Thursday, May 26, 2011

'Modern jurisprudence' has emasculated Constitution ~ By Henry Lamb

Congress can control the courts in a variety of ways. The Senate can strongly influence the courts through their advice-and-consent process. Were senators to reject those judicial appointees who believe that "modern jurisprudence" outweighs the clear language of the Constitution, this disease could be eliminated.

Congress can control the courts and the executive branch only if it is populated by individuals who know and believe in the Constitution. The people decide how Congress is populated. It's up to us.

What Henry Lamb examines in this column is important for all of us to be aware of, and should be a guide for us in choosing our candidates in all elections. In Henry's conclusion (above), he says that Congress would need to be "populated by individuals who know and believe in the Constitution" in order to control the courts and the executive branch of our government. I agree, but it needs to go one step further. We can only stop the "modern jurisprudence" in regard to the Constitution if all the individuals inhabiting government offices from the federal level right down to the local government levels know and follow the Constitution.

However, we won't be able to put a halt to the progressive dilution of the Constitution in just one election cycle. It could actually take generations to do so. The deterioration of our Constitution didn't just happen overnight. Too many people that have gone through the public indoctrination centers have been taught that the Constitution is an outdated document that doesn't apply in today's world. It will take a lot of effort to get the academic institutions turned around and teaching the Constitution the way the Founders intended it to mean.

Like Henry Lamb had said, "it's up to us." We can start by trying to elect people into Congress that honor the Constitution, but that is just a start. I'm just sayin'...

'Modern jurisprudence' has emasculated Constitution
By Henry Lamb

May 21, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

When James Madison wrote "… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" into the Constitution, he really meant "for public use." Over the years, the courts redefined "public use" to mean "whatever government wants to do with your land." The Kelo v. New London decision drove the final nail into the idea of sacred private property. Another founder, John Adams, said:
Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. … The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.

Private property is no longer sacred. Government can take your land and give or sell it to another private individual. Government can assume control of your land – which is the defining power of ownership – by simply declaring that a wetland exists, or that an endangered or threatened species may wish to use your land. Government may prevent you from using your private property by simply drawing lines on a map and declaring that your land is in a "conservation" zone.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is not what it used to be. But then neither is the Fourth Amendment, which says quite clearly that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Indiana Supreme Court doesn't understand this clear language. Writing for the court, Justice Steven David said:
We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. ...
What on earth is "modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" that completely upends the clear language and meaning for the Fourth Amendment?

Modern jurisprudence must mean that courts are no longer bound by the Constitution or the law and can redefine the words to mean whatever the court wants them to mean at the moment. This disease is not limited to the courts, however. It has spread to the White House and to Congress.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

No comments:

Post a Comment