Monthly Archives: May 2022

TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Posted on by

0

Sammy Alito’s draft opinion to overrule Roe vs. Wade argues, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision including the one on which defenders of Roe…now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

God help us! And God Bless the Founding Fathers! The 1788 Constitutional Conventions of the states reveal the legislative intent and legislative history about enumerated and unenumerated rights and freedoms, according to James Madison. Madison was a complete, recognizable authority of the Constitution in 1788. In 1789 Madison wrote what became the Bill of Rights.

The Virginia Constitutional Convention is the most complete record. A Bill of Rights came up in June 1788. Opponents of the Constitution used every argument to block the paper: Should there be a constitutional ratification conditioned on a Bill of Rights being adopted? Or should there be ratification plus recommended supplementary amendments? Madison did not like either proposal. He disengaged ratification from conditions, and he diminished the value of the subsequent amendments.

Enumerated and unenumerated rights were hot topics, cooled by the best judge/justice in America and in the English speaking world. Edmund Pendleton knew the American people were the sovereign and that every freedom and right could not be enumerated – too many situations, too many people living over a expanded land of liberty. Pendleton recommended the negative: “Declare the principle as more safe than the Enumeration.”

James Madison did so in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Rights and freedoms enumerated in the Constitution stay with Americans, the sovereign. No Congress and not the Executive, and no Supreme Court justice can “deny or disparage” unenumerated rights “retained by the people.”

So boys and girls, study the 1788 Constitutional Conventions. Americans have enumerated and unenumerated rights. References follow:

10 Doc His of the Rat of the Constitution, Virginia, vol. 3, St His Soc of Wisconsin, Madison, 1993, June 24, 1788, p. 1520, Madison at ratifying convention: “If an enumeration be made of our rights, will it not be implied that everything omitted,
is given to the General Government? Has not the Honorable Gentleman [Patrick Henry] himself, admitted, that an imperfect enumeration is dangerous?” David John Mays, Ed., The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton, Uni. Press of Virginia, Char., 1967, vol. 2, p. 533, Pendleton to Richard Henry Lee; Oliver Ellsworth, Landholder VI, 3 Doc His of the Rat of the Const, Connecticut, St His Soc of Ws, Madison, 1978, December 10, 1787, p. 481; PJM, vol. 10, Uni. Chi, Chicago, 1977, p. 315, 317, George Lee Tuberville to JM, December 11, 1787, make sure enumerated rights not listed not “surrendered.” House Annals, August 17, 1789, p. 783-784.

Next write another draft opinion and submit it to the sovereign, the American people, for their ratification.

page2image1680816

RECKLESS SUPREME COURT

Posted on by

0

A draft memo was leaked. CALL THE COPS!

Who benefits from the leak? Pro-life conservatives. The memo changed THE LAW, because that is what every court decision becomes. Each decision from a trial court, of an appellate court or a Supreme Court is, a law just as though it were passed by a legislature and singed by a governor.

THE LAW about women’s health has been off-limits to legislature action for 49 years. Now the Supreme Court draft brings forward this bedroom issue into the legislature arena. What happened to a [wo]man’s home is a castle? What happened to the sanctity of marriage and marital privileges? What happened to victim’s rights? What happened to the Establishment Clause which says, “Congress [courts and executive] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Religion also means favoring the tenants of one faith over another. Invading and deciding bedroom issues are a gross enlargement of the government’s policing powers. Under the Constitution, as it is interprets prohibitions of illegal searches and seizure, those protections are weakened. Changing THE LAW more or less eliminates the right to privacy.

Note also that most right to life advocates live in states that do not protect fetuses. Most of their local laws consider fetuses, expectancies.

Why would the right to life justices leak the draft of the proposed decision? It will not be nine-zero (9-0) opinion like Brown vs. Board of Education and refuting Nixon’s claims of Executive Privilege. Those Justices do not know where the American people stand about bedroom issues, marriage, abortion, women’s health, right to privacy, Fourth Amendment, etc. Some justices are so far off that they want to impose their version of thought, philosophy and faith on all Americans like Trump stooge Michael Flynn said at the beginning of 1922, and Ginny Thomas-Mark Meadows’ exchanges after the 2020 Election. What would Americans think about Big Brother (Don Trump or anyone else) telling them what to think? Yet, the those justices may believe they can write a Supreme Court decision and it becomes THE NEW LAW. It will settle social and political issues in America.

James Madison wrote the Establishment Clause (for Virginia in 1786) and next to the U.S. Constitution in 1789. Madison recognized Americans are human beings and imperfect. He set up the Establishment Clause so no faith, philosophy or thought could gain government support outside politics and the world of politics. For his efforts and success, Thomas Jefferson called Madison, “the greatest man in the world.”

Why are those Supreme Court justices concerned about changing THE LAW? It has happened before, in 1857.

DRED SCOTT is the worst decision ever from the United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roger Taney, slave owner from Maryland, wrote it. The Supreme Court entered the political arena. The opinion broadly stated that the federal government could not prohibit the spread of slavery – plus slaves were not citizens. By defining slaves as non-citizens, and perhaps extending non-citizenship to all African-Americans, including those who were always free or

1 Already the Court has shown wanton disregard with the Texas Bounty Law.

page1image1656272

who were once enslaved and bought their freedom, African-Americans had no liberties, freedoms, rights and privileges enshrined in the United States Constitution. End of story, end of political disagreement.

DRED SCOTT did not end the debate over slavery. Its political effects helped bring on the Civil War in 1861. In 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment made involuntarily servitude a legislative (political) issue. By 1870 the Fourteenth Amendment changed fundamental structure of the Federal/State system and gave everyone in America constitutional rights.

Going forward and writing a decision, THE LAW, broadly, about women’s health, alone, will change all laws – state and federal, those justices wonder and have doubts. Americans have made decisions without interference from the policing powers of the government, yet a few know Americans will be startled and will not like new government powers invading their bedrooms and elsewhere. Those Supreme Court justices are concerned. They leaked the draft opinion and now realize women’s health all other issues are political questions and outside the court’s realm.