Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. — John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law 1765

No_Mike_Rounds_bn

Obama Clan Poised for War Against Constitution, SCOTUS

March 30, 2012   ·   By   ·   0 Comments

Even if the individual mandate included within Obamacare is overturned, the administration and its leftist allies stand poised to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution itself. This effort began in earnest with a front page hit piece on the New York Times that ran July 24 of last year. Reporter Adam Liptek claimed that under Chief Justice John Roberts the court is more conservative now than it has been in decades.

The article is built around a database created by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that gauges the ideological complexion of court rulings and the leanings of individual members. “In the database, votes favoring criminal defendants, unions, people claiming discrimination or violation of their civil rights are, for instance, said to be liberal,” the report explains. “Decisions striking down economic regulations and favoring prosecutors, employers and the government are said to be conservative.”

But the perspective here is a bit skewed. For starters, it is misleading to conflate decisions that overrule precedent with some form of activism. Contrary to what is often taught in law schools, the actual U.S. Constitution and what is known as U.S. constitutional law are often two very different items. Recent court rulings that overturn earlier decisions divorced from the text’s original meaning are more about restoration and less about activism. Moreover, Liptak places far too much weight and faith in Justice Anthony Kennedy as a reliable constitutional vote.

Another key episode here concerns President Obama’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court included as part of his 2010 State of the Union Address. Here Obama disparaged the majority’s pro-First Amendment ruling in the Citizens United decision. Not since Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought to pack the court has there ever been such an overt assault on the judiciary.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, as always, has a keen understanding of what President Obama, and leftist pressure groups, are up to.

“What he [Obama] is really doing is leading an effort to undermine the Constitution as the primary document which forms the basic principles of our government and the structure that should be followed by the executive branches as well as the other two branches,” Meese explained during a talk at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). The former AG also said that a recent New York Times article also written by Liptak, which demeans the Constitution, was also deliberately timed with certain actions undertaken by the Obama Administration.

“The Constitution has seen better days,” the article begins.

From here, Liptak goes on to describe how the Constitution is no longer a compelling model for other countries. He even quotes sitting U.S. Supreme Court Association Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to drive the point home.

“I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. As an alternative, Ginsburg recommends looking to South Africa’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Justice Ginsburg’s attack on the validity of the U.S. Constitution came under fire in an article by Americans for Limited Government’s Mark Wohlschlegel who pointed out that, “Madam Justice Ginsburg either is ignorant or chooses to willfully overlook the very fundamental purpose the U.S. Constitution was created for — it is not a document designed to empower the government to protect its people, but rather one that was designed to protects its people from their government. That bears repeating — the Constitution was designed to protect the American people from their government.”

Wohlschlegel underscores the real danger in the politically motivated attacks on the Roberts Court. At their core, they are designed to undermine the very document that protects individual freedom and limits federal government power by delegitimizing the Court which is specifically created to protect those liberties.

Keep this in mind, when you hear and read warnings from the left and their sycophants in the media about a dangerous turn of the Court. The shots across the bow have been fired in the New York Times, expect the drumbeat to intensify as the Supreme Court nears a decision on the fate of Obamacare.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Kevin Mooney is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government. Americans for Limited Government is dedicated to putting the principles of limited government into action. They work with local groups across the nation to promote freedom, limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to harness the power of American citizens and grassroots groups in order to put the people back in charge in states across the country.
Kevin Mooney
View all articles by Kevin Mooney
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly

Readers Comments (0)


Sorry, comments are closed on this post.

Featured Articles

Howie_Difference_1a

Choose: A Real Conservative or Big Government Cronyism

Bob Ellis

I received a nice big color slick mailer today from Many True Conservatives which points out the differences between conservative independent U.S. Senate Candidate Gordon Howie and RINO "Republican" Candidate Mike Rounds. Though some Republicans would rather Howie wasn't in this race (to embarrass RINO Rounds), the differences are real, and they are big.

Campbell_DiSanto_Guns_2a

Campbell and DiSanto: Second Amendment Supporters

Bob Ellis

South Dakota Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights takes a lot of flack from liberal "Republicans" for hitting RINOs over the head with their own weak records on Second Amendment rights. Unlike the National Rifle Association (NRA) which usually endorses whoever is the incumbent or favored candidate in a race, even if they're a liberal Democrat, SDGO and NAGR don't suck up to the halls of power.

Mary_Landrieu_f

Good reason for Mary Landrieu to be concerned

Star Parker

Prospects that three term Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu will return to the US Senate to represent Louisiana for a fourth term are looking increasingly bleak. Senator Landrieu has good reason to be concerned. One reason is disenchantment among Louisiana’s black population, which amounts to 32 percent of the population of the state – the nation’s second largest black population percentage-wise.

pagan_government

If You Had to Explain Today’s America to Founders

Bradlee Dean

Picture this: You’re going to be meeting with George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They wants to know what has happened to America. What will you say?

Take_No_Prisoners_Horowitz_f

Turning the Tables on the Left

Bob Ellis

It seems Leon H. Wolf at RedState is about as enthused at the prospects of a "Republican" victory in November as I am. Republicans: would you like to actually accomplish something next year? Would you like to be able to overcome Barack Obama's propaganda? You can, if you are willing to fight.

Archives




"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964