Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] The Great Leveler - Equal Justice Under the Law is where to start to create a Public Record on the Judicial Branch

Expand Messages
  • Jim Norman
    Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny
      by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

          "The War between the States established . . .
           this principle, that the federal government is,
           through its courts, the final judge of its own
           powers."     ~ Woodrow Wilson,
                        Constitutional Government in the
                             United States, p. 178

      It's high time for conservatives who belly ache and
      complain about federal judicial tyranny to confront
      the fact so clearly stated in 1908 by Woodrow
      Wilson: It was the War between the States that
      established arbitrary federal judicial tyranny over
      the American people. The recent Supreme Court
      opinion that sanctifies racial discrimination against
      whites in higher education is merely the latest
      example of this 140-year tradition.

      Lincoln's war overturned the Jeffersonian states'
      rights tradition in America, an important element of
      which was citizen opposition to any federal
      monopoly of constitutional interpretation. As
      Jefferson himself wrote in his famous 1798
      Kentucky Resolution (See F. Drake and L. Nelson,
      eds., States' Rights and American Federalism, p.

           The government created by this compact [i.e.,
           the Constitution] was not made the exclusive
           or final judge of the extent of the powers
           delegated to itself, since that would have made
           its discretion, and not the Constitution, the
           measure of its powers; but that as in all other
           cases of compact among parties having no
           common judge, each party has an equal right
           to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of
           the mode and measure of redress (emphasis

      If the federal government were ever to become the
      sole judge of the limits of its own powers through
      its own courts, Jefferson warned, then there would
      eventually be no limits to those powers and the
      Constitution would effectively become a dead

      In the Virginia Resolve of 1798, U.S. Senator John
      Taylor echoed Jefferson's states' rights judicial
      philosophy. The powers of the federal government,
      wrote Taylor, are "limited by the plain sense and
      intention" of the Constitution, and are "no further
      valid than they are authorized by the grants
      enumerated in that compact." Moreover, whenever
      there is a "dangerous exercise of other powers, not
      granted by the said compact, the States . . . have the
      right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting
      the progress of the evil . . ."

      The Jeffersonians urged the citizens of all states to
      nullify any and all federal laws that violated the
      Constitution. The importance of such nullification
      or interposition was clearly explained by St.
      George Tucker in his book, View of the
      Constitution of the United States. Tucker was the
      stepfather of John Randolph, the author of a 1796
      plan for the abolition of slavery in Virginia, and a
      professor of law at the College of William and
      Mary. His book was an attempt to apply William
      Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of
      England to the American political system.

      Tucker believed that any confederacy such as the
      United States would become a despotism if the
      people did not retain sovereignty over their agent,
      the federal government, as citizens of the respective
      states. He concurred with Jefferson and Taylor that
      if the federal government were to enact
      unconstitutional laws, "every such act is an act of
      usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason
      against the sovereignty of the people" (p. 32). This
      meant opposing the federal judiciary with
      nullification whenever it overstepped its
      constitutional bounds.

      In his classic, Tyranny Unmasked, John Taylor
      continued this theme by mocking the idea that the
      founders would have trusted "five or six men" of the
      Supreme Court to be the sole guardians of
      constitutional liberty. "Being an essential principle
      for preserving . . . liberty [the founders] never
      could have designed to destroy it, by investing five
      or six men, installed for life, with a power of
      regulating the constitutional rights of all political
      departments" (p. 198). He recognized that state
      governments could be corrupt, of course, but it was
      "inconceivable" to him that they could be as corrupt
      as kings, presidents, senates, congress, or federal
      judges, all of whom hold a degree of centralized
      power that is largely detached from public scrutiny
      and control.

      Another great Jeffersonian political theorist, John
      C. Calhoun, understood that a paper constitution
      would never be sufficient protection against the
      political plundering of one (taxpaying) class by
      another (tax-consuming) class. Over time, the
      majority would "endeavor to elude" any
      constitutional restraints on federal powers by
      ignoring the arguments of the strict constructionists.
      Appeals to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations
      imposed by the Constitution would be sneered at as
      "folly" with the end result being "a subversion of
      the Constitution" (R.M. Lence, Union and Liberty:
      The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, p.
      27). This of course is exactly what has happened
      with increasing frequency ever since 1865.

      Andrew Jackson also embraced the Jeffersonian
      legal philosophy in his response to the Supreme
      Court's opinion in McCulloch vs. Maryland that
      the Second Bank of the United States was
      constitutional. "To this conclusion I cannot assent,"
      Jackson declared. Congress and the president must
      each weigh in, and

           Must each for itself be guided by its own
           opinion of the Constitution. It is as much the
           duty of the House of Representatives, of the
           Senate, and of the President to decide upon the
           constitutionality of any bill . . . The opinion of
           the [Supreme Court] judges has no more
           authority over Congress than the opinion of
           Congress has over the judges . . . (Robert
           Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War,
           p. 82).

       From 1789 until 1865 the citizens of all states,
      North and South, made periodic use of the
      principles of nullification, interposition, and even
      the threat of secession, to protect themselves from
      federal judicial tyranny (and federal tyranny in
      general). They invoked the Jeffersonian judicial
      philosophy to oppose protectionist tariffs, military
      conscription, the War of 1812, the Fugitive Slave
      Act, the Bank of the United States, trade embargos,
      and other unconstitutional usurpations (See James J.
      Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a
      Citizen of Virginia).

