Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Courts Do Not Make Law

  1. #1
    Member Pauldo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,211

    Courts Do Not Make Law

    Courts Do Not Make Law
    Who are you going to believe…me, or your own eyes? — Groucho Marx
    Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic

    Is Roe v. Wade the “law of the land”?

    The current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in his confirmation hearings for the office of federal district judge, in 2003, said it was. He said that Roe was “settled law”. In fact, he said it was “a little more than settled” law ? whatever that means?!

    Like the Senators that questioned him and that later questioned Samuel Alito, Chief Justice Roberts demonstrated over and over that he is NOT qualified to hold the office of Chief Justice, or federal judge or, for that matter, any federal or state office because he doesn’t know the true Source and Nature of law. He either doesn’t know or doesn’t care where law comes from. His view of government and of liberty and of the law itself is distinctly ANTI-American. And he is not alone. In fact, I would be hard pressed to name even a handful of current American judges who are actually qualified to hold the office.

    Let me explain.

    There is an American View of law and liberty and government. It was articulated very clearly by our founders in the first paragraph of the primary document of our founding. This is not surprising because the fundamental ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence were thoroughly leavened throughout the American culture at the time of the founding. They actually constituted the religious and philosophical worldview of America and were the underpinning of the argument that declared the former colonies to be free and independent states.

    Plain and simple, the American View is:

    There is a Creator God.
    Our rights come from Him.
    The purpose of any civil government is to protect/defend these God-given rights.
    Isn’t that easy? Sure, it is! As a matter of fact, our fathers thought it was so simple and straight-forward that they claimed it to be “self-evident” as a matter of law. They said that it is not necessary to support it by argumentation. It’s what you might call a “given” ? a starting point ? a pre-supposition.

    One might say, therefore, that not to grasp ? not to discern ? not to understand and self-consciously act upon this first premise, would disqualify one from service to the country.

    Which brings me to Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Sam Alito, and President Bush, and, for that matter, almost every Senator and Congressman in Washington today. They don’t understand, or act upon these first principles of America.

    Let’s just examine one issue and see whether their statements indicate an understanding of American principles.

    Do Courts make law?

    During the recent confirmation hearings for Roberts and Alito, we were told time and again that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. All the “actors” in the confirmation “drama” spoke and argued as if the decision in Roe was “law”. Some argued that the Justices should declare how they would rule on an abortion case and some said they should not have to. Some argued that the judicial records of the nominees indicated that, given the opportunity, they would act to stop the killing, while some argued that their respective records shows no such proclivity.

    But all of the arguments began at the wrong place. All of the arguments missed the real point and reduced the “drama” to a farce.

    Do courts make law? Well, what does the Constitution say? You know…the Constitution ? that document, signed by the representatives of the States on behalf of “We the people”, that claims to be the “supreme law of the land.” What does the Constitution say?

    We don’t need to look far. The very first sentence of the Constitution gives us the answer. THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE!!!

    Article One, Section One of the Constitution says that ALL legislative authority is VESTED in the Congress. So, it’s Congress that “makes law”. It’s the legislative branch ? NOT the judiciary ? that is VESTED with lawmaking authority and therefore, cannot delegate

    (Divest itself) of this authority. Nor can another branch usurp this lawmaking power. So any attempt by the Congress to delegate the lawmaking function, as well as any attempt by the courts to assume the function, is a direct violation of the Constitution.

    So, it comes to this: If courts can’t make law, then how can Roe v. Wade be law? Roe v. Wade is a court case. It’s a judicial ruling in the case of Roe and Wade. The ruling in the case, strictly speaking, applies to Roe and Wade and no one else!

    So how can they call it “law” and get away with it? How can they have us all trained (dumbed-down) to think that the courts make law? Well, it’s because they have tricked us into thinking that precedent is law.

    You see, there is a valid and long-recognized legal principle called “precedent”. Properly understood, precedent is a useful, helpful tool of the courts. But precedent is NOT LAW.

    Sir William Blackstone, the famous English jurist and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, explained that where the same points come again in litigation ? what we might call the same fact pattern ? it is proper and helpful for courts to look to the former cases and give weight to the former decisions for two reasons. Firstly, this helps to keep “the scale of justice even and steady” by promoting stability and a reasonable expectation in the community of how such a fact pattern will be adjudicated. Secondly, Blackstone applauds the use of precedent in that it requires a judge to be mindful that he is to decide cases “not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land.” Blackstone says that judges are “not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.”

    So far, so good. Precedent, according to Blackstone, is a good thing.

