The Fallacy and Contradiction of so-called Neutral Government Courts by Jack Kettler
The following material is my ongoing rambling thoughts on the nation's descent into tyranny.
Article VI of the Constitution says:
The Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The supremacy clause asserts the Constitution is the “supreme” law of the Land, not treaties with foreign governments or global organizations, such as the UN.
In the 10th Amendment we read:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment does not contradict the “supremacy clause,” it clarifies the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. Today the federal government is engaged in massive overreach, clearly violating the 10th Amendment.
How do we rectify this now that the separation of powers has clearly broken down? There are countless disputes between federal and state courts. Many people assume that the Supreme Court can resolve these disputes.
It is a fact that the federal judges are appointees and employees of the federal government. Is the federal government a neutral disinterested party? How can a federal court or Supreme Court be neutral to rule upon a case that they have an interest in or are a party to? It is a basic principle not to have a party that is involved in a dispute be the sole judge of its own case.
To elaborate why a federal court which is branch of the government is not neutral party, consider the following excerpt from the FSK's Guide to Reality from a post called “Cargo Cult Justice:”
Another example of “Cargo Cult Science” is global warming research. Scientists who give the State-preferred opinion get research grants, and the opposite opinion is denied funding. Most “global warming computer simulations” have “carbon dioxide causes global warming” as an assumption. The computer model is using circular reasoning. In the “Climategate” scandal, global warming scientists were caught faking their data. A group of State-licensed scientists concluded that the State-licensed scientists did nothing wrong. What a surprise! It's as impartial as the “internal affairs” division of the State police monopoly.
The US legal system has degenerated into “Cargo Cult Justice.” Judges go through the motions of being fair and impartial. They're just making up excuses to justify State evil. The problem is that the State legal system has a monopoly. You don't get appointed as a State judge unless you're a severe pro-State troll and you're very politically connected. There's no accountability when the State justice system abuses State power. State judges don't know that they're frauds. They go through the motions of justice without performing actual justice. See full post at: http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/cargo-cult-justice.html
In disputes with the states, the federal courts are never neutral. The judges, the court licensed attorneys working for the federal government have a vested interest in the federal law prevailing.
Even the media is controlled by the government:
We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government. Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.- Neal Boortz
A recent article from Republic Magazine regarding the high court's upholding Obama law:
John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate
In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court — the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the “power to tax is the power to destroy” – has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.
Roberts’ ruling is applied Leninism – a pragmatic way of justifying the government’s intention to exercise “power without limit, resting directly on force.” Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time – an irreplaceable and finite quantity – in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.
In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court’s imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain – and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scathing dissent, describing the Court's ruling as the “defense of the indefensible,” “somersaults of statutory interpretations,” and said, “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
Presidential hopeful, Senator Ted Cruz tells members of Supreme Court to “Resign and run for Congress, if those justices want to become legislators.” Cruz is correct to see the tyranny in the recent Robert's ruling for Obama law.
It is now becoming obvious that the high court is becoming a Stalinist rubber stamp supporting federal government tyranny. One thing is obvious, Roberts writing for the majority of the federal government high court employees, has made sure the fed gov keeps growing in power over the people.
Some have said there are ways to put the brakes on an out of control federal judiciary. For example, Dr. Ben Carson has argued that the high court is not able to make law nor does it have the final say on law:
First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law [judge made law].
Thomas Jefferson speaks in a similar way in a letter to Abigail Adams:
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.
Dr. Carson and Jefferson are correct in their understanding of the limits of judicial review. Unfortunately, the supreme court in now seen as the final arbitrator and maker of law.
Consider a bleak assessment of the constitutional inability to stop tyranny:
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. - 19th Century attorney, Lysander Spooner
The congress and courts have for all practicable purposes, have failed to stop government abuse. It appears, there is now only one political party in Washington D.C, and it is the big government party. The people have become slaves. Is this there any way to stop this tyranny?
Lysander Spooner believed that a jury was the only way to resolve disputes where the jury had the right to rule on the law itself. He says:
If the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.
For more than six hundred years -- that is, since the Magna Carta in 1215 -- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust, oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or resisting the execution of such laws.
For example, what if an evil leader pressured the legislature to pass a law that would erect statues of the leader in every major city. Anyone passing by who did not bow down and kiss the ground would be guilty and sentenced to death. This is an extreme example, but easy to see that technically, a person could easily be guilty by violating this insane law. The jury has the right to declare this law null and void. It is shocking, today, judges would tell the jury to only consider the facts of the case. If the jury did this, the defendant would be executed. When judges fail to inform a jury that they can also rule on the morality of the law, is itself tyranny.
Combine jury nullification with state nullification and we have a way to win back freedom!
Consider, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.'
Jeffrey Tucker interviews Tom Woods on the topic of Tom's latest book 'Nullification:
Why is nullification so vilified today by so-called conservatives? Let's remember our history on Independence Day this year when we should be grieving for our loss of liberties.
The ultimate form of nullification:
Preamble to the Declaration Of Independence
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Can Government Abridge God Given Rights?
No government possesses any real legal power to violate an individual's God given, unalienable rights! Why? Because these rights are from God. Corrupt governments can and do unconstitutionally try to impede the use of man's unalienable God given rights. It is of the utmost importance to know, that our rights are not given to us by government. The purpose of civil government is to secure these rights from God. If government gives the rights, then they can take them away. In this sense, rights given by government is a misnomer. All a government can give are privileges or exemptions to their friends and organizations who are being bought off.
In light of the fact that the original Constitutional compact gives the citizens the right to resist government tyranny, non-Compliance is a Christian Duty in which to Remedy the Unjust Usurpation of Freedom by the fed gov., when the spineless potted plant like Congress fails to protect our God Given Liberties! The people, the body politic are the last resort to stop tyranny. We are the final jury. As noted by Spooner, historically the jury could find a defendant innocent, even if violating a law, that the jury determined was unjust.
Mr. Kettler is the owner of www.Undergroundnotes.com web site where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read.