THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume X, Issue # 162, July 3, 2008
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
MANIFOLD DANGERS OF A LIBERAL SUPREME COURT
By Christopher G. Adamo
LIBERALISM, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, & JUDICIAL TYRANNY: THE SUPREME COURT'S CONTINUING USURPATION
OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS -- UNDERMINING CONSTITUTIONALISM, THE RULE OF LAW,
SEPARATION OF POWERS, CHECKS & BALANCES, & THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENTAL
ACCOUNTABILITY -- BREACHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO UNLIMITED GOVERNMENTAL POWER &
UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNING PRACTICES -- WHITTLING AWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES GUARANTEES & THE RESERVED POWERS
OF THE STATES -- HOW THE SUPREME COURT CAN BE CHECKED & RESTRAINED -- WHAT CONGRESS CAN DO TO
SAFEGUARD AMERICA AGAINST JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP
FULL STORY:
As far back as Sun Tzu, military strategists have well understood the concept that victory in war does not require the
destruction of one’s enemy, but merely convincing that enemy that destruction is inevitable if the fight continues.
Similarly, in a dictatorship, absolute control is neither necessary nor, in most cases, even possible. All that is needed for
the dictator to endure is the presumption among the underlings that the leader does indeed hold a monopoly of power.
It is a point that Americans ought to seriously ponder, as the future of their nation appears to increasingly rise and fall
on the basis of a single vote in the United States Supreme Court.
This past June, the ever more prominent annual ritual played out in which the Supreme Court handed down its latest
batch of “decisions,” which increasingly appear less as judicial considerations and more as edicts. More disturbing is
that a growing number of Americans seem to be accepting the latest whims of the Court as some sort of celestial
standard, determining with absolute finality what America can or cannot be, and what Americans can or cannot do.
This was never intended to be the role of the courts. Rather, the Founders clearly sought to prevent such unaccountable
governing practices by consigning the ultimate power of legislating on the national level to the U.S. Congress, which,
among the three branches of the central government, would, in turn, be most accountable to the American people.
The United States Constitution was to be the embodiment and demarcation of the pact among the states, whereby they
would cooperatively form a national government to arbitrate between them and collectively represent them among
foreign powers. In its most extreme exercise of power, the U.S. Supreme Court was intended merely to ensure that all
parties under the jurisdiction of the agreement -- i.e., the member-states of the American federal union -- would abide by
the Constitution's original terms, thus maintaining its integrity.
Federal constitutional changes were allowed, but only under a stringent set of rules, known as the constitutional
amendment process. And, once those changes were instituted, the only proper duty of the Supreme Court was to
enforce them. In this manner, citizens could rely on the protections afforded them under the Constitution, and its
execution, in all matters of governing, to be conducted in a just manner that they themselves had enjoined.
In complete contrast to modern thinking, even a cursory reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that its design does not
empower government but, at every turn, restricts and regulates the means by which those in power can exercise their
dominion over the people. Even the first five words of the First Amendment (which was placed at the top of the list for
a reason), lend incontrovertible proof to this case: “Congress shall make No law....” Clearly, the restrictions of the First
Amendment are imposed on the Congress. And any First Amendment matter before the Supreme Court should be
adjudicated solely on that basis.
In contrast, the three most notable cases of the latest Supreme Court session give a clear indication of just how far
beyond its original boundaries the Court has reached, and just how dire is the burgeoning threat it represents to America.
That governing officials and pundits are essentially ignoring the Court’s overreaching behavior, and are, instead,
focusing on the minutia of the individual decisions, suggests that the problem in American thinking must be corrected
outside the Court before any real fix can be implemented within.
Absent any constitutional authority or mandate, in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the Court summarily struck down
the death penalty for child rapists in all fifty states. Citing no constitutional precept, the Court, instead, substituted its
own interpretation of “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to
executions.”
Apparently, the majority believes it sees a trend away from such punishment, and, in response, issued a blanket decree
prohibiting any variance from that perceived trend. Abominating the Constitution and the rule of law, the Court simply
imposed its views above those of all elected legislatures and the people.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did indeed reaffirm, albeit grudgingly, that the Federal
Bill of Rights does indeed assert an inherent right to keep and bear arms, as if the unambiguous text of the Second
Amendment was ever in question among those who can read. But, if anyone doubts that this 5 to 4 decision represents
a tenuous hold on the reality of such a fundamental constitutional guarantee, consider the words of dissenting Justice
John Paul Stevens, who expressed incredulity at the prospect that Second Amendment advocates “would have us
believe that, over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to
regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
In Justice Stevens’ mind (and he is clearly not alone in his thinking), the ultimate authority to regulate society lies with
high officials such as himself. It was exactly for this reason that the Founders recognized the vital importance of including
the Second Amendment, in order that the limitations on the exercise of governmental power imposed by the Constitution
would endure.