    It serves some useful purposes.

    But how do we distinguish precedent from law? Again, Blackstone helps us to understand. He explains that where a “former determination” ? a prior ruling of the court ? is “most evidently contrary to reason” or “if it be contrary to the divine law” then it cannot be followed by a judge. This is because court rulings must always conform to God’s law. Blackstone’s reference to “reason” is a reference to what he calls the “Law of Nature”. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson uses this same language (Law of Nature and of Nature’s God) to justify the colonies right to self government.

    Blackstone goes on to explain that when a judge determines that a prior ruling or series of rulings by a previous court are contrary to God’s law, he must abandon the precedent and make a decision ? a ruling ? that is consistent with God’s law. He must do this because the oath he takes is not an oath to follow the decisions of prior judges, but to judge righteously by God’s standard, by God’s law.

    When a judge takes this proper action, he is not declaring the old law to be “bad law, but that it was not law”. In the same way, he does not pretend to make a “new law” but “to vindicate the old one from misrepresentation”.

    Following this understanding ? this American understanding ? of law, we can see that the ruling in Roe v. Wade, even if adopted in statute form by the Congress or by a legislature of a State, still is not law.

    Why not? Because it violates God’s law, or as Jefferson and Blackstone called it “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

    For example, if the Congress voted unanimously to say that we could kill “all women with red hair”, would this then be the law? Of course, it would not. Why? Because Exodus 20:13 says, “You shall not murder”.

    If Congress voted unanimously that Michael Anthony Peroutka could float across his office, would this then be the law? No, it would be a nullity. Just like Roe v. Wade.

    There you have it. Two reasons why Roe v. Wade is NOT law and should not be followed by anyone:

    “Laws” that violate God’s law are not law.
    Courts don’t make law
    This is the true, real, original and authentic American view. Any judge or president or senator or county commissioner or dog catcher who doesn’t understand this and live by it is not qualified to hold elective or appointed office in America.

    For God, Family and the Republic,


    Michael A. Peroutka

    Publisher, TheAmericanView.com
    "Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
    Scott Hall

  2. #2
    Member colossus27's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauldo
    Courts Do Not Make Law
    Who are you going to believe…me, or your own eyes? — Groucho Marx
    Plain and simple, the American View is:

    1) There is a Creator God.
    2) Our rights come from Him.
    3) The purpose of any civil government is to protect/defend these God-given rights.
    As an athiest, I find this both amusingly shallow and offensive, because the so-called American view isn't what everybody chooses to believe. I've numbered these points...

    1) Proof? If God existed, who created Him? You cannot apply the "logic" of any sort of either creationism (or it's spin, "intelligent" design) due to the simple fact that it only applies to one iteration. If God always existed, how did He get there? That would imply an even greater intelligence, something the ID crowd is loathe to defend.

    2) Really? Tell that to the Jews, Poles, and Gypsies that Hitler slaughtered. Was Hitler their "god"? Or what about all those people killed in the Crusades, "in the name of God"?

    3) I think you'd be hard-pressed to refute the obvious- the purpose of any civil government is to sustain itself. Everything else is secondary.

  3. #3
    Member DelawareDistrict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,799
    I will agree with you on the premise that "law" has been interpreted by the courts. However, I completely disagree with your position put forth on abortion. Yes, the Courts should not be making law on this issue. It is a matter of "freedom and liberty" put forth by our forefathers which would indicate that it is a "private" matter which should be excluded from federal government intervention.
    Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    No where does it say Congress shall pass legislation regulating medical treatment or restricting matters of privacy. Mind you, I am not necessarily in favor of abortion, just opposed to government intervention into people's private lives.

    The enumeration of powers is quite succinct, it is the deviance from the Constitution which has turned abortion into an "issue", it should be a moot point. If anything the Constitution should be followed and abortion should be a States' Rights issue.
    Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
    The path is clear
    Though no eyes can see
    The course laid down long before.
    And so with gods and men
    The sheep remain inside their pen,
    Though many times they've seen the way to leave.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    20
    Constitutional law is not a simple subject. Read some of the cases before going off about our sacred founders, the ones who engineered human slavery into the constitution which led to an incredibly bloody war and that causes deep hurt to people to this day.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Plan to make towns pay for road patrols moves ahead
    By steven in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: April 5th, 2006, 01:48 PM
  2. I'll Make a Deal.
    By WestSideJohn in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Joe Biden
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 03:46 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2006, 09:48 PM
  4. Terri Schiavo
    By therising in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: April 4th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •