Despite all the wrongs endured,
and King George's tyranny, many colonists were fearful of inviting King George's
wrath and still others believed that English rule was safer and more palatable
than a revolt.
Between June 11 and June
26, 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, a monumental
document that details the grievances under English rule. Smarting from the British
arrogance of establishing arbitrary laws that were unjustly formulated and unjustly
applied, the men that signed this document envisioned a supreme law, to be equally
applied, to be just and to be acceptable. Although the mechanics of implementation
of that had not been set down on paper, this was to be the basis for what would
later be called the Supreme Court.
A brief examination of
the Declaration of Independence establishes that man was "governed by Laws of
Nature and Nature's God"; and that "truths are self evident...endowed by the
Creator"; and man should be free to seek "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
It is interesting, and
prophetic, to examine in detail some of the grievances listed in this document,
"He (King Gorge) has Obstructed
the Administration of Justice, by refusing to assent to Laws for establishing
Judiciary power." (The monetary fine and impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton
is a perfect example as he was cited for obstruction of justice).
"He has made Judges dependent
on his Will alone, for the tenure of their office...." (Many federal judges
appointed by Clinton have been, and are, beholden). [As will be seen later,
this is one of the most important aspects of selecting and appointing Supreme
"He has erected a multitude
of New Offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people." (Witness
the overwhelming laws, bureaucracies and orders that hamper business, national
forests, tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, education, etc, etc. created
during Clinton's administration).
Scholars are constantly
amazed that these great men could create and draft all those documents that
foresaw even today's problems. No changes have been required to the Constitution
and original Bill of Rights and additional amendments, for the most part, address
circumstances that could not be envisioned back then.
How can that be?
A careful study of the
Constitution shows the framework of separation of power within the three branches
of government: Executive (President), Legislative (House and Senate) and Judiciary
(the Supreme Court).
The third branch, the Supreme
Court, is absolutely crucial to prevent power-driven men from destroying the
American dream. It has worked well until quite recently.
The requirement that the
President selects a judge and the Legislative branch either confirms, or denies,
has fine tuned the selection. The objectivity that should exist because of lifetime
tenure, no political pressure, no standing for re-election and only impeachment
as a deterrent, was the basis for having an impartial Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, we can view
decisions that are completely without merit, and to name just two; the tobacco
lawsuits and the gun manufacturer lawsuits, invites criticism of our judicial
We note with dismay that
the current White House Administration, the U.S. Attorney General and the Justice
Department, et al, have taken the position that the United States believes "that
it could 'take guns away from the public', and 'restrict ownership of rifles,
pistols and shotguns from all people', " in direct violation of the Second Amendment,
(Refer to U.S. Department of Justice, August 22, 2000 letter in the Constitutional
Times), despite Supreme Court decisions.
Gun ownership is a guaranteed
right within the Bill of Rights but superseding that, it is a God-given right
as the basis for freedom and Nature's right under self-defense/self-preservation.
There are several Supreme
Court rulings that are very controversial because the original intent of the
Supreme Court is being affected by external forces.
Originally, the Supreme
Court's function was to interpret law, but today all courts are making law and
that is strictly unconstitutional. Somehow, the justices seem to believe that
their jurisdiction extends beyond what was granted them. A change must take
place or it will lead to one of two avenues; eg, impeachment or jury nullification,
where the jury simply declares a law to be invalid and so bases their verdict.
Before that happens, we
are faced with a very serious dilemma -- the next President will be in a position
to request appointment of 2 - 4 Supreme Court justices.