Tag: Constitution

A FLAWED CONSTITUTION SOLUTION

CONSTITUTION SOLUTION CONTENTS

A Constitution solution is badly needed by We the People of the United States of America. On Monday July 29, 2024, President Biden proposed sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court of the United States requiring at least two Constitutional Amendments. Apparently, Vice-President Harris and Democrats also support President Biden’s proposal. Neither the current proposal nor “court packing,” increasing the number of SCOTUS members, will repair the flaw in our Constitution. The flaw in our Constitution is that it does not provide meaningful checks or balances on decisions rendered by Federal Judges at every level. For at least the last 100 years, both major political parties, progressives, and conservatives have complained that some federal court decisions were “unconstitutional,” failed to reflect the will of their constituents, or the “people.” Such decisions simply become the “law of the land,” and each side complained.  In my opinion, the best solution is a Constitutional Amendment that provides a method to “override” federal court decisions that can be initiated by either the Executive or Legislative branches of our government.

Despite this issue, the Founders of our nation had a profound, providential vision for the future of the United States of America. They based their vision on the fact that the people of this nation shared a common Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage included a common religion, a common moral and ethical code, a common industrious nature based on the colonization of a new world with new and unknown challenges, and common participation in a successful revolutionary war fought against one of the leading military powers on earth.   The faith of the Fathers of this nation in its people allowed them to frame a constitution based on limited government and maximum freedom for the people. Freedom for the people is dependent on shared moral and ethical values, virtue. The Framers demonstrated faith in the governed by their choice of the first three words of the constitution, “We the People.”

THE SCOTUS POWER DEBATE

The lack of Constitutional checks and balances on the Judicial Branch has been debated from the time of ratification debates to modern debates over judicial activism which Constitutional conservative argue requires a Constitution solution. In The Federalist Papers, supporters of the proposed Constitution inferred that judicial decisions consistent with the manifest tenor, context and meaning, of the Constitution is good behavior as a jurist. In The Federalist No. 78 states, Alaxander Hamilton wrote,

Courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.

In The Federalist No. 81, he wrote,

In the first place, there is not one syllable in the plan under consideration, which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the constitution

Justices of the federal judiciary no longer agree with the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who stated in The Federalist No. 49,

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power and it is from the people themselves; who, as the grantors of the commission (Constitution), can alone declare its true meaning and enforce its observance.

Finally, in The Federalist No. 81, Hamilton discussed impeachment of Federal judges writing:

And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check (on the Judiciary), which the power of instituting impeachments would give to (the Legislative Branch) upon the members of the judicial department. This alone is complete security. There never can be danger that the judges would hazard the united resentment of the body (Legislative Branch) entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means (impeachment) of punishing their presumption by degrading (removing) them (judges) from their stations (the court).

The Framers intended that federal judges should rule based on the Manifest Tenor of the Constitution” and its amendments. They further inferred that decisions not adhering to the manifest tenor of the Constitution would not be consistent with good Behavior as a jurist. Finally, they argued that judges issuing rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution should be impeached for their judicial actions. Since Judges have never been impeached for lack of this “good Behavior,” we need a Constitution solution.

In the Anti-Federalist, articles opposed to ratification of the Constitution, Robert Yates argued that the threat of impeachment for rulings outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution” did not provide realistic checks or balances on the Judiciary. President Thomas Jefferson disagreed with the power to rule on the Constitutionality of laws given to the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Jefferson wrote,

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide], and it would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Abraham Lincoln expressed similar concerns in his First Inaugural Address as follows:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government 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 in to the hands of that eminent tribunal (Supreme Court).As a result, some would say, we live under a dictatorship of the federal judiciary, an oligarchy.”

The debate over the power of the federal judiciary has raged from the Constitutional Convention to this day. Is it time to solve the problem? In my opinion, the time is now.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSAL

A page of the constitution with the words amp;quot; circle iii amp;quot;.

In the absence of impeachment, the only remedy, or flawed Constitution solution We the People have for an unrestrained Federal Judiciary, is a Constitutional Amendment. The proposed Amendment should allow any member of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, or the President of the United States to introduce legislation that would override any Federal Court decision at either the appellate or Supreme Court level.

The Amendment should have specific procedural guidelines, a reasonable timeline for action, and priority over other legislative activity in both houses of congress. It is my suggestion that this Amendment should include the following procedures. A “judicial decision override” bill, named after the court case in question, such as “Roe v. Wade Override,” would be introduced by a legislator in their house of the legislature.  A Presidential “override” bill should be introduced in both houses of congress at the same time. The proposed Amendment must preclude a Senate filibuster at every stage of deliberations and voting. Within five working days of “override” bill introduction, each house of the legislature would conduct a vote, without debate, to start the “override” process which would occur only when both houses agreed to consider the “override.” Next, legislators in each House would have two weeks to prepare testimony for and against the “override.” Preparation of “override” testimony would occur concurrently with other legislative activities. In the next week, proponents and opponents of the “override” from both houses of the legislature would plan their testimony concurrently with other legislative responsibilities. During the next two weeks, testimony for and against the “override” would occur. In the first week, one house would hear testimony from the opposition to the “override” while the other house would hear testimony from supporters of the “override.” In the second week, testimony roles would be reversed in the two houses of the legislature. During the following week, each house would hold floor debates on the “override.” Each house would vote on the “override” at the end of the week of floor debate. If the “override” achieves a simple majority in both houses of the Legislative Branch, the bill would go to the President for signature resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” In the case of a Presidential veto, a two-thirds majority of both houses would overrule the veto resulting in a successful federal judicial decision “override.” The vote to overrule a Presidential veto should occur in both houses of the legislature the first working day after the veto without debate.

