1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.
That, and only that, is its job.
... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).
That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. Itās pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Romeā¦as merely suggestions.
The irony is that a court of law has purloinedā¦stolenā¦power not relegated to it.
2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.
Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:
āā¦D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having ādifficult periodsā and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.
The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isnāt mentioned in the Constitution, and itās hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.ā āThe Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,ā Thom Hartmann, P. 90
3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admittingā¦āWith no constitutional foundationā¦.ā
Why should the Court have decided it at all????
In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditionsā¦.with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.
Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.
Ronald Reagan used the phrase āvoting with your feet,ā meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules, and the laws.
This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.
That is not what has developed.
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.
That, and only that, is its job.
... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).
That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. Itās pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Romeā¦as merely suggestions.
The irony is that a court of law has purloinedā¦stolenā¦power not relegated to it.
2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.
Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:
āā¦D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having ādifficult periodsā and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.
The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isnāt mentioned in the Constitution, and itās hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.ā āThe Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,ā Thom Hartmann, P. 90
3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admittingā¦āWith no constitutional foundationā¦.ā
Why should the Court have decided it at all????
In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditionsā¦.with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.
Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.
Ronald Reagan used the phrase āvoting with your feet,ā meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules, and the laws.
This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.
That is not what has developed.