Supreme Court Saves Best for Last

Supreme Court Saves Best for Last

There are 5 comments on the The Wall Street Journal story from Jun 21, 2012, titled Supreme Court Saves Best for Last. In it, The Wall Street Journal reports that:

As usual, the Supreme Court, although close to the end of its term, is in no hurry to decide its big cases.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Wall Street Journal.


Denver, CO

#1 Jun 21, 2012
We, the People and Our Constitution - The Supreme Law of Our Sovereign Nation - are suffering from a frontal attack by globalists/progressives that have used deliberate deceit to get themselves elected to positions of power within Our government with the intent to destroy America from the inside out -'fundamental changeĀ’.


It must first be admitted that the U.S. Constitution never gave to the U.S. Supreme Court the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

"It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the Constitutional intentions of the legislature ... The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the U.S. Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will "equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

The time has come in our Republic to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and Constitutionally is in the hands of the People of the several states of America--NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the U.S. Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the U.S. Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the "liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.

Let me state this clearly: the U.S. Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by Oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is "to secure the blessings of liberty"?


Denver, CO

#2 Jun 21, 2012
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona

"An un-Constitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County

"No one is found to obey an un-Constitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256


#3 Jun 24, 2012
Justices~our Nation turns it's lonely eyes to you...
Out of Dodge

Saint Louis, MO

#4 Jun 24, 2012
They're holding the best for last, just prior to 'getting out of Dodge.'

Denver, CO

#5 Jun 24, 2012
Watchdog wrote:
Justices~our Nation turns it's lonely eyes to you...

Actually you need to aim a little Higher, looks like most IF not all have sold out...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The fight to confirm Donald Trump's Supreme Cou... Nov 30 PAYKASA 20
News Trump's presidential pen could remake Supreme C... Nov 13 Mik 1
News Election Offers Stark Choices on Supreme Court'... Nov '16 FUBAR 1
News School board, sued by transgender student, asks... Sep '16 Mr Coach 55
News 'Sister Wives' appeal polygamy ruling to US Sup... Sep '16 WeTheSheeple 11
News Another ObamaCare challenge heads to the Suprem... (Oct '15) Sep '16 Swedenforever of ... 30
News Baker wants US Supreme Court to hear gay weddin... Jul '16 davy 10
More from around the web