Constitutional Interpretation
All matters brought before the Court shall be interpreted
according to the intent of
those who drafted the original Constitution and all
subsequent Amendments. This intention
can be determining through historical research --this is
what the profession of history
is supposed to do. Moreover, the substance of cases shall
always be the most crucial
concern of the Justices in making their decisions.
Explanation :
Original Intent shall not be taken to be strictly literal
in all cases. Analogy may be an obvious
necessity , the world of 1787 is very different than the
world of 2010 and will be different
again in the future. Nonetheless, it is indefensible to
stretch the meaning of either the
Constitution or its Amendments beyond all reasonable
original intent, a pattern in
Court decisions for many years. Doing so makes a mockery
of the purpose of both the Constitution itself and of
the various Amendments.
As well, it is judicial malpractice to ignore the substance
of cases That is, in determining
whether or not something is fair, for example, it is
necessary to be certain that "fairness"
is a legitimate consideration.
It has been inexcusable, for example, for the Justices to
reply upon views of the APA,
the American Psychiatric Association, to judge whether or
not homosexuals deserve
the same legal status as normal Americans. After all,
Congress has held no relevant
hearings to determine whether the APA is competent to make
decisions on the
mental health of homosexuals, and the professional standing
of the organization is
open to serious dispute because it has been under effective
homosexual domination
from some date in the 1970s to the present. In other words,
the inmates have
taken over the asylum yet the Court acts as if there is
nothing wrong.
This is crucial because the mentally sick are legally
incompetent and by definition
cannot have the same status as sane citizens. The only
claim which the mentally ill
can legitimately take before the courts is for appropriate
medical help or
psychological treatment. Yet as things now are, we have a
class of mentally ill
people making demands, often recognized by the judiciary,
for special rights
on the specious grounds that they are an oppressed
minority. They are no
such thing, they are a population with grievous mental
health problems.
Such a situation can only come to pass if the Court regards
the Law as superior
to all other considerations, which it manifestly is NOT. In
the case of "rights,"
we can safely conclude that the Founders had in mind sane
persons who should
have full citizenship rights, and ONLY sane people.
Virtually all the "greats" of the psychology professions in
the past until the time
of the homosexual capture of the APA, from Freud to Karen
Horney, had shown
that same-sex sexuality is pathological with any number of
serious consequences.
The 1973 decision of the APA to "demote" homosexuality from
the status of a
mental illness to a psychological disorder changed nothing
of substance.
Further, research after 1973, from Masters and Johnson's
work of the late 70s
through to the studies of Dr Charles Socarides in the 1990s
and Dr Paul Cameron
and also the National Association for Research and Therapy
of Homosexuality in
the 21st century, have added to the preponderance of
evidence which says that
homosexuality is as pathological as it has ever been, that
there is no basis to claims
that it is genetic of otherwise is biologically
predetermined, that it is, in all cases,
originally a matter of choice --which can be reversed
though various empirically
tested therapies, such as those of Masters and Johnson.
Yet, and there are many other considerations, the Court in
no case has ever considered
the issue of homosexuality on the merits, such that, in
repeated decisions, it has
contributed greatly toward the manufacture of a mythology
about homosexuality
which is now regarded widely as empirically true.This is
completely unacceptable.
This same principle applies in other areas, such as the
legal status of computer
technology, intellectual property rights, and so forth.
Ironically, the Court itself has
seen the need for judicial empirical research in the 1993
Daubert case which
recommended independent research on the part of judges /
justices as
often necessary in order to adequately decide upon cases
brought before the bench.
It may be that the Justices have little or no training in
many areas outside of the Law,
but this is no excuse to ignore substance in ANY case. The
Justices have plenty of
resources available to retain special researchers for
specific cases, possibly, in part,
by employment of graduate student interns, to accomplish
the necessary research.
As well, each Justice has his or her own clerks. Given the
importance of original intent
it would behoove each Justice to have at least one
historian of American history
as a clerk rather than all clerks being specialists in the
Law only.
Finally, against the objection that some form of "living
Constitution" interpretation
is essential because we live in a changing world, there a
fallacy to point out :
Many judges and Justices have used this theory to excuse
flagrant legislating
from the bench, which itself is unconstitutional by any
reasonable definition
of the term. As well, this Amendment presupposes that we
also need revision
in Article V of the Constitution, through a related
Amendment to make it
less difficult to add Amendments --not easy, just less
difficult. But as it is,
Article V exists for a reason. As our needs change we are
free of add to the
Constitution through deliberative democratic process. In
other words, there
is NO justification in the Constitution for legislating
from the bench.
This Amendment is meant to correct all problems
indicated and make it impossible
for any similar problems to arise again.
-- 