Wednesday, May 12, 2010

The Supreme Court

It is a false assumption, that we have, that when we elect a president or a congressman that things will finally be fixed. Abortion comes to mind. We vote for candidates to try and get the killing of the unborn stopped. That is not the only issue that conservatives work for but it is a big one. When you read history, those nations that killed the innocent did not endure the test of time. Judgment day came. So it is not just protecting the unborn that is at stake, but the preservation of the nation. Of course, many of those who condone this hideous act do not honor God in the first place and so do not understand that besides being a God of love and mercy, he is also a God of justice and historically has championed the cause of the innocent and the helpless.

So, what does that have to do with the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court has taken on more authority than, what I believe, the Constitution allows. They not only decide disputes about the Constitution but have in essence made new laws and added new meaning to the Constitution by injecting what they think the words meant. They say such things as 'that is what it says but this is what it meant' thus making new guidelines. That is how abortion came to be the law of the land. It did not come from the lawmakers in congress which is where laws should come from or from the president who can send bills to congress to be made into law. It came from the Supreme Court where they are suppose to decide matters of laws already in force, not make new ones. Read the history concerning abortion. You will find a new term which refers to the area around a shadow i.e. the eclipse of the sun, where the Constitution supposedly meant such and such.

Each president strives to put justices on the bench because he knows that important decisions will come from there and that, with the lifetime appointments, the opinions of a justice will continue for a long time. Congress and the president can make all the laws they want but the Supreme Court can throw them out if they do not like them.

The three branches were a good idea when the Constitution was written. If all three branches stayed in their place, there would be a balance of power in Washington DC. The actions of the Supreme Court have thrown this balance off.

I believe that if the Supreme Court is going to take the role (as they have) of shaping policy and interpreting the law and the Constitution in ways that have no resemblance to the original intent that they should be an elected body so that they represent the entire country and not just a segment of it. The lifetime appointment should be repealed with an amendment to the Constitution. It is not us that would be making it a political body, they have already made themselves a political body by yielding to public opinion instead of judging whether a matter is within the bounds of existing laws.

The difficult part of doing such a thing as the previous paragraph suggest is that the Supreme Court is so powerful that they could declare the amendment unconstitutional and continue to act as they do. No one should be so powerful in a society that proposes to be of the people and by the people.

Four of the Supreme Court 'justices' will be from New York if the latest one is approved. What's with that?

No comments:

Post a Comment