step-by-step on noiseless foot.

in a 31 october 1823 letter to monsieur a. coray, a greek doctor and translator of ancient greek texts, thomas jefferson had the following to say about the federal judiciary:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

our judges of today - even at the state level - are generally speaking "secured against all liability to account."  it is a very rare thing, indeed, that even an elected judge is ever taken out of office until he (or she) decides to retire.  in point of fact, as jefferson noted in an 1821 letter to charles hammond "...impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow..." for the irresponsible body of the judiciary.

not much has changed in the past 190 years; well, it HAS gotten immeasurably worse over the course of those years.

in iowa, voters are gearing up to toss out three state supreme court justiceswho suddenly found a right to gay marriage in the iowa constitution.  in predictable fashion leftists intent on using judicial activism to further their progressive agenda, are hand-wringing over the notion that this could "have a chilling effect on judges nationwide."  and this is a bad thing why?

in establishing our independence as a free and sovereign nation, our founding fathers established a set of moral principals that laid the foundation for what would become the greatest nation on the face of the earth.  the moral principals began with the belief that all people are created equal and are further endowed by our creator with certain INALIENABLE rights.

i believe that it was not whim or folly that led to the order in which they those inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  laws from our creator; or as jefferson called them "laws of nature and nature's god."  nowadays we call them natural laws.  there are two systems of law that mankind uses: natural law and man-made (so called "positive") law.

my uncle david describes man-made laws as such:

"Man-made laws are those canons, charges, charters, codes, commands, constitutions, directives, imperatives, mandates, maxims, orders, ordinances, precepts, procedures, proclamations, regulations, rules, statutes, etc. that governments the world over create and enforced in an effort to control human behavior."

in the late 1500's through the early 1600's there was an enlightenment of sorts; men began to rebel against the totalitarian "positive" law of the emperors, kings, sovereigns, and tyrants.  using their god-given faculty of reason, they asserted claims of individual freedom of action.  this enlightenment, which somewhat morphed into british common law (or judge law) was the basis for many of the ideas from which the declaration of independence and the u.s. constitution were crafted.

but even in the colonies and the early united states, some people longed for a king; they longed for someone to "be in charge".  thankfully george washington was a genuine hero and leader and refused the title of "king of the usa", but that didn't stop people looking for that white knight, that hero, that strong powerful leader who will exert just the right amount of force to "set things right."  and therein lies the crux of our problem in modern day usa; the problem with all three branches of our federal government.

it is human desire to gain the most with the least amount of personal expenditure - whether that expenditure be money, industry, initiative, energy or responsibility - and it has been nurtured by the "progressives" in order to further their agendas.  as this desire has been turned into the norm for many, many, many of our fellow countrymen, those progressive "leaders" have been emboldened to gradually impose more and more positive law into our legal system, displacing the natural law that our country was founded on, over the past two centuries.  and it has been largely facilitated by an activist judiciary.

today's justice system, with the aid of an insidious indoctrination program cleverly disguised as the public school system and the mainstream media, falsely states that we are ONLY a nation of [positive] law rather than a nation founded on a set of moral principals that all laws MUST comply with.  justice is not defined as the interpretation of man's laws, but rather the delivery of a just resolution, the determination of what is right based not only on our code of law, but also our standards of moral righteousness.

in recent years, the judiciary branch of our federal AND state governments has been largely guided by the liberal (or progressive) ideology - you need only to look at the writings and speeches of the majority of lawyers and judges to see that this is true.  using the progressive ideology it has anointed itself the ruler of all men by establishing a rule of law that separates moral codes and standards of righteousness from those laws.  based on that distinction, in direct opposition to the intent of our founders, they assert their RIGHT to dominion over men.

using their power from the bench, not fearing impeachment or (at the state level) being voted out, they have advanced their agenda gaining a little here and a little there and have turned the constitution into "..a mere thing of wax..."  the judiciary has been so busy twisting and shaping the constitution into what the political ideology of the judges mandates that is hardly recognizable as the document ratified by our ancestors little more than two centuries ago.

but finally the country is waking up.  finally, people are forcing a movement back to our creator's natural law which was the basis for our country's governance.  finally there is a growing recognition among the electorate that has been too long asleep and i get the sense that perhaps we will NOT go quietly as the judges and progressives (is that redundant) destroy our country.

it is well past time that we should be de-funding judiciaries and impeaching the judges who are creating law to advance their social agenda rather than interpreting whether a law comports with the plain language of the constitution.  these men (and women) who want to change the legally binding words of the constitution to suit their beliefs and further their agenda are not judges, but politicians - and despots at that.  they think themselves answerable to no one.

i'm glad iowa is taking a stand.  think of the message that will be sent to california, arizona, and the courts across the land - "we the people are fed up with you judges who have taken on too much power and seek to silence our will."

join in the fight people - not just on the blogs or facebook or twitter - but get out and get active.  yes, we need to change congress, but until and unless we take back the reigns of activism from the judiciary we will not be able to effect real, lasting change. 

