On June 25th, 2008, five members of our Supreme Court perpetuated a lie to justify and impose their personal standards of justice within the State of Louisiana, and they refused to uphold the people’s adopted penal code requiring the death penalty for a child rapist.

And just what was the big lie told? Justice Kennedy in delivering the opinion of the Court wrote:

The Fourteenth Amendment made the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution applicable to the States? A lie like that, Justice Kennedy, is easy to state, but it is a far different matter to provide the documentation to substantiate such an assertion!

The fact is, Kennedy’s assertion is an invention of the Supreme Court of the United States used to gather dictatorial powers to itself and the Washington Establishment, undermine federalism, and is not in harmony with the preponderance of evidence documenting the very narrow intentions and beliefs for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and which I will briefly touch upon shortly. But first, and for the benefit of those who have an appetite for historical facts, rather than fiction, let us recall why the first ten amendments were added to our federal Constitution.

It is amazing how our federal Bill of Rights has been repeatedly misrepresented by our employees in Washington in order to subjugate the very intentions for which it was adopted which was to restrict our federal government’s exercise of power and preserve and protect federalism, our Constitution’s plan.

The intentions for which the federal Bill of Rights was sent to the States for ratification is documented in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

Now isn’t that something? Our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were specifically intended to further restrict the government created under our federal Constitution and prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. The unadulterated truth is, the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were never intended to apply to or restrict the sovereignty of the people within the various States nor interfere with their constitutionally established state governments, nor allow the federal government to second guess the penal laws adopted by the people within the four corners of their respective state Constitutions and Declarations of Rights.

It is also important to note how Madison articulates the prevailing sentiments of the people with regard to the adoption of our Constitution’s first ten amendments, adopted in support of “federalism“:

And so, the very reason for adopting the first ten amendments was to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan and further restrict the federal government‘s power.


Keep in mind that before our federal government was created the various state constitutions and their Declarations of Rights as adopted by the people in their respective states were intended to insure those at the helm of state government power protected the lives, liberty and property of the people as commanded by a State’s written Constitution. For example see: Maryland’s DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, November 3, 1776 And in particular see XIV of Maryland‘s Declaration of Rights:

And so, it becomes evident from historical facts that our first ten amendments to our federal Constitution were not intended to be enforceable upon the States by the federal government, but were intended to restrict the federal government. And thus, the remaining question to be addressed is Justice Kennedy’s assertion that

A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment establishes beyond any doubt the prevailing intention was to incorporate the objectives of a proposed Civil Rights Act into the Constitution and had nothing to do with making the Eighth Amendment, or any of the other nine amendments being made applicable to the States.

There is an abundance of documented evidence the Fourteenth Amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area which was to prohibit state legislation based upon race, color, or previous condition of slavery. For example, Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was being debated explains the intentions as follows:

The bottom line is, Justice Kennedy’s assertion about the Fourteenth Amendment is not in harmony with the preponderance of evidence documenting the intentions and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and thus, his opinion is based upon a myth, a myth generated and nurtured by the SCOTUS during the past fifty or so years in an attempt by the Washington Establishment to weaken and dissolved federalism, our Constitution’s plan. The plain truth is, Kennedy has perpetuated the big lie concerning the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not intended to allow Kennedy to second guess the People’s adopted penal code in Louisiana, nor allow Roe vs. Wade, allow Martin, a cripple, to ride around in a golf cart during the PGA event, nor was the Fourteenth Amendment intended to allowed Justice Ginsburg to command VMI to admit females into the Virginia Military Institute.

Isn’t it time to demand our public servants on the SCOTUS substantiate their opinions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment with historical documentation from those who framed and ratified the amendment? Or will its members be allowed to continue to make things up as they go along and ignore their oath of office to support and defend “this Constitution” and not one they make up as they carry on from day to day?


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Seems pretty ballsy to even use the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" when talking about sparing these monsters who perpetrated acts far worse. The death penalty seems humane compared to what should be applied.

John, are you still angry about the civil war?

I agree completely! But you can thank our nation’s pervert lovers at the ACLU who have been quite active as far back as the 1970’s and even before in undermining federalism and assisting the Washington Establishment in its effort to concentrate power over the states and placing it in the hands of SCOTUS.

As a matter of fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who now sits on the SC was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s and very active in a number of cases which popularized a number of “tests” [strict scrutiny, rational basis, compelling state interests] which the SC now regularly relies upon to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which our federal Constitution was adopted.

And what is our constitutional system’s most fundamental rule?

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


Expounding upon our Constitution is not an exercise in “interpretation” as some would have us believe ___ it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

This is hardly news. There's nothing special about this case that's different from hundreds of other bill of rights cases every year. Well, except that it's about a conservative wedge issue, and involves the "pervert lovers at the ACLU."

I'm surprised John isn't more up in arms about the blatant judicial activism in this week's other big case.http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...6186&type=left

The gun law challenged in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns. The law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:



Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to “Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. Those authorized to legislate in the district of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the various United States, and not the residents who happen to live within the limits of Washington, D.C.

Getting back to the Washington, D.C. handgun law. How could it be constitutional when is was not written by the Congress of the United States, which is the only body vested with power to legislate in Washington, D.C.? And, why did the SCOTUS even recognize a law which was not written by the constitutionally authorized legislative body?

JWK