      Lincoln's war ended citizen opposition to federal
      judicial tyranny. As Forrest McDonald wrote in
      States' Rights and the Union (p. 224), one
      consequence of Lincoln's war was that

           [T]he [Supreme] court was the sole and final
           arbiter of constitutional controversies. No
           longer could a Jefferson arise to insist that the
           other branches of the federal government had
           coequal authority to determine
           constitutionality. No more could a Calhoun
           arise to defend a doctrine of interposition or

      Jefferson, Tucker, Taylor and Calhoun would not be
      at all surprised to learn that the consequence of this
      has been rampant federal judicial tyranny of the sort
      on display this week with the Supreme Court's
      affirmative action opinion.

      Indeed, generations of leftists have celebrated the
      fact that Lincoln did more than anyone to destroy
      constitutional limitations on federal power. In
      Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln the
      "progressive" historian James Randall wrote
      approvingly of the fact that Lincoln's trashing of the
      Constitution in the North during the war created
      precedents for "a living constitution" that, with
      creative interpretations by the federal judiciary,
      could become "a vehicle of life." He criticized
      "excessive reliance" on the ideas of "a by-gone
      generation," i.e., the founding fathers.

      More recently, "liberal" Columbia University law
      professor George P. Fletcher applauded Lincoln's
      "casual attitude toward formal constitutional
      institutions, such as the writ of habeas corpus"
      in his book, Our Secret Constitution.  Federal
      judges merely need to claim to believe in "a higher
      law" than the Constitution to "allow themselves to
      sidestep the rules" that are set forth in the
      Constitution. This is what Sandra Day O'Connor
      did in writing the majority opinion in the recent
      affirmative action case. She declared racial
      diversity (but no other kind) in higher education
      to effectively be a "higher law" than the Constitution
      itself. She claimed that a mixing of skin colors on
      college campuses was a "compelling state interest"
      that should trump the Constitution. She also invoked
      the "one nation, indivisible" line from the Pledge
      of Allegiance to bolster her "argument." How
      appropriate, and par for the course, for her to
      ignore the Constitution while quoting a late
      nineteenth century socialist's ode to centralized
      government power instead. "One nation, indivisible,"
      has come to mean complete subservience to federal
      judicial tyranny on the part of the American people.
      St. George Tucker (p. 112) described this "doctrine
      of non-resistance against arbitrary power and
      oppression" as "absurd, slavish, and destructive
      to the good and happiness of mankind."
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ed
      Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:06 AM
      Subject: [tips_and_tricks] The Great Leveler - Equal Justice Under the Law is where to start to create a Public Record on the Judicial Branch

      The LAW is intended to be the great leveler. That is - the Law as written rather than the Law as it is practiced.
      ALL are EQUAL in the eyes of the Law. We see this in the very first Laws written for this Nation of People we know as America and/or the United States (the government for America).
      The Revolutionary War fought for this ideal of Human Equality to free this Nation from the INequality of the practice of England's Laws with the "Titles of Nobility" that gave superior powers to some in deprivation of the Equal Rights of others.
      However; Slavery continued to be tolerated in some States in this Nation. THE Law, was enforced, during the Civil War and the 14th Amendment re-affirmed what was already Written as the Supreme Law of the Land for this Nation in the Declaration of Independence and in our National Constitution that established our Federal government.
      Today, under the grip the elitists that have taken control of Our Judicial Branch of OUR government, Slavery has been re-instituted. The difference is that today's Slavery, today's feudalism, is color blind. ALL, who are not born into the wealthiest of the wealthy class, are de facto slaves. Their living conditions are better but they are ALL at risk of selective oppression under the UNwritten Law.
      Anybody clothed with a Title of Nobility, those employed in Law Enforcement or a member of the Bar, can, will, and do, selectively oppress the serfs, the peasants, the class of people that pay the real taxes that supports these Slave Masters. 99.9 % of the population of our Nation is enslaved by the members of the wealthy elite, The Bush families and others like them, who suck huge welfare payments from our Nation to add to their International Power.
      The befuddled massess have a hard time understanding this. So they look to history for excuses. Some blame the American Civil War and Lincoln. Some blame Wilson and WWI. Some blame FDR. Some blame the Communist.
      I blame both the people that are alive today and the Judicial Branch of our government. We the People need to learn how to Go to Court without representation by a member of the Bar, those quasi-government employees, those Court Officers who are, in fact, a part of the judicial Branch of our Government.
      Then we need to DEMAND "Equal Justice Under the Law". We need to document every denial of the Rule of Law. We need to establish a Public Record of the SERVANTS in our judicial Branch, the Judges, Attorneys, Clerks, etc. that circumvent the Law to impose upon us UNequal treatement in denial of our Right to Human Dignity, are Right to "Equal Justice", our Right to the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
      This is the UNALIENABLE Right written in our Declaration of Independence. This is the Right the Original Constitution secured to each and all regardless of color or social/economic status. This is the Right re-affirmed in the 14th Amendment.
      EQUALITY in the actual practice of the Law as well as in the written word of the Law. This is the SOURCE, the foundation, on which JUSTICE can and will prevail.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ed44/  Join our Experiment in OpenLaw

      Executive Director
      Texas Justice Coalition

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 6/25/2003
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.