Comments

[Z]

Well, what can you expect from a people who dat "deep-fried food and the cows sculpted out of butter?" The Washington Post set the stage in the first paragraph, didn't they.

I'm not sure how I feel about all of this. Like in our school system, we have judges who've been taught by liberal indoctrination and we're struggling with their biases as we also struggle with teachers rewriting history to our kids; the Constitution doesn't seem to matter anymore than historical facts do; only the leftwing agenda matters because political correctness is more important than decency and THE LAW, which is a very dangerous way to go.

Would I say that the rightwing judges seem to stick to the constitution better? I'd like to think so. Would I applaud voting judges out for unpopular decisions? Not so much.
I'll be eager to come back and see others' comments...
very thought provoking post! Glad you're back!

[Mustang]

This is a thought-provoking post, Heidi. Let us examine this question: to whom or what are our judges primarily responsible?

I believe that even though people may elect state judges, while it is true voters can dismiss them, a wise judge must not allow the passion of politics or the emotion of religion to deter him from the principles of the highest law of the land: The United States Constitution.

Within the Constitution, we find the God-given imperative, “All men are created equal.” However, before we debate the merits of the laws of Abraham or Mosaic Law —before our passions become inflamed, let us recall the words of Jesus as communicated to us in the New Testament:

“Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the Prophets.” —Matthew 22:37—40.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are God’s.” —Matthew 22:21.

The question involves maintaining judicial good faith with the law —our Constitution. All laws must at all times pertain equally to all men. God will ultimately judge mankind for his wickedness. The task of our courts is not to prevent wickedness, for even when we punish a man for murder he must still account to God for his sin. No, the purpose of our courts is to safeguard every man and woman’s right to make a poor decision. Otherwise, we emulate the faith and mentality of Moslems, preventing men and women the right of self-determination.

[Always On Watch]

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government...."

It surely didn't turn out that way, did it? In fact, the judiciary has turned out to be the sleeping tiger!

Judges have been driven to advance their societal and political agenda -- never mind the Constitution.

[heidianne jackson]

z, you said "Would I applaud voting judges out for unpopular decisions? Not so much."

i wouldn't necessarily want judges being voted out of office for unpopular decisions, but what about for decisions that have no basis in the constitution - whether its the state or federal constitution? should we just give the judges a pass because we don't want to risk getting rid of a judge just because he isn't liked?

how would that differ from a congressman or senator, then? should we just continue to give all of them a free pass because it doesn't really matter if they're adhering to the constitution?

[heidianne jackson]

mustang, you are absolutely right that "...the purpose of our courts is to safeguard every man and woman’s right to make a poor decision." and that is what natural law gives to us. and precisely what "positive" law renders impossible.

where is the equal protection in the law with affirmative action or "hate" laws? where is the equal protection in the confiscatory taxes currently in force in our country? how about the health care bill?

when judges allow these "laws" to stand and shoot down laws that do not interfere with the equal protection clause, how are they different than any other politician?

[Z]

Heidianne, one could certainly argue gay marriage, for example, in the constitution. Nowhere does it say "two men can't marry"... There are other subjects that are not as clearly defined as we'd like. That's all I'm saying.

[heidianne jackson]

but, z, marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution at all. in fact, marriage IS limited BY LAW in every state in the union. it is a states' rights issue and not a federal issue - if we were talking about a federal amendment for marriage being shot down, i'd be right there. not because it violates an equal protection clause, but because it isn't an issue that federal government has any business regulating. if limiting marriage to a man and a woman hinders equal protection, then there should be no limits allowed on marriage.

the fact is that marriage is a religious contract, not a government contract. personally, i think the way around all this "marriage" stuff is to ONLY recognize civil unions at the government level and allow people to register their union as a marriage with their church or temple of choice. that is the way it's handled in several countries and it's really the only "fair" way to do things.

that way, we're not redefining words that have existed forever and we're not offending peoples' religious sensibilities. AND it removes a VERY LARGE arguing point for the left.

[Mustang]

I agree that marriage is a state regulated issue, but at the same time, Article IV, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution (known as the full faith and credit clause) requires that states respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of other states.

Thus, we cannot say the federal government has no interest in this issue. This issue first came up with regard to mixed marriages. At one time, state law prohibited the intermarriage of blacks and whites, and some may even have prohibited the marriages of whites and Asians. Now the issue is homosexual marriages, but the principles are the same. If MA allows homosexual marriage, the VT must recognize that marriage even if the state of VT prohibits the marriage of queer men and women. Like the proverbial chain, the weakest link defines its overall strength.