, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


April 03, 2012 10:44 pm – R F Kilfeather

UN-BE-LIEV-ABLE, Harvard should have its Law School Accreditation revoked if its students are so ignorant of the Constitution. “Good Grief” said Charlie Brown…

The President of the United States just stated that the Supreme Court has no business in striking down a law passed by Congress because it was democratically voted in by its majority.”. He then explained the meaning of Judicial Activism, by saying a Supreme Court which strikes down a Congressional Law, signed by the President, is Judicial Activism. ..Huh! He supports that by saying if his Health care fiasco is struck down by the court, that will be unprecedented! …What!

Double “Good Grief”. Striking down unconstitutional laws is the job description of the Supreme Court of the United States. I suggest he read Article III, Section 2, first sentence referencing the Supreme Court: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and …etc.”.

Judicial Activism is not striking down a law which results in the disappearance of that law; it is the changing of the law to mean something it did not mean before a court decision, resulting in judicial changing the law—which is legislating from the bench e.g. Kelo v New London, changing “public use” into a new meaning to be different,.. “public purpose”, thus taking away our right to property.(1)

The President of the United States of American has defied the separation of powers of our three separate but equal branches of government, and threatened, or at least attempted interference and intimidation of the Supreme Court. For that alone he must go; that is a power issue not mere ignorance. I suspect, after speaking with someone in his administration who understands the constitution, he will try to back away from his ignorance,… by digging a deeper hole.

Finally: as to a new precedent for the Court: triple “Good Grief”, the Court has been striking down unconstitutional laws since 1803, started 14 years after the Constitution was ratified and in place. The original Congress people were thinning out by then and our new political class moving in.(2)

(1) Kelo, et al. v City of New London, et al. U.S. Supreme Court slip opinion to be cited as 545 U.S. ____ (2005)
(2) Marbury v. Madison; 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


I leave you with Chief Justice John Marshall’s view:

Speaking of the Constitution.

“It seems only to recognize certain principles…

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government, such principles, as in their opinion, shall most conduce to their happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.

This original supreme will organizes the government, assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if those limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? This distinction between government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed…It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the constitution controls any act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by any act.

Between these two alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or It is on a level with ordinary acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law; if the latter is true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power by its own nature is illimitable[1].”

John Marshall


Declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional and void, for the first time.

[1] Chief Justice; US Supreme Court: Marbury v. Madison ; 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

John Marshalls view appears on page 54 of the book below, Indvidualism: Re-Birth of a Nation.

R Kilfeather
Sanford, Fl.

Managing and Coordinating Major Criminal Investigations, Second Edition, by R F Kilfeather. e-mail: orders@taylorandfrancis.com,

Individualism, Re-Birth of a Nation, or Liberals Just Don’t Get It, by R F Kilfeather. e-book: barnesandnoble.com,

To write a comment you need to be registered
Register New