PART OF CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION

WAKE UP PEOPLE OF AMERICA!

When I first got the idea to write this book, I wondered if it would be well received. The US Supreme Court has always had a great deal of respect, as well it should. I was not sure that the book might be perceived as an attack on the Court and would be looked upon as a traitorous act. Then I was reminded of the founding of our country and the different opinions existing then as to how it should be designed and structured to avoid the problems of past generations and other countries and the fact that all opinions were encouraged and accepted.

The Declaration of Independence says:

... The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over those States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

… the U.S. Supreme Court is engaging in a tyrannical rule of this country.

The book cites from a case in which two judges said in the opinion:

… Justice Antonin Scalia said:

... It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of “important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed himself in even stronger language stating:

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.” Ante, at 2596. In our democracy, debate about the content of the law is not an exhaustion requirement to be checked off before courts can impose their will. “Surely the Constitution does not put either the legislative branch or the executive branch in the position of a television quiz show contestant so that when a given period of time has elapsed and a problem remains unresolved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solution.” Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693, 700 (1976). As a plurality of this Court explained just last year, “It is demeaning to “the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.” Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S., – (2014) (slip op., at 16-17).

… Just who do we think we are?

Yes, just who do they think they are? According to the majority in that case and in many other decisions, some of which are contained in this book, the Court is endowed with the ability to discover “rights”, “privileges and immunities”, and “due process”, not contained in the Constitution and not thought of as appropriate by past judges of the Court. The judges of this Court suddenly see those “rights” as necessarily included in the clauses of the Constitution and in need of being enforced throughout the entire country.

The purpose of this book is to show you the various writings of the judges of the Court so you can decide for yourself whether the United States Supreme Court, meant to be only one branch of the three branches of the federal government, has usurped its power leading to a tyrannical rule by the Court of the American people.

….

PART OF CHAPTER THREE:

What did our founders have in mind?

“It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism….” ~ George Washington

After the Constitutional Convention, it was reported that a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, one of the drafters and signers of the Constitution, and asked him what kind of government the nation had. “A Republic, madam” Franklin replied “if you can keep it.”

Tyranny is defined as: A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. In this case, the single ruler is the United States Supreme Court because of the manner in which it has interpreted the Constitution.

The Court has absolute power that is not subject to checks and balances, as intended, by the other branches of government because its decisions are not subject to appeal or reversal. By virtue of the tyrannical rule exercised by the United States Supreme Court in its decisions we no longer have the representative republic, as it was designed by our founders, where laws are valid only if passed by the legislative branch of the government.

We have allowed the Supreme Court, whose members are appointed by the President for life, to exercise unbridled power, which it has given itself, to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit, making significant changes to the nature of our society. This action deprives the American people of a vote, and is an action outside the framework of the Constitution itself. It is not like we have not been warned! George Washington, continuing in his Farewell Address from the quotation starting this chapter said:

“… A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

…

Many refer to the system of our government as a democracy but do not understand that our form of government is not a democracy. Some describe our system as a “representative democracy” but those terms contradict each other. A democracy existed in Greece when everyone in the city-state gathered together to vote on every law to decide if it should be enacted. The only form of democracy today exists when the people pass a law by Initiative or Referendum.

We have, as Franklin indicated, a republic.

….

PART OF CHAPTER TEN

The right to bear arms: what is the confusion?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides:

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.

You will notice that there are no limitations on this right as stated. How then can limitations be placed on this right by the Court under the plain wording of the Constitution? Because the Court has been allowed to get away with it!

Let’s start at the beginning. What was the militia? It was every able-bodied man who could be called into service in the event the country needed him. The Continental Army was made up of the men from the militias from the states who then defeated the English. Since the founders did not want a standing army, because it could be taken over by the federal government and divest them of their rights, the troops disbanded and went home but they could be called up and form a militia if needed.

When studying the Constitution it is important to consider the understanding of the people when they were writing various provisions in order to protect them from the federal government.

Let’s look at the drafting of the 2nd Amendment. The first draft of the 2nd Amendment proposed by James Madison read as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security
of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

When the amendment was finally sent to the states and ratified by them it read:

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.

