JUDICIAL TYRANNY & CORRUPTION IN AMERICA:
HOW DID IT EVER COME TO THIS?
By Christopher G. Adamo
Indeed, had they ever imagined such a system would eventually impose on them, by judicial decree, so heinous and reprehensible a concept as same-sex “marriage,” they certainly would have immediately crawled to the feet of King George III, and begged for re-admittance as colonies into the British Empire.
As the dark day of court-imposed same-sex “marriage” dawns in America, many are asking themselves just how things could have degenerated to this point in a nation that was founded on a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.” That this abomination is publicly being carried out among the many magnificent old churches in what was once the spiritual bastion of Massachusetts, only enhances its already despicable nature with an element of blasphemy. But the root cause of the problem is no more complicated than it has ever been. In short, it resulted from a sustained, twofold attack on the nation’s foundational principles.
America was established on a system of checks and balances, devised for the sole purpose of limiting the power of the central government and insuring accountability on the part of those holding public office and exercising governmental power. Somewhere along the way, the architects of social transformation managed to convince the rest of the country that the federal judiciary was somehow exempted from the restraints on power and necessity of accountability imposed by the system of checks and balances. From there, it was a simple matter of merely installing corrupt individuals into crucial judicial offices.
Some contend that the stage was initially set in the early days of this nation, when the U.S. Supreme Court asserted itself as the ultimate arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. However, such an assumption of power would never have stood, if Americans of that day had assumed it to mean absolute and unquestioned authority accrued to the federal courts, with no avenue of redress.
Furthermore, judges of that day thoroughly understood that they must remain well within the framework of traditional morality. The nation would by no means have allowed anything on the order of present-day breaches, and would doubtlessly have seen the situation as warranting another disposal of tea (and perhaps other unwanted cargo) into Boston Harbor -- or, at least, wholesale subjection of federal judges to the impeachment, trial, and conviction process and removal of the convicted judges from office.
Thus the judicial activism of that day was necessarily limited to relatively minor “adjustments” to the law, any one of which did not fundamentally alter the fabric of American society. However, over time the degree of court activism increased, with previous overextensions of the law being invoked as precedent, not only to legitimize the very concept of activism itself, but also as a springboard for ever more outrageous decisions. Ultimately, it became imperative for modern judicial activists and their accomplices to simultaneously expunge any restricting principles from each and every governing institution, and completely supplant them with the twisted premises of “political correctness.”
Considering the critical importance of this element of their overall strategy, it is no wonder that they have been so obsessive in their efforts to attack the Boy Scouts and every similar organization within the nation’s borders and, if such organizations will not acquiesce, to eliminate them.
Now the nation’s morality, its ultimate wellspring of freedom, is no longer considered fit and proper as the basis for law. Worse yet, activist courts and Liberal-controlled institutions are hard at work to outlaw even the discussion of such things, labeling them as “hate speech,” and virtually assuring their eventual extinction.
Concurrently, they’ve been systematically stamping out individual rights. Americans are now told by the courts that they can no longer pray, say the Pledge of Allegiance, support and oppose political candidates as they see fit, or even require public officials to conduct government business in English.
Ironically, those who are most adamant that the U.S. Constitution is a “living” Constitution (i.e., a document subject to flexible interpretation) are the very individuals who, when considering judicial impeachment, suddenly become “strict constructionists,” insisting that impeachment can only take place as a result of felonious activity. Apparently, exceeding every boundary of law and ignoring every standard of decency in pursuit of radical social transformation, and thereby destroying the foundations and heritage of the nation, doesn’t qualify as grounds for subjecting federal judges to the impeachmemt, trial, conviction, and removal process.
It is high time that Americans begin holding their federal judges to the constitutional limitations on their power and to some standard of accountability for their official actions and decisions. And, in each of the fifty American states, the people of that state should ensure the imposition and enforcement of such limitations and standards on their state judges. Trivializing or ignoring the ravages of judicial activism is no more of an option than pretending the threat from Al-Qa'ida no longer exists.
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
Appointment of U.S. Federal Judges
Morality, Decency, & Traditional American Family Values
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
American Government 2 * American Government 3 * American Government 4
American Government 5 * American Politics * Anglosphere * Arabs
Arms Control & WMD * Aztlan Separatists * Big Government
Black Africa * Bureaucracy * Canada * China * Civil Liberties * Communism
Congress, U.S. * Conservative Groups * Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law * Counterterrorism * Criminal Justice * Disloyalty * Economy
Education * Elections, U.S. * Eminent Domain * Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World * Ethnicity & Race * Europe * Europe: Jews
Family Values * Far East * Fiscal Policy, U.S. * Foreign Aid, U.S. * France
Hispanic Separatism * Hispanic Treason * Human Health * Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. * Intelligence, U.S. * Iran * Iraq * Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat * Islamism * Israeli vs. Arabs * Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism * Jihad Manifesto I * Jihad Manifesto II * Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments * Judiciary, American * Latin America * Latino Separatism
Latino Treason * Lebanon * Leftists/Liberals * Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. * Marriage & Family * Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs * Middle East: Iran * Middle East: Iraq * Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon * Middle East: Syria * Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey * Militant Islam * Military Defense * Military Justice
Military Weaponry * Modern Welfare State * Morality & Decency
National Identity * National Security * Natural Resources * News Media Bias
North Africa * Patriot Act, USA * Patriotism * Political Culture * Political Ideologies
Political Parties * Political Philosophy * Politics, American * Presidency, U.S.
Private Property * Property Rights * Public Assistance * Radical Islam
Religion & America * Rogue States & WMD * Russia * Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason * Senate, U.S. * Social Welfare Policy * South Africa
State Government, U.S. * Subsaharan Africa * Subversion * Syria * Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 * Treason & Sedition * Tunisia * Turkey * Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity * UN & Its Agencies * USA Patriot Act * U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure * U.S. Intelligence * U.S. Senate * War & Peace
Welfare Policy * WMD & Arms Control