Supreme Court

A few years ago the Ten Commandments were removed from the judicial building in Alabama. We here in Illinois we don’t have to worry about a decision that was against a Judge in Alabama. Well unless you consider that if not overturned by the Supreme Court, this might remove the remaining rights from the states and more disturbingly, removed the last bit of credibility from the Supreme Court.

“Article III, Section 2. 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…“ - United States Constitution

During the creation of the Constitution, not much concern was given to the judicial branch. As was said in the Federalist papers during the ratification period, “The judicial branch…will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” This was because the judicial branch’s job was simple. Interrupt the Constitution. Take what the Constitution says and compare it to the case, decide first if this is a federal issue or a states issue. (Remembering that the 10th amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”) Then if this is a federal issue, take the “Fundamental Law” of the constitution and make sure the Congress’ law met this.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – Preamble, United States Constitution

The Constitution was written for the people so it is not that hard to understand. So the “legalese” is not present. What it says “is” what it says. So when an amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, then it should be commonly understood that this means, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Not infer that there is a “Wall of Separation between the Church and State, nor does it mean, that “Congress” means anything but congress. Since this only speaks of making law how can it be anything more? Does the Supreme Court make laws? Not until now.

I am a common man, no PHD in government nor a graduate of Harvard Law School. But I am a man that has more education then 95% of the population of the original 13 states, including more then 50% of the “Founding Fathers”. Is the Supreme Court telling me that I cannot understand this document because I have not studied law and understand precedence and the nuances of the law? I say, that unlike criminal law, constitutional law has no precedence possible. The Constitution does not change, even after a decision such as “Separation of Church and State”, the physical document is still the same, unless amended. The Article III does not allow for precedence. A Court has one thing to make its decision on, The Constitution. And the words of the Constitution are very clear. “…extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution …”

Time has come for “We the people” to stand up and speak out for the document that has kept us free for 216 years. Will this Court next deem that the second amendment does not mean that the individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, or that the first amendment say that freedom of speech is freedom to think anything but not to say anything. They have already stated that the 10th amendment is no longer valid.