Notice the difference? In the amendment ratified by the states, the conscientious objector phrase was eliminated and, more importantly, the language that the militia was “the best security of a free country” had been replaced by the language that it was “necessary to the security of a free State”.

Why is that important to our discussion of the 2nd Amendment? Because, as previously stated, the Constitution was designed to limit what the federal government, once established, could do. With the experience of the colonists in the revolution establishing this country, our founders wanted to assure that the federal government could not invade a state to establish federal rule without the citizens of that state having the ability to repel them with their own weapons. So the right was specifically established for them to have their own “arms” so they could be called up as a militia for the defense of their state.

Further support is found for this position in the language of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution where it is stated:

No state shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

How would the citizens of a state have the ability to repel an invasion if this provision did not exist and they had no ability to have or use weapons because they could not possess them? If there were limitations to the provisions of the 2nd Amendment it would render the language of Article I, Section 10 null and void.

When considering the 2nd Amendment, rarely does anyone look to the 3rd Amendment for guidance. At the time, the citizens of the United States did not want to have a standing army because they knew the government could take charge of the army and cause it to rule them. For that reason, and since the militias of the states had been called up in order to the fight the British for their freedom, our founders put into place the 2nd and 3rd Amendments. The 3rd Amendment is often considered as the forgotten amendment.

The 3rd Amendment provides:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

How would citizens be able to prohibit soldiers from being quartered in their homes if they had no ability to possess weapons individually because they were only allowed in militias? The 3rd Amendment would be meaningless….

Part of Chapter Twelve

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments

Statements of the Accused

Discussion of the 5th and 6th Amendments are combined because I think the Court’s decisions regarding these provisions have had the most detrimental effect on society’s ability to protect itself from those who commit crime. The Court has determined what kind of a process it mandates, thinking it will accomplish what it calls justice, without allowing the public to rule itself as the Constitution requires. Could there be a more tyrannical assumption of power than for nine unelected individuals (sometimes only five) to micromanage how suspects are to be treated by law enforcement agents created to enforce laws to protect citizens and society as a whole?

The 5th Amendment

The 5th Amendment provision concerning statements by an accused states:

… nor shall any person … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ….

The 5th Amendment resulted from the methods of questioning in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission (because there were stars on the ceiling) in England - British courts of equity that operated from 1487-1641. These courts utilized the inquisitorial method of truth-seeking as opposed to the prosecutorial method, meaning that prosecutors did not bear the burden of proving a case, but that sufficient “proof” came from browbeating confessions out of the accused. Under the inquisitorial method the person could be placed under oath and forced to answer questions. As a result, the 5th Amendment provision was established by our founders to assure the procedure would not be used by the federal government in the United States against people who were suspects.

Historically, the legal protection against compelled self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.

The legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio Mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel “cooperation.” Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburn refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for freeborn “ rights” were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell’s revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levelers. The Levelers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with 13 demands, third of which was the right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. These protections were brought to America by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights. 184

This, obviously, is where the right “not to be forced to testify against yourself” came from - the right to “take the fifth”. It is clear this provision was meant to protect anyone charged with a crime and on trial from being called to testify “as a witness” if they chose to remain silent. The provision makes sense because in the criminal process, under the accusatorial method, when a person is put on trial the prosecution must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The process has protections built in so someone cannot be “railroaded” by the so-called “system” as occurs in some countries. Even though law enforcement personnel think a person is guilty of a crime, either a grand jury or a prosecution official must make a decision to file charges in order for the person to be put on trial.

You will notice the language of the 5th Amendment does not indicate one suspected of a crime cannot be questioned before a trial. The 6th Amendment does not say the suspect must be told he or she is entitled to an attorney prior to any questioning. The 6th Amendment does not say that the attorney will be provided free. The 5th Amendment does not say that before any questioning aThe Fifth and Sixth Amendments suspect must be told he or she has those rights before answering any questions and that those rights must be waived.

In other words, neither the 5th or 6th Amendments provisions do not hinder law enforcement authorities in any way from doing their job in trying to protect the safety of the public by apprehending those who choose to engage in suspected criminal behavior….