XD Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
[FONT=&quot]Read this on Ed Humphreys' "The Eagle's View"...
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On March 21, 2017, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, (D-CA), once again articulated in the confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination as the next Supreme Court Justice, the anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic dogma of the Democrat Party. She defined her conception of the Constitution as "a living, breathing document" that should "evolve" over time. It is imperative that Americans understand why such a view of the Constitution is anti-Constitution and anti-democratic.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First, the U.S. Constitution is designed to stand as the standard for all citizens at all times in matters of law and rights. People rightly understand that justice under law in the United States does not place one citizen above or below another. If there is a standard for one citizen, justice--to be justice--must hold all other citizens, regardless of wealth or celebrity or political power, as equal before the law. There is absolutely no deviation from such a standard possible if we are truly seeking to achieve justice for all citizens under law.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Equally important is that the mechanism for changing the Constitution was incorporated into the document to amend it if, indeed, a need to refine or change the Constitution became necessary subsequent to its adoption. Clearly, then, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and the citizens who, through the ratification process, made the Constitution the law of the land in our new country, intended that the courts--and certainly the U.S. Supreme Court--would apply a literal "original" interpretation when determining if some action or subsequent legislation met the "standard" of the law that would not change arbitrarily.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Indeed, the People of the United States, in adopting the U.S. Constitution, did not intend to create two Legislative branches of our federal government. They intended that the Legislature would create all necessary laws on the federal level in keeping with the limitations on the federal government that were to be held in check by the rigid standard of law that would constitute true justice for all citizens--without regard to wealth or position or class or person. They intended, for the express purpose of "justice" for every citizen under the law to live under a set of laws that conformed to a single standard of law that would not change or "evolve" outside of the provided amendment process for all citizens.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is absolutely important, then, that every citizen understand what Sen. Dianne Fienstein, and every other Democrat who says that the U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that ought to be interpreted by different federal courts (and obviously different judges and justices) based upon a sliding scale of interpretation that they call "evolution". What they are saying is that there should be no true standard agreed upon by the People of the nation through the difficult process of amendments and ratification. They willingly tell us that they want judges and justices who will not so much look at what the law says, but that they want judges that will be willing to come to different conclusions on law based upon the persons before the court or their changing idea of what might be right or wrong at that particular moment in time. In such a system of government there is no standard of law that applies to all citizens equally; but rather, a preference bestowed upon those who carry their cases to the courts by the particular set of judges or justices that happen to be hearing the case at that particular moment in time. They, therefore do not want a true system of law and order and justice for all citizens. What they desire is a Judiciary that can, by fiat, make up super laws on a whim because the judge thinks that a law should be changed or that "we" have "evolved" as a nation or culture.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Under such a form of government that Sen. Feinstein and the Democrats would erect if they could control the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be no justice in the United States and the hope of democratic processes in government would be forever lost. What Sen. Dianne Fienstein and her Democrat colleagues would replace in our government is any reliable standard of law that would reflect the democratic input of the population; but rather, it would reflect the judicial tyranny of individual judges who could make up law on their own--unaccountable to the People for their assumption of tyrannical authority. What Sen. Feinstein and her Democrats want is an oligarchical Judiciary that they can control to legislate with the judge's gavel rather than the People's representatives in the Legislature.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, the next time that you hear a Democrat say that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" they are talking about removing the Constitution as any true standard of law from which you and I can be fairly confident that we might obtain justice under in our land. They are saying that they want no consistent legal standard under which all citizens might live equally; but rather, an idea of laws that can be adapted and applied differently by their judges and justices to benefit their preferred clients and ideas--and perversions of the culture.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And when you hear a Democrat say that the Constitution should "evolve" via the courts, they are saying that only a very select few individuals in black robes should be able to decide how our laws should apply in different cases for different people.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Under any circumstances, that is not only a complete reinterpretation of how our government should work, but is completely destructive of the object of Justice in our land and our way of government. No citizen can have any reasonable hope of justice under a Constitution that is able to be changed in ways that are not legally provided by Article V of the Constitution itself--and allowing judges to decide in some variable "evolutionary" standard of law outside of the provisions of Article V is illegal and an attack on the Constitution itself.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]When a Democrat says in the future in any setting and any hearings that somehow our U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document" they are actually attacking our Constitution and seeking to destroy our American system of Justice. And when a Democrat says in the future in any setting and any hearings that judges and justices should be able to change the interpretation of the Constitution's intended meaning away from the original intent of the framers, the citizens, and the ratification process for succeeding legal amendments to the U.S. Constitution they are saying that you and I are too stupid to know how the Constitution should be applied and that only special people--unelected judges and justices--should be able to decide on their own how they should interpret the Constitution and how our "evolution" should take place.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]CPT Terry Michael Hestilow, USA, Ret. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]March 21, 2017[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top