Is the US Constitution still the Supreme law of the land ???
As far back as 1803 the Supreme Court said... in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
So... it would appear, and HAS been the case, that the Constitution is subject to "interpretation" by the Supreme Court. So then, it would appear, and has been the case... that the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land, but rather, the law of the land is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
We all know that with regard to the 1st. Amendment, (Free Speech), freedom of speech is not absolute. As they say... you can't yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium. Well... you absolutely CAN yell fire in a crowded auditorium... IF there IS a fire ! Here-to-fore that was about the only limitation to our Free Speech rights. However, of late, many more limitations have been applied to our freedom of speech rights. So much so that most folks today have to be very careful what they say (or write) for fear of being "cancelled", sued, or simply shunned in society.
At this point it might be a good time to remind readers that the US Constitution was a document (set of rules) written by the people, not the government. The people said (via the document) that these are the rules the government must live by, and, that these "rights" are given to every US Citizen AT BIRTH, and the government must abide by these rules. These are not rules, (or allowances if you will), that the government gave to the people. It's also important to remember that the Constitution was written by a group of individuals seeking to establish a new government, after have just fought a war to divest themselves from a tyrannical government. What do you think they had on their minds when creating this new government ???
There can be no more of a glaring example where the Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and thereby created NEW "rights" (or in this case "limitations") to our God given rights, than the 2nd. Amendment. The second amendment is a simple, straight forward wording of the founders attempts at making something abundantly clear... it reads... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". HOW does that statement need ANY interpretation ??? "Shall not be infringed" seems abundantly clear, and should not need any "interpretation" by anyone, let alone 9 individuals that were not elected by the people they serve. To those that feel the amendment should not be needed in today's society, fine, work to overturn or do away with it in total. But to say it needs "interpretation" is just ludicrous. It couldn't be any more clear... "shall not be infringed".
As many folks know who support the 2nd. amendment... its not about hunting, or self protection (although those are very useful purposes), the 2nd. amendment was made part of the Constitution for the protection of the people against a government that became tyrannical (as many suggest our's already has). Yes, its true, as some have suggested, that with today's modern advances of war armaments by the government, and the current limitations of the "arms" lawfully available to the citizen, it would be difficult to stop a tyrannical government from forcing its will upon the people. As Joe Biden put it... the people would need F-15's. Well the people are not permitted to own F-15"s but the people own over 300-MILLION firearms in this country. Maybe the people would not win in the end, but they could do some serious damage, perhaps enough to convince the a tyrannical government the "win" would simply not be worth the fight. I am reminded of the movie "The Red Dawn" (the original 1984 one https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/).
And then there's the Supreme Court case(s) of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977). In these two cases the Supreme Court decided that "officer safety" took precedent over the Constitution. The Supreme Court in these two cases, in effect, that a citizen's Constitutional rights can be violated if the officer "feels" their safety is at risk. The police can justify just about any action, regardless of that action violating your 4th. Amendment rights to "unreasonable searches and seizures by the government". The 4th. amendment states... "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". This all goes out the window if the officer "feels" their safety is in jeopardy. Here again, the wording ("shall not be violated") couldn't be more clear, and no reasonable person would misunderstand that wording to the point of needing "interpretation". Now you see what happens when nine UN-elected elites interpret language for you ! If you would like to see just how wrong these rulings can get... take a look at the post "Policing in America" right here on this site.
If you would like to see an excellent video on these issues, take a look at this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqr1F6kAj7s
In yet another example of how far the Courts will go to re-write the Constitution... here is a case of a man pulled over on the highway for the extreme crime of "window tint". This is a case in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES v. PAYNE (2024) (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/116062162.html). There is an excellent video on this subject here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBnOXSgMWJI In short, the cops forced a handcuffed man to unlock his phone so the cops could look through the information on his phone... and they had NO warrant to command such a search. The court ruled that what the cops did was perfectly legal. Talk about an invasion of your privacy and an abuse of your 4th. amendment rights of unreasonable search and seizures !
So... is the US Constitution really the supreme law of the land??? The courts are slowly and methodically eroding our Constitutional rights. What are YOUR thoughts on the subject ? Leave a comment and let the world know your thoughts.
Comments powered by CComment