Supreme Court eradicates Constitutional principles

Throughout the course of history, the overriding tendency of those in power is to manipulate that power to their own benefit. Regardless of any noble premises on which governments might be founded, over time they nonetheless degenerate into self—serving conclaves, whose ultimate purpose is the betterment of their own lot through the implementation of their own agenda.

In the logical end, unless otherwise impaired, those at the apex of power assume dictatorial control, while the rights of the common person are obliterated. The latest rash of outrageous Supreme Court decisions demonstrates that this nation's governing institutions are already well on their way down that slippery slope.

In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the Founders stirringly asserted the fundamental rights of the people as God—given, and therefore 'inherent.'  The Founders, in sharp contrast to the sad legacy of the previous paragraph, recognized the sole legitimate and moral purpose for government to be the preservation and protection of those rights.

As Americans have institutionally and individually abandoned that morality, their government has done likewise. The result is that it no longer stands guard on their behalf.

Some have expressed amazement at the apparent role reversal of Supreme Court Justices in the recent Kelo v. New London decision, which ratified expansion of the concept of 'eminent domain' to include the transfer of private and lawfully owned property from one citizen to another.

In truth, no role reversal on the high Court exists. The voting breakdown of supporting and dissenting justices is, with the occasional exception of Sandra O'Connor, just as it has always been. Those justices who advocate morality recognize their need to support the Constitution in its original form.

Those, on the other hand, who claim it as a 'living document' (which some have rightly asserted as proof that they really regard it as a dead document), show no regard for either its protections of the common citizen, nor any other lofty premise within its hallowed text.

Admittedly, the decision exploded the myth of liberalism as based on compassion for the 'little guy' (in supposed contrast to big business capitalism). Rather, the distinctions between conservatism and liberalism are, and have always been, about morality as opposed to immorality; the noble experiment called the Constitution as contrasted against its many shabby counterfeits; and ultimately, the choice between freedom or subjugation for the masses.

During the past several decades, the Supreme Court has been about the business of decimating the fundamental rights of life and liberty, with its blanket legalization of abortion, the criminalization of prayer in the government schools, and other unbridled assaults on the fabric of the American culture.

Recently, it laid waste to freedom of speech by upholding the abominable precepts of campaign finance 'reform' legislation. It gave its blessing to state universities using race as a factor in admissions decisions. So why should anyone be surprised that, with this Kelo decision, it would lead the final assault on the right to property, and the inseparable corollary to that right, the 'pursuit of happiness.'

In consideration of past excesses perpetrated by the Court in the name of the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' one can only wonder how far reaching the aftershocks of the Kelo decision might be. What abominations to the American way of life might ensue, once its horrendous reasoning is incorporated into the vile mixture of confusion and incomprehensible evil, known as 'International Law,' increasingly invoked by such Supreme Court Justices as Kennedy and Breyer?

Mexican President Vicente Fox and his minions have already asserted the existence of 'Constitutional Rights' for illegals in America (based, much like the Kelo decision, on the economic benefits accrued to Mexico).

Americans have been outraged in recent months, as the nation's high courts have 'discovered' Constitutional protections now to be bestowed on foreign terrorists. Meanwhile, those long—standing rights of Americans are being unceremoniously trampled.

Perhaps the rest of America is now beginning to wake up to the alarming truth realized by Conservative Christians, pro—lifers, Second Amendment advocates, and others who, during the past several decades, watched in horror as the courts desecrated one Constitutional principle after another. Clearly, no one can afford to leave their security and freedom in the hands of a judiciary that has run completely amok.

Ronald Reagan, as he presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union, exulted that Marxism, along with every other repressive ideology of the past, would eventually be relegated to 'the ash heap of history.' It is deplorable, but undeniable, that the activist judges on the Supreme Court are committed to delivering the Constitution there as well.

Christopher Adamo is a frequent contributor

Throughout the course of history, the overriding tendency of those in power is to manipulate that power to their own benefit. Regardless of any noble premises on which governments might be founded, over time they nonetheless degenerate into self—serving conclaves, whose ultimate purpose is the betterment of their own lot through the implementation of their own agenda.

In the logical end, unless otherwise impaired, those at the apex of power assume dictatorial control, while the rights of the common person are obliterated. The latest rash of outrageous Supreme Court decisions demonstrates that this nation's governing institutions are already well on their way down that slippery slope.

In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, the Founders stirringly asserted the fundamental rights of the people as God—given, and therefore 'inherent.'  The Founders, in sharp contrast to the sad legacy of the previous paragraph, recognized the sole legitimate and moral purpose for government to be the preservation and protection of those rights.

As Americans have institutionally and individually abandoned that morality, their government has done likewise. The result is that it no longer stands guard on their behalf.

Some have expressed amazement at the apparent role reversal of Supreme Court Justices in the recent Kelo v. New London decision, which ratified expansion of the concept of 'eminent domain' to include the transfer of private and lawfully owned property from one citizen to another.

In truth, no role reversal on the high Court exists. The voting breakdown of supporting and dissenting justices is, with the occasional exception of Sandra O'Connor, just as it has always been. Those justices who advocate morality recognize their need to support the Constitution in its original form.

Those, on the other hand, who claim it as a 'living document' (which some have rightly asserted as proof that they really regard it as a dead document), show no regard for either its protections of the common citizen, nor any other lofty premise within its hallowed text.

Admittedly, the decision exploded the myth of liberalism as based on compassion for the 'little guy' (in supposed contrast to big business capitalism). Rather, the distinctions between conservatism and liberalism are, and have always been, about morality as opposed to immorality; the noble experiment called the Constitution as contrasted against its many shabby counterfeits; and ultimately, the choice between freedom or subjugation for the masses.

During the past several decades, the Supreme Court has been about the business of decimating the fundamental rights of life and liberty, with its blanket legalization of abortion, the criminalization of prayer in the government schools, and other unbridled assaults on the fabric of the American culture.

Recently, it laid waste to freedom of speech by upholding the abominable precepts of campaign finance 'reform' legislation. It gave its blessing to state universities using race as a factor in admissions decisions. So why should anyone be surprised that, with this Kelo decision, it would lead the final assault on the right to property, and the inseparable corollary to that right, the 'pursuit of happiness.'

In consideration of past excesses perpetrated by the Court in the name of the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' one can only wonder how far reaching the aftershocks of the Kelo decision might be. What abominations to the American way of life might ensue, once its horrendous reasoning is incorporated into the vile mixture of confusion and incomprehensible evil, known as 'International Law,' increasingly invoked by such Supreme Court Justices as Kennedy and Breyer?

Mexican President Vicente Fox and his minions have already asserted the existence of 'Constitutional Rights' for illegals in America (based, much like the Kelo decision, on the economic benefits accrued to Mexico).

Americans have been outraged in recent months, as the nation's high courts have 'discovered' Constitutional protections now to be bestowed on foreign terrorists. Meanwhile, those long—standing rights of Americans are being unceremoniously trampled.

Perhaps the rest of America is now beginning to wake up to the alarming truth realized by Conservative Christians, pro—lifers, Second Amendment advocates, and others who, during the past several decades, watched in horror as the courts desecrated one Constitutional principle after another. Clearly, no one can afford to leave their security and freedom in the hands of a judiciary that has run completely amok.

Ronald Reagan, as he presided over the collapse of the Soviet Union, exulted that Marxism, along with every other repressive ideology of the past, would eventually be relegated to 'the ash heap of history.' It is deplorable, but undeniable, that the activist judges on the Supreme Court are committed to delivering the Constitution there as well.

Christopher Adamo is a frequent contributor