Where, one must wonder, does Justice Stevens deem rights to be inherent? Certainly not the rights of a child to be free
from the threat of a grisly sexual assault. Yet, in another arena, Stevens and his Liberal cohorts do indeed embrace the
concept of “unalienable rights,” at least for foreign Islamic terrorists.
Boumediene v. Bush (2008), possibly the most abominable and traitorous decision ever handed down by the
Supreme Court (and again a 5 to 4 ruling), gives a shocking glimpse into how thoroughly an unaccountable and
unrestrained court can insidiously destroy the nation. By its very name, this case representing a terrorist suit against the
President of the United States, reveals how an out-of control Court can become a weapon for America’s mortal enemies.
And the Court’s appalling decision, effectively granting “constitutional rights” to the terrorists, represents a level of
collaboration with the enemy not witnessed within this nation’s borders since the days of Benedict Arnold.
In truth, the Court can no more “grant rights” to non-citizens than can it alter the reality of an unborn child. It can, by
properly upholding its own responsibilities, maximize the God-given rights of Americans or, as it has done here, abridge
them by bestowing unlawful protections to murderous enemy combatants.
Many Americans look to this next presidential election as a watershed moment, possibly determining whether the Supreme
Court will be returned to its constitutional roots, or, by the appointment of a few more Liberal “Justices,” veer irretrievably
away from the foundations of the nation. Yet, a proper fix must go much further than that.
While it is unrealistic to expect a move towards the impeachment of any incumbent Supreme Court Justices, despite their
having clearly exceeded the authority of office, the Constitution clearly stipulates that the Congress can, at its own
discretion, place certain issues beyond the realm of the Supreme Court. Until the Congress musters the principle and courage
to do so, this unchecked Supreme Court will undoubtedly continue its perversion of the Constitution and thus the rest of
America.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
American Politics & Political Competition:
Elections, PACs, & Political Parties
American Government & the U.S. Presidency:
Presidential Politics & National Leadership
American Government -- Constitutional System
The American Political System -- Politics &
Government in the U.S.A.: Political Science Course
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
English Antecedents
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
Colonial & Early American Antecedents
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The U.S. Constitution -- Ratification & Adoption
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The U.S. Constitution -- The Scheme of National Government
The American Constitutional System -- Principal Characteristics:
Constitutionalism, Republicanism, Separation of Powers,
Checks & Balances, Legislative Bicameralism,
& Balanced Government
The American Constitutional System -- Principal Characteristics:
Federalism -- Fedural Union of States
The U.S. Constitution -- Underlying Political Theory:
The Federalist -- Selected Essays
The American Political & Cultural Left:
Liberals, Statists, Socialists, & Other Leftists
--------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY & OTHER POLITICAL REGIMES
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Fundamental Character & Essential Ingredients
Constitutionalism: The First Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Dictatorship: The Opposite of Constitutionalism
Representative Democracy: The Second Essential Ingredient
of Modern Constitutional Democracy
Direct Democracy & Representative Democracy
Political Culture & Modern Constitutional Democracy
Modern Constitutional Democracy:
Summary & Conclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY & POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES:
COMPETING SYSTEMS OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
Conservatism
Traditional Conservatism: Questions & Answers
Conservatism: Attitudes, Types, & Present Status
Constitutional Conservatism: American & British
Liberalism
Classical Liberalism: Intellectual Foundations
Classical Liberalism: Conservative Liberalism
Manchester Liberalism & Social Darwinism
Modern Social "Liberalism": Statist "Liberalism"
Radical & Totalitarian Ideologies
Radicalism, Utopianism, & Totalitarianism
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming and works in the field of industrial instrumentation.
He is actively involved in Wyoming's political process, serving as a delegate to successive Wyoming State Republican Conventions
and as a member of the Wyoming State Republican Central Committee. He has assisted Republican candidates for local and state
legislatures and for the United States Congress. His articles, which appear regularly in The Progressive Conservative, U.S.A.,
and on a number of other websites, reflect a major concern with the damage being done to Conservatism and Conservative causes by
the Liberal Leftist faction in the Republican Party as well as by the much larger and more powerful Liberal Leftist faction in the
Democratic Party. During the early and middle 1990s, Adamo was Editor of the Wyoming Christian Coalition's official news organ,
The Wyoming Christian.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity