Downfall Pt 9

Part 9

Article III of the Constitution deals with the judiciary of our government. It is a simple Article and therefore is pretty straightforward. The only area I want to pay attention to is in Section II.

The wording I refer to states,

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..."

I am by no means a legal expert so everything I state here is personal opinion unless otherwise noted as a quotation.

Laws are written to give us guidelines to live our lives so that we live in a society free of chaos. In a perfect world people would obey the laws by virtue of their moral character. But the world is not perfect. James Madison once said,
"What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. "

So, since men are not angels we need government, and laws to govern over them. On the other hand since angels do not govern us we need to watch over our government.

When someone does violate a law they become the introduced to our criminal justice system. It is then the responsibility of the courts to administer fines, and or prisons sentences for their offense. Now I would like for you to read a few quotes by our founding fathers.

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Papers #15,

Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms.

He states that laws be "...attended with a sanction; in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience." How many times do criminals get off with a slap on the wrists due to a plea bargain? Where is the penalty or punishment for their crime? How many times are criminals never even made to pay for their crimes? All the illegal immigrants in this country are criminals. Why are they allowed to walk freely without paying for their crime?

Thomas Jefferson said,
Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.


He basically said that our laws say you can come from another country but at the same time you should abide by our established rules. How much of our society has been bent to meet the needs of people not willing to abide by our rules? English as a second language in our schools, the sacrifice of our religious beliefs to not offend others. Those are things that made this country what it is today, yet our Supreme Court, and other Federal Courts have gone against the wishes of the citizenry on these same issues. Is that not going against what Jefferson means by abiding by our rules?

Jefferson also said that,

"Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible."

Since time produces a corruption of principles, and that it is our duty be on the watch for our for it, isn't it also our duty as citizens to also watch over the decisions our Supreme Court makes? That way we can ensure that they are based on principles that are not corrupted and do not go against the Constitution itself.

Fine examples of time producing corruption of principles are the frivolous lawsuits that judges in our court system rule in favor of. The woman who spilled hot coffee on her legs sued McDonalds and won. That should never have been allowed to be tried by a judge. Stupidity does not entitle you to a million dollars. The guy who sued the fast food industry because he got fat from eating burgers all the time, and WON. Again, if he wanted to stay skinny he should have eaten better food, not sued and won. The list goes on and on. While I am on the topic, what about people who break into your home or trespass upon your property and are injured then sue you and win. Where are your rights as property owners?

Law abiding citizens are being penalized for the action of criminals or stupid people and our courts are upholding these cases.

If you shoot someone who is breaking into your home you can face jail time for defending yourselves. They claim you should rely upon the police to protect you. That goes against the principles our founding fathers lived by.

Also a renowned professor of Constitutional and Criminal law, Don B. Kates once stated,

"It is quite impossible for the police-and indeed, it is not their job to provide individual protection for threatened individuals. The job of the police is to provide general deterrence by patrolling areas where crime may occur and by apprehending those who have committed criminal acts. necessarily, the law places the primary responsibility for protecting threatened people on the people themselves."

So when our courts rule against the people for defending their homes, property and families they are tying the hands of the people and denying them their rights as outlined in the Preamble and the concepts behind the writing of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore these judges are in violation of the Constitution and their rulings should be invalid.

James Madison said,
"The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. "

Does not this state that the rights of property are the first object of government? Therefore our right to the defend our property from criminals should be of the utmost concern of our government. Also the right to keep our property should also be of the utmost concern of our government. Yet our courts have recently been allowing property to be taken from individuals under the concept of eminent domain. So they can take your home, bulldoze it and build a mini mall? Is that something our founding fathers would have considered Constitutional? Yet our Supreme Court has allowed it to happen.

Finally one more quote by Madison and I will have completed my coverage of Article III. Many people now argue that new laws have been passed and our courts are basing their rulings on these new laws and legal precedents. James Madison said that,

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

That is why I am including so many quotes from our founding fathers in this continuing article. Our President, our Senators and Congressmen, and our Supreme Court are basing their actions on the moral climate of the time and laws that have been written after the ratification of the Constitution. They are forming political policy based upon public opinion polls. As our society becomes more and more corrupt and morally debased our elected officials are following right behind us since they are basing their policy upon our opinions. Therefore the taking of a life by abortion is acceptable when it would have been unheard of 200 years ago. The Courts and our elected leaders are not basing their decisions historically. I am providing thoughts from those who wrote the Constitution to give you an idea of how they would have felt on an issue. So whenever you hear of a new law or Supreme Court ruling, think to yourself, ‘Are those the same decisions that what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, or Alexander Hamilton would have made for our country?”

That is how I now look at every decision made by the Supreme Court and every piece of legislation proposed by our elected leaders. In my honest opinion our government is defiling the Constitution and slapping the face of those great men who established this form of government .