Why was Justice Antonin Scalia the most important Judge on the Bench, in terms of our Constitutional Rights as Americans ?
Why was Justice Antonin Scalia so despised by this administration, that for the first time in US history, this "president" snubbed this Supreme Court Justice's funeral?
What is it about Justice Scalia's importance that fewer than 1 in a 100 Americas even understands the gravity of his passing?
Justice Antonin Scalia, was one of only two "originalists" on the Supreme Court Bench (the other is Clarence Thomas). An "originalist," is a justice who respects the US Constitution in terms of original intent. He rejects the notion of "a living Constitution," which came into being during the Roosevelt (FDR) administration - as a means to subvert the Constitutions protections of individual liberty and most especially, property rights.
Here is an example of what Justice Scalia once so eloquently and so simply stated: "you would have to be an idiot to believe that the constitution is a living organism. It is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.”
“The second argument,” Scalia said, “is that the text and its original meaning are the only objective standards to which all judges themselves can be held.”
Herein lays the distinguishing characteristic of a constitutional republic as opposed to a pure democracy. Under a constitutional republic even the government authorities themselves must abide by the law of the land (the constitution). No judge should have the authorization to change the meaning or intent of those laws over time in order to suit their personal agendas (or the agendas of the president who appointed him or her), even if they represent a majority. This is the only means by which all of the people, especially those in the minority, can be protected from a tyrannical government. A government that seeks to exert powers it does not have (in order to confiscate the people’s wealth and property for example) will always seek to pervert the law in order to legalize actions the government wishes to take but which are otherwise prohibited by its constitution. The Supreme Court used to be the only thing standing in the way of a government bent on distorting the Constitution’s protections of individual rights.
A man like Justice Scalia was a rare breed. He had the courage to be unpopular with any presidential administration. He stood in the way of everything this president and his administration are after - more power to abuse the citizenry, more power to rob the citizenry, more power to control the people against their will. This president is not the first to show such disdain for our Constitutional liberty and the judicial authority that is meant to enforce it.
Since FDR's deliberate transformation of the SCOTUS into the activist body it is today, the Supreme Court's function has completely changed. Under founding principles, the SCOTUS was never intended to "interpret" the Constitution's meaning. It's meaning is absolutely clear and is not open to interpretation. It is the reason the framers used phrases such as: "Congress shall make no law ...," or "... shall not be infringed." There is no clearer language than that. The sole purpose of the Supreme Court, was not to interpret Constitutional languge, but to interpret laws passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president - in terms of their Constitutionality. The Constitution is the basis-standard. One cannot have a basis standard of anything, unless it is concrete and unchanging in terms of original meaning. The power to ammend the Constitution, does not include the power to change it's meaning and intent. This is what Justice Scalia stood for, in vehement opposition to the Progressive Socialist - activists occupying the other 7 seats on the bench.
Many have been persuaded that a "living Constitution" is somehow beneficial to the people in a "Democracy." But the costs of what benefits a majority in a Democracy -- is sure to be paid by those in the minority. And herein was the purpose of the Constitution in the first place. To PROTECT the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS, and MINORITIES.
If you think you want to live under a "living constitution" so that you can bend the rules to suit you whenever you please, you must realize that this is a double-edged sword. You may not be part of a minority today, but sometime in the future each and every one of us most certainly will be, as the demographics of this country change in the coming decades. In fact, even if you are a young, educated, white man and you are lucky to live long enough, eventually you will be part of the minority of the elderly and infirm. With a living Constitution, some day in the future you may find that a self-serving majority of which you are no longer a part of will have sole authority over your destiny, your savings, retirement, wealth, health, property, and how the fruits of your labor shall be disposed of. Do you want a majority of which you are not a part to have the power to deny you of your formerly unalienable rights—possibly even to deny you the medical care required to extend your life?
With a living constitution that is exactly what will happen to you.
It is already happening to millions of Americans as they watch their property confiscated and their rights violated by our own government on a daily basis.
"The smallest minority on Earth, is the individual; One who would deny individual rights, cannot then claim to be a defender of minorities."
The constitution is about guaranteeing the unalienable rights of the individual. It is not about manipulating those rights over time by a majority who have empowered a corrupt and overreaching government that has more guns than do the citizens—and a demonstrated willingness to use them against those citizens. In a country with a living constitution, it is not a matter of if -- but when -- the government functioning under it will eventually attain enough power to become a totalitarian oligarchy. It is vitally important to understand this objectively. It is not an academic question, for someday in this country, perhaps for your children and most certainly for your grandchildren, it will become a matter of life and death.
Since power attracts the corruptible, powerfully structured institutions will eventually become fundamentally corrupt. It is just a matter of time. For this reason, the framers constructed our government to have limited and separated powers, as defined by our Constitution. Those limits on central government power were meant to be perpetual and permanent. Those who promote the idea of a living constitution in an effort to pervert its meaning and original intent, clearly do so in order to gain and expand power by subverting this basic principle. Their goal is to consolidate and then expand government’s powers so they can eventually abuse that power for their own personal gain.
Whether you’re a liberal or a conservative who has been indoctrinated to believe that we have a malleable living constitution, you must ask yourself objectively why the establishment wants you to believe this. Do you truly believe that an all-powerful fundamentally corrupt government will restrain itself from violating your rights and
taking your property? If the constitution forbids them from doing so it won’t matter because they’ll just change it, and they can so long as you consent to the absurd idea that it is a living constitution. We already see countless examples of government legalizing actions for themselves, which they have criminalized for the rest of us. Counterfeiting the nation's currency being the most obvious and most destructive, yet least understood example.
This is not a conservative versus liberal issue, or a Republican versus Democrat issue. This issue plays directly to every hardworking American family that is struggling to own their home, save for the future, and establish long-term security for their children. These are aspirations that we all share independent of our political affiliations. As long as we the people allow our public schools, universities, and propaganda media to indoctrinate the population with the myth that the constitution is a living document, we will continue further along the path to full-on tyranny. Eventually your children and your grandchildren will “wake up homeless, and penniless, on the continent their forefathers conquered.” Once our freedom and our unalienable rights have been lost, do you truly believe that an all-powerful government run by narcissistic sociopaths will simply give them back to a bunch of powerless peasants?
Justice Scalia's death is a horrendous blow to American freedom, individual liberty, and to Constitutional authority. Now, just days after Justice Scalia's death, the airwaves are replete with conspiracy theories, even including allegations of murder. Given his existence as the greatest obstacle to this government's unrestrained expansion and abuse of its power, one would be foolish NOT to question the untimely death of one of the most important judicial minds in America. The fact that he was pronounced dead from natural causes by phone, without his body being examined, followed by an order for immediate embalming without an autopsy - should raise alarm bells regardless of any conspiracy-mongering.
In the “Federalist #51,” James Madison said, “The necessary partition of power among the several departments—by so contriving the interior structure of the government, its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. The separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty.”
As Justice Roberts’s unconstitutional ruling on Obamacare demonstrated, the consolidation of power vested in the executive branch has become most egregious between the White House and the Supreme Court. This is a weakness in our system that must be corrected if we are to restore constitutional authority and liberty to the people. In “Federalist #51,” James Madison also wrote, “Each department should have a will of its own, and the members of each should have as little agency as possible, in the appointment of the members of the others.”
Given this statement, how is it that the appointment of Supreme Court justices became vested in the authority of the president?
Clearly the actions of FDR throughout his 12-year presidency—starting with his failed attempt to pack the Supreme Court with an increase to 15 liberal judges -- and followed by his patient transformation of the 9-member court through attrition—have more than demonstrated the flaw in this model.
Should the President Nominate Supreme Court Justices?
Absolutely NOT. Restoring America to the rule of law requires that we reestablish a meaningful separation of powers to the branches of the federal government. This must start with the Supreme Court and US Senate. Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court must be approved by the Senate for their appointment to take effect. Therefore, the political dynamics between the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court are inextricably linked. Following the passage of the seventeenth amendment in 1913 however, members of the US Senate have been elected by popular vote, rather than being appointed by State Legislatures. This has left us with 100 US Senators who are no longer beholden to the constituents in their respective states, but instead to the huge corporations, political action committees, and other special interest groups who fund their campaigns. One of the best examples of the consequent dysfunctions of this, was former US Senator Max Baucus of Montana. He spent more than 35 years in Congress "representing" Montana, a state in which he was not even a legal resident for at least 12 of those years, and whose citizens provided less than 10% of his campaign donations in any of his many campaigns for the Montana Senate seat. Max Baucus was not elected to the Senate by the people of Montana, he was sent to Congress by the big-Pharma industry and others outside of Montana who financed his campaigns.
Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected by any majority vote because their purpose is not to represent the will of any majority. Their responsibility is to ensure that our laws are strictly compliant with what is permitted by the US Constitution in order to ensure that the unalienable rights of all people, especially minorities and individuals are protected. If they were intended to bend and manipulate the law in compliance with the will of some majority of the people or special interest, a Supreme Court judgeship would be an elected office. It is not, precisely because the US Constitution must be enforced in terms of a strict interpretation of its original meaning and intent. This also implicitly prohibits the US Constitution from being treated as a living document.
Under article 2 of the constitution the president has the power by and with the consent of the Senate to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Once nominated, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts a series of hearings with the nominee prior to any Senate confirmation vote. Once vetted as a nominee, the appointment is confirmed with a majority vote in the Senate. Originally, this required a two-thirds supermajority (67 Senators). Several decades ago however, this was changed to a three-fifths majority (60 Senators). Late in 2013, even this was changed to a simple majority of just 51 Senate votes for confirmation—pure Democratic Socialism as opposed to the Rule of Law.
This degeneration in our separation of powers doctrine suggests that the two major flaws in our system, are the presidential nomination privilege, as well as the Senate final confirmation authority.
The Supreme Court is there to defend the liberties of the people. It is NOT there to expand and perpetuate the authority and abuse of power by the central government.
For this reason, Supreme Court Justices should be nominated, vetted, and confirmed; by State Governors and/or State Legistutres, or some combination thereof, similar to how US Senators were formerly appointed prior to the 17th amendment. Furthermore, Supreme Court Justices should NOT have the benefit of a lifetime appointment. Term and time limits must apply to ALL federal government employees residing within the three branches of government.
The importance of these issues, of Justice Scalia's death, and of Obama's ability to now appoint yet a third leftist, progressive, Socialist liberal to the Supreme Court during his tenure, cannot be overstated. What America now faces, is nothing short of disaster; driving us headlong into a state of permanent, irreversible degeneration of our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
America is in serious trouble. Just a few weeks ago, an unarmed American citizen, Mr. Robert Lavoy Finicum (a man whose only crime was working hard on his ranch to provide for his 11 foster children, and exercising his first-amendment right to free speech in protest of the illegal arrest and incarceration of his fellow ranchers - The Hammonds), while on his way to a town-hall meeting to which he was invited by the FBI, was ambushed and shot to death by those same FBI agents, after which his bullet-riddled body was left lying alone and unattended in the snow to bleed out. But this wasn't called murder, and already the news media has forgotten this event - acting as though it never happened. Now we have lost the most steadfast defender of individual liberty in the United States, Justice Antonin Scalia -- people barely bat an eye, and their so-called "president" refuses to even attend the funeral. The same president who refers to teenage thugs as one of his own.
American's have been called sheep, they have been characterized as being "asleep," but it's much worse than this. The American people seem to be in some sort of collective coma to remain so oblivious to how quickly our country is being irreversibly destroyed from within. We the people should instead be marching by the millions on Washington to demand a restoration of Constitutional authority. Instead, we are sitting by while innocent, hardworking, patriotic American citizens are being gunned down by government-authorized murders who have been granted a badge, a gun, and the authorization to kill unarmed Americans with impunity.
Rest Well my Fellow Americans -- Safe in the Knowledge that You Could be Next.