Breach Of Contract
by Christopher G. Adamo
If then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, they must be empowered as the final and absolute arbiters of legislation, implementing and advancing certain tenets while remanding others as they see fit, their ultimate concern being the greater good of the people. --John Jay, 1787, excerpted from The Federalist Papers
The previous passage was never written by John Jay or his contemporaries, but was an attempt by this writer to employ Jayson Blair journalistic technique. Moreover, had John Jay or any of America's founding fathers ever been presented with such drivel, they would have instantly branded it as the surest of ways to consign America to eventual tyranny. And suspicion that the Constitution might ever devolve to such a point would have immediately doomed its ratification.
Unfortunately, it has become painfully obvious from several recent decisions that a majority of justices on the United States Supreme Court believe they are endowed with so far-reaching an authority. Worse still, that Americans haven't risen up to demand the replacement of those justices suggests that the people are too willing to accept this fate.
Whenever the high court reverts to such behavior (and these incidents are occurring with increasing frequency), it is worthwhile to consider the original and true nature of the Constitution and its own stipulations as to the role of the courts in the Republic it established.
First, it must be clearly understood that the Constitution is not just some museum relic or mere collection of epic sounding phrases inscribed on a venerated piece of parchment. Rather, it was the original and foundational Contract with America, whereby the States mutually agreed to form a federal government to arbitrate between them, as well as represent them among foreign powers. The purpose of the courts was specifically to ensure that all parties abided by the terms of that contract . And those terms could only be modified through a precise means that essentially mirrored the initial establishment of the contract itself. Any attempts to circumvent this process were a violation of the original contract, and thus constituted a crime against all parties involved.
By asserting that Americans have some sort of unalienable right to diversity, as the majority did in the Michigan School of Law's affirmative action ruling, the court perpetrated just such a transgression. Worse yet, Justice Anthony Kennedy's profession that homosexual sex acts deserve respect, not only grotesquely exceeded any precept of Constitutional law, it violated every aspect of common decency as well and backed those violations with the full force of the federal government. Not surprisingly, advocates of same-sex marriage view the decision as a major victory.
In response to all of this, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) has proposed a constitutional amendment specifying marriage as being between one man and one woman. His action is consistent with the pattern of recent years, whereby amendments are suggested in order to correct misguided rulings. But while such an amendment may be a necessary emergency fix, it does not truly deal with the underlying problem of an out-of-control judiciary. Constitutional amendments were never intended as specific laws, but rather as the principle and basis for law. Furthermore, no constitutional precept nor any amendment, regardless of how comprehensively phrased, is sufficient to preempt its corruption through the ravages of an activist court.
The Constitution did specify a thoroughly proper and effective means of correcting the situation in which America presently finds itself. Federal and Supreme Court judges are indeed appointed for life, provided their conduct is considered good behavior. Otherwise, they are every bit as susceptible to impeachment as is the President. In recent years, it has been politically expedient for all parties to assert that bad decisions from the bench are not impeachable offenses and that good behavior can only be compromised by a felony conviction. (Interestingly, when dealing with Democrat Presidents, these are the very issues that are dismissed as being one's private life.).
The term good behavior was deliberately ambiguous, thus granting maximum latitude to the Congress to oversee judicial conduct and remove unfit occupants. Blatant contempt for the Constitution, amounting to no less than a violation of the judicial oath of office, certainly crosses the line. Judicial impeachment may be a long, uphill battle with little hope for success. But it may also be the only hope for America s future.
|
