Put a dress on a guy, and he goes crazy. No, I’m not discussing a drag queen. My observation is about judges. Before you begin sending me emails, I also have the same view of most female jurists. My complaint is not necessarily with the roles that judges play although I believe we have become much too litigious and reliant on court-administered remedies for every real or imaginary affront. No, my problem is with the Solomon-like attitudes assumed by so many of our jurists once they ascend to the seat behind the bar. The separation of powers as designed by the Framers has become a collection of fiefdoms within all three branches of government. The Executive and Congressional branches have justifiably been excoriated for their unwillingness to comply with their constitutional obligations. The Judiciary has encountered some criticism on a case-by-case basis, but overall the system and its execution appear to be seriously flawed.
With exception of the constitutionally mandated Supreme Court of the United States, all the other courts and judgeships are created by congressional action. One would assume that Congress has the power and the right to dissolve the power islands of the federal judiciary and begin anew. That appears to be the only viable remedy because of the lifetime appointments that federal judges enjoy. Congress, on the other hand, can be purged every two years though the sheeple do not seem inclined to do so, and the President can be dismissed after serving for four years and a maximum of eight years.
As a political realist, I understand that eliminating the federal court superstructure and starting over would require a willing super majority of Congress and probably a compliant Executive. In the divisive political environment of today (producers v. looters, taxpayers vs. non-payers) the likelihood of a super-majority is slim. So if the Congress or the President lacks the will or the power to restructure the federal court system, what solution(s) is available to “We the People?”
As many of you regular readers know, I am a “Nullifier.” I believe the state legislatures have the right ….and the duty to nullify any federal law, rule, mandate or regulation that violates the Constitution. In recent years most states have failed to exercise their nullification powers because many of the federal overreaches included strings and money. Also, state politicians on the whole love bigger government. It gives them more power and more goodies to distribute. Just because nullification by the states would be the correct strategy, are we limited to official state action when state politicians refuse to act on our behalf? No, we are not. The individual action to “nullify” is civil disobedience. On the face of it the concept seems rather repugnant because those of us with the Western Tradition respect the “Rule of Law.” When the lawmakers and enforcers violate their trust and initiate laws that are clearly unconstitutional, we must pursue every avenue available to restrict them and negate the noxious legislation or rule. In addition when the enforcers distort a law or regulation to the point that it no longer resembles its original purpose or intent, citizens are duty-bound to resist and reject the government power grab.
The United States is a collection of fallible individuals. Some of them become Governors, Mayors or Presidents while others get elected to their respective legislative bodies. The judiciary and the bureaucracy are also comprised of flawed human beings. We often find in government, particularly big government, that distortion and error become compounded as they rely on precedent and shift from one aspect of government to another…..for example, an unconstitutional law passed by Congress is broadened and made even more egregious by the regulators.
Civil disobedience can be a risky strategy. Government has the power to force either compliance or prison for those who morally choose to challenge its abuses. If the local, state and federal politicians are reluctant or opposed to protecting citizens’ rights, the individual or small-group resistance may be the sole remaining option for those who chose to remain here. To circle back to our original discussion….the courts have limited resources to enforce their usurpations of the Constitution. They must rely primarily on the other branches to force compliance. The Executive and Legislative arms do not always agree with the Courts or may choose to ignore judicial rulings (see Ohio public school funding), therefore it seems that if some liberty-minded people are squeamish and hesitant about defying oppressive government, the courts and their nonsensical, unconstitutional rulings may be the weakest link in the system.
This piece is not a “call to arms.” It is, rather, a plea for thinking and considering what to do if the political efforts are unsuccessful. Personally, I do not plan to meekly accept statism and tyranny (more than we already have) without resisting. I shall resist alone if necessary. Any prudent patriot would have a “Plan B” if the original goal were not achieved.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
Tue. and Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo www.wspd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment