[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Four Is the Constitution Really Inimical To States Rights? - Part Four By: Al Benson, Jr. Mr. Galles also noted that: "One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful." As Brutus, he observed that the Supreme Court, as envisioned under the Constitution, would end up becoming a source of growing abuse because they were beyond the control of both legislatures and ordinary citizens and they were in no way subject to being "corrected by any power above them." "Brutus argued that when constitutional grounds for making rules were absent, the Court would create grounds 'by their own decisions.' He thought that the power it would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law, manipulating the meanings of arguably vague clauses to justify it." (Galles) That being the case, the Court could then proceed to interpret the Constitution according to the "spirit" of the law rather than the letter of the law. Looking at some of the "decisions" the Supreme Court has handed down in our lifetime, can anyone seriously doubt the concerns Robert Yates had? In fact, if anything, his concerns would today have to be labeled as "optimistic" because, in his day, he could have had no concept of just how far the Court would go in promoting the agendas of radical, activist judges who would shamelessly promote their version of what they wished the Constitution really said. I can remember Joseph Sobran, writing on this subject years ago when he noted that the Court has found many "enumerated penumbras" in the Constitution that justified abortion. Many will ask "What's a penumbra?" For want of being able to explain it legally I will note that it is nothing more than a judicial version of "seeing through a glass darkly." The lawyers see "rights" there that are never spelled out anywhere, except in their own minds. One might almost be led to ask that if these activist judges see such imaginary "rights" in the Constitution in their minds, have they, in fact, become "legends in their own minds?" Mike Crane of Morganton, Georgia, has written a six-part series of articles (more to come) called "What Is States Rights?" Mr. Crane has made some very interesting observations which deserve consideration. In part 6 of his series he states: "In the very early days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, the framers of the Constitution, made a deliberate and conscious decision to discontinue a federated form of government and to replace it...let me emphasize...REPLACE IT...with a national form of government in their deliberations. Let me summarize what this means for the concept of States Rights...By the votes of May 30, 1787 the framers of the Constitution began debating the ultimate elimination of States Rights! The concept of States Rights is mutually exclusive with the concept of a national or consolidated government as clearly explained ('...the latter having compleat and compulsive operation...') by Gov. Morris." And Mr. Crane continues: "If it is true that the framers of the Constitution of 1787 proposed a national government, then it should be easy to understand why the Anti-federalists were opposed to its ratification. It explains why our Confederate forefathers made changes in several areas when drafting the Confederate Constitution of 1861." (More on the Confederate Constitution later). But Mike also notes: "Most importantly--it explains why efforts to Reform have failed for 200 years and why efforts at Reform are most likely a fool's errand with little or no hope of success." Mike also observed that "On May 31, 1787 the framers agreed without debate or dissent that the National Legislature would be Supreme over the State Legislatures in any matter that in the opinion of the National Legislature was important." Exactly what does that say for the rights of your individual states? It says that the "National Legislature" gets to decide what rights your states do and do not have. It almost leads you to believe that the 9th and 10th Amendments were only thrown in their as sops for the unwary--to make sure they never caught on to the real game--consolidated national power! In other words, our framers snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! Mike Crane then noted, almost as if in anti-climax, the same thing I noted earlier, that: "Just 13 years earlier, some of these same men had assembled in the First Continental Congress and as a major step toward the creation of American Liberty and Independence from England had rejected this same concept as absolutely and totally unacceptable! But here in Philadelphia on May 31, 1787--it was accepted without dissent or debate." You have to wonder what happened in thirteen short years to make them solidly embrace what they had earlier rejected--the dissolution of true American liberty. To be continued. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||