The Supreme Court Scam
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
For the past year, Republicans have been trying to explain to us
small-government advocates why we should vote for George W. Bush.
But since Mr. Bush has no plans to reduce government or improve
our lives in any significant way, Republicans have had only one
argument: he isn't Al Gore. ("You don't want Al Gore in the White
House, do you?") But after seeing the Republican convention --
with its theme, "big government can be compassionate government"
-- it turns out that George Bush is Al Gore after all.
Since George Bush loves big government as much as Al Gore does,
Republicans have had to find another reason for us to choose Bush
over Gore. So they remind us that the next President may select
as many as three or four new Supreme Court judges. "Do you want
Al Gore choosing those judges?" they ask. The Supreme Court is a
favorite Republican whipping boy. They blame the court for many
of today's ills -- hoping we'll ignore the role of the
big-spending Reagan and Bush administrations and the
pork-obsessed, over-regulating, power-hungry Republican Congress.
They neglect to mention that Republican presidents appointed
seven of the nine judges on the court they love so much to hate.
They expect us to jump at the chance to vote for a president who
will undoubtedly appoint more judges like Anthony Kennedy, Sandra
Day O'Connor, and David Souter. And they ignore the fact that
even their favorite judges -- Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
-- often ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution in an
effort to impose their own values on America.
Picking a Supreme Court judge.
We have bad Supreme Court judges because bad presidents have
chosen them. And the court won't be improved by electing another
big-government president -- whether his name is Al Gore or George
Bush.
Every modern Supreme Court justice decides constitutional
questions by referring to something other than the plain language
of the Constitution. They invoke "original intent," a "living
Constitution," "penumbras," "the greater good," or the
"compelling interest" of government. In so doing, they
demonstrate that they're unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
What should be the proper qualifications of a Supreme Court
judge? Should the president apply a litmus test in choosing
nominees? Yes, he should. If I become president, I will ask six
simple questions of any potential judge.
The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. And yet, when
Congress or a legislature makes a law censoring the Internet,
restricting political advocacy, prohibiting cigarette advertising
on TV, or barring hate speech, the judges don't strike it down
automatically. They deliberate to determine whether the
government has a "compelling interest" in regulating speech or
the press. But the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no
law. ..." It doesn't speak of the government's "compelling
interest" or provide for any exceptions or qualifications. It
says very simply, "Congress shall make no law. ..." No law. So
the first question I would pose to any potential Supreme Court
judge is:
1. Can you read? If the prospect can pass a reading test, we can
move on to the second question:
2. What do the words "Congress shall make no law" mean? The
Second Amendment says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Again, no exceptions or
qualifications are given. So my next question is:
3. What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean? And on from
there:
4. Do the thousands of gun laws now on the books infringe in any
way whatsoever on the "right of the people to keep and bear
arms"? The Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people. Nowhere in the
Constitution is the government given the power to take away your
right to privacy, your right to defend yourself, your right to
keep your property, your right to choose your own retirement
program, or in fact any other right. So my next question is:
5. What rights do the people no longer have, and where in the
Constitution were those rights taken from the people? The 10th
Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. My final
question will be:
6. Where in the Constitution was it delegated to the United
States government the power to interfere in education, health
care, law enforcement, welfare, charity, corporate welfare, or
any of the many other areas that form a part of today's
overbearing, over-regulating, over-expensive federal government?
These six questions will tell me all I need to know about the
kind of judge a potential nominee would be.
Plain English
The Constitution isn't written in Chinese, Swahili, or Esperanto.
It is in plain English. We don't need anyone to translate or
interpret for us. It isn't even necessary to study the history of
the adoption of the Constitution, since there's nothing
mysterious about its words. Phrases like "make no law" or "shall
not be infringed" or "retained by the people" or "reserved to"
are comprised of everyday words that require no search for
"original intent" or "penumbras." The Constitution means what it
says it means -- or it means nothing at all. And any judge who
overrules the plain English of the Constitution is no judge at
all -- whether he's been appointed by a Republican or a Democrat.
Will either Al Gore or George Bush choose judges on the basis of
their respect for the plain words of the Constitution? Of course
not. They both believe in big government. They both believe your
leaders know what's best for you. Neither of them thinks of you
as a sovereign individual with inalienable rights he should leave
alone. And neither of them intends to have his grand plans for a
Brave New World derailed by the plain words of the Constitution.
Al Gore doesn't want a Supreme Court judge who will strike down
his vision for federal pre-school programs. George Bush doesn't
want a judge who will strike down his vision of federal school
vouchers. Neither of them wants judges who will keep him from
meddling in education or violating the Constitution in any other
way. Quite the contrary. So why should you think you'll be any
freer with a Bush Supreme Court than one selected by Al Gore?
Do you believe George W. Bush -- who hasn't proposed a single
reduction in big government -- is determined to keep the
government's nose out of your business? I don't think so. He
can't wait to get his hands on the reins of power so he can use
your tax money to promote his favorite charities. He can't wait
to impose his concept of a good society on you.
What Do You Want? Do you want smaller government? If so, you will
never get it so long as you support those who are making
government bigger. You will never get it by inventing excuses to
vote for those who are working to make government more expensive,
more intrusive, more oppressive.
If you vote Republican or Democratic, you're giving up. You're
saying there's no hope you'll ever be free, and so you're just
going to make the best of a bad bargain -- by voting for the
person who will take you to Hell at the slowest rate. If you want
freedom, you must vote for freedom -- not for big government.
When you do so, you may not get what you want this year. But
you're paving the way to get freedom in your lifetime -- and
maybe even in this decade. But with the Republicans and
Democrats, you'll never get what you want. Instead, you, your
children, and your grandchildren will face an ever-larger, more
intrusive government. To get freedom, you have to vote for it --
for candidates who are unconditionally for smaller government,
with no exceptions and no excuses.
Harry Browne was the 1996 Libertarian Party presidential
candidate. Many of his articles are published at his website.
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