One contentious issue related to the proposed Constitutional Amendment is its impact on previous court decisions enacted outside the manifest tenor of the Constitution which many have called Judicial Activism. My suggestion is for the Amendment to establish a joint legislative committee to review previous court decisions. This committee should have a limited time frame for actions, one to three years. Recommendation for Congressional action to reverse standing Federal Court decisions should follow the process described above.

In my opinion, a Constitutional Amendment of this nature is needed since the Federal Courts have shown their disrespect for the will of We the People. Our courts show disrespect by overturning both State Constitutional Amendments and state referenda passed by a majority of We the People in several states. Court decisions also demonstrate disrespect for We the People when they ignore the “manifest tenor of the constitution” ratified by We the People. The proposed Amendment is a true flawed Constitution solution.

I still believe our Constitution is the best ever conceived throughout world history. However, We the People have allowed the Federal Courts to act as an oligarchy for decades. Is it now time to correct its one major flaw? In my opinion,

We need an Amendment providing a flawed Constitution solution!

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

THE “COLD WAR” IS NOT OVER

 

In my opinion, the left, Marxists, communists, and progressives of the world were not fighting the same Cold War that the United States and our allies were fighting. For the left, the strategic “Cold War”is a philosophical ideological “Cold War.” With this thought and the recent death of Fidel Castro in mind, it seems an appropriate time to consider the place of Fidel Castro, in the world and the nature of the Cold War. After his revolutionaries defeated the Cuban dictator Batista, Castro openly embraced communism. He nationalized the economy of Cuba and sought support from the communist regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Old Soviet Union, today’s Russia. He brutally eliminated political opposition. With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba became the center for communist revolutionary expansion into several countries in Latin America. Probably the most notable was Venezuela. The communist dictator of Venezuela nationalized the country’s oil industries which had been developed by North American and European petroleum companies. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to position nuclear missiles on the island nearly bringing the world to a nuclear disaster before the missiles were removed from Cuba. The fall of the USSR effectively ended Soviet financial support of the Castro regime, and greatly reduced Cuba’s influence in the western hemisphere. From this perspective, Fidel Castro was a central figure in the Cold War in the Americas.

To me, the Cold War was a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest between the United States and the USSR, the two dominant nuclear powers of the world at the time. These two powers competed to bring allies into their spear of influence throughout the world. The Cold War ended when the United States and our allies were victorious after fall of the USSR. Dismantling the USSR  in non-Russian Eastern Europe completed the process. Although the USSR was a totalitarian communist regime, it was not the only totalitarian communist regime in the world. China, North Korea, Vietnam, the communist regimes of the Eastern European Soviet bloc, Cuba, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America were also totalitarian communist regimes. Without the support of the USSR, Eastern European countries overthrew their communist governments embracing various forms of democracy.

A poster of the cold war with an american flag and a communist.
During the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the USSR said, communism will outlast capitalism, not We will bury you!”

However, several powerful totalitarian communism regimes still exist in Asia and Latin America and communist revolutionaries still battle to control countries in some parts of the world. It seems appropriate to ask a question. Did we actually win the Cold War? We certainly did not eliminate totalitarian communist regimes and revolutionaries as a threat and influence in the world. Perhaps a more important question to ask is this. Did we understand the nature of the Cold War from the strategic perspective of our Marxists, communist enemies. In a 1960’s speech at the United Nations, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev used a phrase that was translated We will bury you!” A better translation of the phrase is, communism will outlast capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxist philosophy expressed in The Communist Manifesto, Khrushchev’s phrase provides a simple strategic description of the goal of communism or Marxism for the world. Khrushchev was not speaking of a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest, he was speaking of an evolutionary paced contest of philosophy and ideology, Marxism versus capitalism. Given the attitude of millennials in the United States toward Marxist ideas underpinning communism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism, or the brutality of totalitarian communist regimes, and their lack of understanding of capitalism and this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, we should ask this question. Was Nikita Khrushchev correct when he said, Communism will outlast capitalism?

In my opinion, the Marxist of the socialist, progressive, liberal movement certainly out foxed the conservative capitalistic thinkers of the United States and the world. One of the principal objectives of America’s Crossroads is an informative discussion of the goals and tactics of the left as they seek to convert capitalistic societies, especially the United States, into Marxist societies. Pragmatists of the left have been formulating and slowly teaching and implementing their ideas since the early 1800’s.

When considering the question,is Marxist philosophy the  basis for leftist ideology, it is important to understand that Marxist philosophy has been largely integrated into the modern social sciences. Ideas like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, curtailing or eliminating inheritance rights, diminishing the influence of Biblical Christianity, eliminating or degrading the Biblical family among other topics are all concepts now embedded in liberal arts and social science curricula at all stages of our education system. Competition, individualism, self-confidence, personal responsibility, and strong moral and ethical values are critical elements to successful capitalistic societies. The Biblical Christian church and family are institutions where these values are taught and modeled for children by church leaders and parents. The role of the individual in Biblical Christian culture and Marxist or progressive culture is antithetical in nature. Before a society like the United States with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalist economy can be converted to society based on Marxist philosophy, the population has to embrace Marxism. To accomplish this goal, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship where their ideas are taught in virtually all the liberal arts and social science curricula throughout the educational system. Marxist progressives have accomplished many of their objectives toward globalism in both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.

Finally, it is my opinion that the left has even managed to integrate its philosophy into jurisprudence in the United States. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, legal progressives slowly started to substitute case law and the opinion of judges about the Constitution for the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury versus Madison was critical to this evolution in jurisprudence. Consequently, this shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Constitution exposed a flaw in our Constitution. There are no meaningful constitutional checks or balances on the decisions of the federal judiciary. Marxists and progressives on the left have succeeded in using this flaw to enact laws and regulations that could not be instituted through the legislative process.

Since the people of the United States of America have failed to understand the Cold War from the perspective of the Marxist or the socialists, progressives, and liberals, We the People are close to losing the real Cold War, the philosophical battle between communism or Marxist philosophy and capitalism. The extremely important philosophical or ideological “cold war” is not over; and, in my opinion, capitalism and conservative Judeo-Christianity is losing.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUR ORDAINED CONSTITUTION

 

A close up of the constitution of the united states
Our ordained Constitution is not secular. It provides a system of governance set apart to serve God.

Progressive pundits and commentators on the left claim that the Constitution of the United States is a totally secular document because it contains no reference to any deity. However, it is my contention that our ordained Constitution includes the word “ordain” for a specific purpose. Our ordained Constitution provides a system of governance set apart to serve God and bring glory to his Name.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia stressed the importance of the meaning of the words found in the Constitution as they were defined when the document was written, original intent. Fortunately, Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), is accessible today. Johnson’s dictionary was the preeminent dictionary used by the majority of Americans when both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were written. This dictionary defined the words used by our nation’s Founders and the Framers of our Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America reads,

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain (set apart to be an instrument for the service of God) and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.”

Johnson defined Ordain as follows:

TO ORDAIN, v. a. [ordino, Lat. ordonner, Fr.]: 1)To appoint, to decree; 2)To Establish; 3) To settle, t0 Institute, to set in office; 4) To invest with ministerial function, or sacerdotal power.

Meletius was ordained by Arian bishops, and yet his ordination was never questioned.

When Johnson defined ordain as To invest with ministerial, or sacerdotal power, his definitions of sacerdotal and sacred are essential to understand the definition of ordain and the Framers use of ordain in the Constitution. These two critical words were defined by Johnson as follows:

SACERDO’TAL. Adj. [Sacerdotalis, Latin.] Priestly; belonging to the priesthood.

If ample powers, granted by rulers of this world, add dignity to the persons entrusted with these powers, behold the importance and extent of the sacerdotal commission.

SACRED. Adj, [Sare, French; Sacer, Latin.]: 1)Devoted to religious uses; holy; 2)Dedicated; consecrate; consecrated.

The fact that sacred and sacerdotal share the same Latin root, Sacer, is a clear indication that our ordained Constitution was intended to be set apart, consecrated, as an instrument for the service of God by its Framers and the citizens who ratified the Constitution.

Johnson’s definition of the word establish found in the Preamble immediately after ordain is further evidence that the Framers of the Constitution used ordain as a clear statement that their vision of the Constitution as a document set aside for the service of God. Johnson defined establish as follows:

TO ESTABLISH. v. a. [etablir, French]: 1) To settle firmly, to fix unalterably; 2) To settle in any privilege or possession, to confirm;  3) To make firm; to ratify; 4) To fix or settle in an opinion; 5) To form or model¦.”

All five meanings of establish; in Johnson’s definition were synonymous with the first three, meanings Johnson’s definition of ordain. Had the Framers intended the secular meaning of the word ordain; to appoint or decree, to establish or settle, or to institute, they would not have also included the word establish in the Preamble of the Constitution. That would have been unnecessarily redundant. Concise construction, words, and grammar, were important considerations to the Framers.

Again, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America states,

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, ¦do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In my estimation, based on the definition “ordain” and the definition of the words used to define the spiritual connotation of “ordain,” the original intent of the Framers for the Constitution, was to devise a system of governance that would bring glory to God. The Founders provided We the People with our ordained Constitution.

Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the  BLOG CONTENTS tab.  If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.