How Did It Ever Come To This?
By Christopher G. Adamo
It is altogether unimaginable that America's Founders, having only recently thrown off the shackles of British despotism at the time of the Constitution's writing, might then willingly establish the nation on a basis that would threaten them with eventual subjugation to a corrupt and tyrannical American “monarchy” masquerading as the court system.
Indeed, had they ever imagined such a system would eventually impose on them, by judicial decree, so heinous and reprehensible a concept as same-sex “marriage,” they certainly would have immediately crawled to the feet of King George, and begged for re-admittance into the British Empire.
As the dark day of court-imposed same-sex “marriage” dawns in America, many are asking themselves just how things could have degenerated to this point in a nation that was founded on a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” That this abomination is publicly being carried out among the many magnificent old Churches, in what was once the spiritual bastion of Massachusetts, only enhances its already despicable nature with an element of blasphemy. But the root cause of the problem is no more complicated than it has ever been. In short, it resulted from a sustained, twofold attack on the nation's foundational principles.
America was established on a system of checks and balances, for the sole purpose of insuring accountability on the part of those in power. Somewhere along the way, the architects of social transformation managed to convince the rest of the country that the judiciary was somehow exempted from such accountability. From there it was a simple matter of merely installing corrupt individuals into crucial judicial offices.
Some contend that the stage was initially set in the early days of this nation, when the Supreme Court asserted itself as the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. However, such an assumption of power would never have stood, if Americans of that day had assumed it to mean absolute and unquestioned authority accrued to the courts, with no avenue of redress.
Furthermore, judges of that day thoroughly understood that they must remain well within the framework of traditional morality. The nation would by no means have allowed anything on the order of present day breaches, and would doubtlessly have seen the situation as warranting another disposal of tea (and perhaps other unwanted cargo), into Boston Harbor.
Thus the court activism of that day was necessarily limited to relatively minor “adjustments” to the law, any one of which did not fundamentally alter the fabric of society. However, over time the degree of activism increased, with previous overextensions of the law being invoked as precedent, not only to legitimize the very concept of activism itself, but also as a springboard for ever more outrageous decisions. Ultimately, it became imperative for modern judicial activists and their accomplices to simultaneously expunge any restricting principles from each and every governing institution, and completely supplant them with the twisted premises of “political correctness.”
Considering the critical importance of this element of their overall strategy, it is no wonder that they have been so obsessive in their efforts to attack the Boy Scouts and every similar organization within the nation's borders and, if they will not acquiesce, to eliminate them.
Now the nation's morality... its ultimate wellspring of freedom, is no longer considered fit and proper as the basis for law. Worse yet, activist courts and liberal institutions are hard at work to outlaw even the discussion of such things, labeling them as “hate speech,” and virtually assuring their eventual extinction.
Concurrently, they've been systematically stamping out individual rights ever since. Americans are now told by the courts that they can no longer pray, say the Pledge, support and oppose political candidates as they see fit, or even require public officials to conduct government business in English.
Ironically, those who are most adamant that the Constitution is “living” (subject to flexible interpretation) are the very individuals who, when considering judicial impeachment, suddenly become “strict constructionists,” insisting that impeachment can only take place as a result of felonious activity. Apparently, exceeding every boundary of law and decency in pursuit of radical social transformation, and thereby destroying the foundations and heritage of the nation, doesn't qualify.
It is high time that Americans begin holding their judges, both federal and state, to some accountability. Trivializing or ignoring the ravages of judicial activism is no more of an option than pretending the threat from Al Qaeda no longer exists.
|
