America Divided, Part 3
The Supreme Court And Our Monetary System
Over the last 50 years the Supreme Court started moving away from looking to the Federalist Papers or the intent of the law when making judgments and started looking to the preamble within the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
While using the preamble to justify the implementation by Congress of social policies has left lower courts, and in some cases the Supreme Court, to use precedent to abstain from long drawn out hearings. A perfect example was the ruling on the Obamacare taxes.
The Supreme Court used precedent to regulate economic activity which crossed State lines under the interstate commerce clause.
Justice Thomas has argued “the Court’s continued use of that test” has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the commerce clause has virtually no limits.
President’s have come to rely on this when looking at potential new justices. Do they believe in a ‘Living Constitution’ is it meant to change with the times, or do they believe the Federalist Papers and in the intent of the law. At the moment the bench is split 4 in favor of a living constitution and 5 against which was a prominent part of President Trumps win.
Living supporter Judge Ginsburg stated at the University of Cairo in 2012 that Egypt should look to South Africa when creating their Constitution.
“That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
This division not only has manipulated our elections but has also taken dominion over States and Individuals rights. An example of this is in the Supreme Court now dealing with the 1st Amendment.
Another living supporter, Justice Sotomayor argued “We can’t legislate civility and rudeness,” but we can legislate behavior.
No one likes to be told what to do like buying a product from a private corporation you don’t want, being sent to a ‘free speech zone’ or being incarcerated for having a different belief.
I hope in these articles I have highlighted some of our big issue and it helps you understand how unreliable the government is to fix anything until these polarizing problems are corrected.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Friends, Americans, Countrymen, lend me your ears, since we are indicted as “Constitutionalists” we should look to that instrument as a light to the future…and the Constitution does provide a bright path for our choosing:
“…; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” – U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section III, Para I.
What this provision does is allows two States to combine into one, say Idaho and Nevada…and for this new State what shall be its name?…let’s see…let’s see…let’s pick a good solid name like “Harold”…the new State of Harold.
And thus, one by one, all the remaining States combine with the State of Harold…until that is just one big State. The United State of America…Harold that is.
Then we could have a little one-on-one with the Federal gubbermint.
This would satisfy the “Less Government” crowd since there being only one State there would only be two Senators in the Senate…talk about a savings there.
Since there would be only one State there would be no interstate commerce to regulate. And also, no more arbitrarily straight-line State borders (nature abhors a straight line).
And wait, it just keeps getting better, with there only being one State, as clearly provided for in the U.S. Constitution, there will only be on State Bird, Flower, Rock, Fossil, Fish, Insect…ad nauseam.
Oh my oh my, it does keep getting better, since the Electoral College has States giving all its votes to the majority winner within said State…if there were just one State…the State of Harold that is…then the majority winner would be the winner just by being the majority winner.
It is just empowering to have such flexibility at hand. Call me a Constitutionalist if you please.