Needed By Supreme Court: Private Investigator to Find Lost Founding Document, Last Seen Circa 1937.
Do you know where it is? Have you seen it? America is in crisis. The Supreme Court has lost our nation’s Founding Document, and our justices have lost their way.
Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the back of the Hughes Court which had held against Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation for three years, the Supreme Court has seemingly wandered further and further a field in its search for law. The Hughes court was a four-two-three court with four staunch conservatives, derisively nicknamed the “Four Horsemen,” Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Pierce Butler and George Sutherland. These were sometimes joined by others, particularly the two moderates Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and justice Owen Roberts. The remaining justices the most progressive, nicknamed the “Three Musketeers,” were Louis D. Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Fiske Stone. Roosevelt succeeded in breaking the back of the court following his re-election in 1935. He did this by suggesting to the congress, which following the election had become seventy-five percent Democrat, that he be granted the right to appoint one new justice for each current justice over seventy who refused to resign, up to a final number of fifteen justices, citing the limited vision of “older men” (six of the justices were over seventy at that time). Although the Democrat Congress balked at the suggestion and it has been generally viewed as one of Roosevelt’s biggest mistakes, it was sufficient threat in the eyes of the moderate justices for them to acquiesce to the policies of the Roosevelt administration. Although the Four Horsemen remained steadfast, their power was broken, and shortly thereafter Willis Van Devanter announced his retirement. George Sutherland followed suit in January of 1938.
Sutherland was a great champion of “natural rights” a strange, outlandish idea that individuals possessed natural rights with which the state was forbidden to interfere. I note that this is something akin to what is alleged to be in our lost Founding Document and specifically a portion of said document called “The Bill of Rights.” This document, believed by many on the Right to be called “The Constitution of the United States of America” has apparently not been seen by the Supreme Court of the United States in over sixty years.
This presents the Court with a real quandary as its purported duties are to adjudicate:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Or at least that is what is alleged. It is known that in a decision which had little to do with the original intent of the Founding Fathers and their Founding Document, the Supreme Court appointed itself the final arbiter in deciding which laws passed by Congress were “Constitutional.”
As the years have rolled by with no apparent sightings of this “Constitution” by members of the Court, they have strayed more broadly in their rulings. Why, sometimes it appears they have completely forgotten what their duties are. It took them the longest time to remember that discrimination on the basis of race was un“Constitutional” according to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. In 1875 Congress passed “AN ACT to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights” (Civil Rights legislation), but the Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, struck it down as un"Constitutional” in 1883. In 1954 they finally figured that one out in Brown v. the Board of Education.
Moving forward in history, the Supreme Court drifted further astray, when they discovered, in 1965, a heretofore undiscovered “Right to Privacy” in the the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the ninth and the fourteenth Amendments. Justice William O. Douglas wrote that:
As you can see from the phrases such as “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees...” the Supreme Court had by that time drifted quite some distance from the so-called Founding Document, this “Constitution.” But it doesn’t stop there. In 1973 in a case called Rowe v. Wade, using this notion of “penumbras formed by emanations,” the SCOTUS actually ruled that a woman had the “Constitutional Right” to murder her unborn child, simply because she wanted to. No! I’m not kidding. They actually ruled this, trust me, I wouldn’t lie. I’m not making this up, a woman can actually kill her unborn child...and get away with it “SCOT[US]” free. I know it seems incredible, with things like the “equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but they actually ruled that...Honest.
So, you see that by 1973, this SCOTUS had really started to lose its way in the fog. I know you’re not going to believe this, but we’re not finished yet. The court decided in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942 that Congress, in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, could use the “commerce clause” of this “Constitution,” which says “Congress shall have power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” to prevent people from raising wheat for their own consumption during the New Deal because that which they grew, would prevent them from purchasing a like amount from growers in other states. This “commerce clause” ruling was not an isolated action, but has been repeated a number of times culminating in a case this month, Gonzales v. Raich the Court stated:
As you can see, without this lost document, SCOTUS just seems to be grasping at straws in an attempt to exercise their duties as justices.
It was the happenings of the past week which finally moved me to write this plea for help for the SCOTUS. In an amazing triumph of opinion over law, the SCOTUS ruled that, in spite of the protections of property rights held to be so valuable by our founding fathers, a municipality can, through the right of eminent domain seize a private citizens property and give it to a private contractor in hopes of increasing the tax revenues which accrue from said property. This ruling, along with the two contradictory rulings on June 27th, 2005, the first declaring that religious displays may not be placed inside of a public building-for religious purposes, and the second, that a religious display may be placed on public property-for historical purposes, I believe, are desperate cries for help from our beloved Supreme Court Justices.
It seems obvious to me that they are asking us citizens to help them find their lost Founding Documents, this “Constitution.” Summoning the last of their legal strength, they have sent us this last urgent plea for assistance.
I am asking therefore, if you have seen it, this “Constitution,” that you send it to them. I’m afraid they are in recess now, but I am certain that they would appreciate any help that you might be capable of rendering. I’m starting a new campaign, I call it-
PLEASE HELP OUR SUPREME COURT FIND ITS CONTITUTION.
Won’t you please help?
Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt broke the back of the Hughes Court which had held against Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation for three years, the Supreme Court has seemingly wandered further and further a field in its search for law. The Hughes court was a four-two-three court with four staunch conservatives, derisively nicknamed the “Four Horsemen,” Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Pierce Butler and George Sutherland. These were sometimes joined by others, particularly the two moderates Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and justice Owen Roberts. The remaining justices the most progressive, nicknamed the “Three Musketeers,” were Louis D. Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Harlan Fiske Stone. Roosevelt succeeded in breaking the back of the court following his re-election in 1935. He did this by suggesting to the congress, which following the election had become seventy-five percent Democrat, that he be granted the right to appoint one new justice for each current justice over seventy who refused to resign, up to a final number of fifteen justices, citing the limited vision of “older men” (six of the justices were over seventy at that time). Although the Democrat Congress balked at the suggestion and it has been generally viewed as one of Roosevelt’s biggest mistakes, it was sufficient threat in the eyes of the moderate justices for them to acquiesce to the policies of the Roosevelt administration. Although the Four Horsemen remained steadfast, their power was broken, and shortly thereafter Willis Van Devanter announced his retirement. George Sutherland followed suit in January of 1938.
Sutherland was a great champion of “natural rights” a strange, outlandish idea that individuals possessed natural rights with which the state was forbidden to interfere. I note that this is something akin to what is alleged to be in our lost Founding Document and specifically a portion of said document called “The Bill of Rights.” This document, believed by many on the Right to be called “The Constitution of the United States of America” has apparently not been seen by the Supreme Court of the United States in over sixty years.
This presents the Court with a real quandary as its purported duties are to adjudicate:
“all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-to controversies between two or more states;-between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Or at least that is what is alleged. It is known that in a decision which had little to do with the original intent of the Founding Fathers and their Founding Document, the Supreme Court appointed itself the final arbiter in deciding which laws passed by Congress were “Constitutional.”
As the years have rolled by with no apparent sightings of this “Constitution” by members of the Court, they have strayed more broadly in their rulings. Why, sometimes it appears they have completely forgotten what their duties are. It took them the longest time to remember that discrimination on the basis of race was un“Constitutional” according to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. In 1875 Congress passed “AN ACT to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights” (Civil Rights legislation), but the Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, struck it down as un"Constitutional” in 1883. In 1954 they finally figured that one out in Brown v. the Board of Education.
Moving forward in history, the Supreme Court drifted further astray, when they discovered, in 1965, a heretofore undiscovered “Right to Privacy” in the the first, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the ninth and the fourteenth Amendments. Justice William O. Douglas wrote that:
“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance...Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." in these amendments there are “penumbras...”
As you can see from the phrases such as “penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees...” the Supreme Court had by that time drifted quite some distance from the so-called Founding Document, this “Constitution.” But it doesn’t stop there. In 1973 in a case called Rowe v. Wade, using this notion of “penumbras formed by emanations,” the SCOTUS actually ruled that a woman had the “Constitutional Right” to murder her unborn child, simply because she wanted to. No! I’m not kidding. They actually ruled this, trust me, I wouldn’t lie. I’m not making this up, a woman can actually kill her unborn child...and get away with it “SCOT[US]” free. I know it seems incredible, with things like the “equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, but they actually ruled that...Honest.
So, you see that by 1973, this SCOTUS had really started to lose its way in the fog. I know you’re not going to believe this, but we’re not finished yet. The court decided in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942 that Congress, in the Agricultural Adjustment Act, could use the “commerce clause” of this “Constitution,” which says “Congress shall have power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” to prevent people from raising wheat for their own consumption during the New Deal because that which they grew, would prevent them from purchasing a like amount from growers in other states. This “commerce clause” ruling was not an isolated action, but has been repeated a number of times culminating in a case this month, Gonzales v. Raich the Court stated:
“Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce... Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity...Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses . . .” and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets.”
As you can see, without this lost document, SCOTUS just seems to be grasping at straws in an attempt to exercise their duties as justices.
It was the happenings of the past week which finally moved me to write this plea for help for the SCOTUS. In an amazing triumph of opinion over law, the SCOTUS ruled that, in spite of the protections of property rights held to be so valuable by our founding fathers, a municipality can, through the right of eminent domain seize a private citizens property and give it to a private contractor in hopes of increasing the tax revenues which accrue from said property. This ruling, along with the two contradictory rulings on June 27th, 2005, the first declaring that religious displays may not be placed inside of a public building-for religious purposes, and the second, that a religious display may be placed on public property-for historical purposes, I believe, are desperate cries for help from our beloved Supreme Court Justices.
It seems obvious to me that they are asking us citizens to help them find their lost Founding Documents, this “Constitution.” Summoning the last of their legal strength, they have sent us this last urgent plea for assistance.
I am asking therefore, if you have seen it, this “Constitution,” that you send it to them. I’m afraid they are in recess now, but I am certain that they would appreciate any help that you might be capable of rendering. I’m starting a new campaign, I call it-
PLEASE HELP OUR SUPREME COURT FIND ITS CONTITUTION.
Won’t you please help?
<< Home