think the constitution says one thing doesn't mean you are right.
  • John K, your entire problem is that you've bought the lie that you can't know what the Constitution says. I don't think you're as dumb as you've allowed anti-American liberals to make you think you are.

    Go back and read the definition of what judicial activism is again; I don't think you quite got it the first time. If it isn't in the Constitution, we don't get to make it up and claim it for law. If the Constitution says it, we don't get to ignore it. Either of those constitutes "judicial activism" and constitutes breaking and subverting the highest law in our nation. Lawlessness.

    The Constitution is pretty straightforward, especially the Bill of Rights. The main body of the document is somewhat technical, but certainly not something someone can't figure out in a few nights of reading over the course of a week or two.

    Besides, the Federalist Papers exist to help us understand almost everything that might not be clear. The Federalist Papers were written by people involved in the formation of the Constitution. They wrote them to explain to the people how the Constitution worked, why it did the things it did, and the philosophy behind it. They were written and published in the newspaper for average people to read and understand, as the Constitution was going through its ratification process.

    Don't let people who have no interest in following law or the Constitution mislead you with a lie. Read the document. Read the Federalist Papers. It's not that hard. Join the effort to take back your own government, the government created of the people, by the people and for the people. Don't allow the anti-American elitists to steal it and keep it from you.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »