THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VIII, Issue # 96, June 7, 2006
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
PROTECTING THE REPUBLIC FROM FEDERAL JUDGES
By Tom DeWeese
THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM VERSUS LEFTWING LIBERALISM & JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: PROPOSED
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICA'S CONSTIRUTIONAL FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
AGAINST LEFTIST LIBERAL ACTIVIST FEDERAL JUDGES WHO ABUSE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, SEEKING TO UNDERMINE
& DESTROY OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM, CENTRALIZE POLITICAL POWER, & IMPOSE ON AMERICAN SOCIETY THEIR
OWN PUBLIC POLICY PREFERENCES OR THOSE OF RADICAL ACTIVIST SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
FULL STORY:
In California, a majority of voters supported a ballot measure to stop illegal aliens from receiving tax-funded services such as
public schools, hospital care, and social services. A federal judge declared the measure null and void and forced adoption and
implementation of a contrary public policy, doing so over the legal wishes of the electorate.
In Oregon, a majority of voters supported a ballot measure to require the government to compensate landowners when
property was taken through environmental regulations. A federal judge declared the measure null and void and forced
adoption and implementation of a different public policy, overriding the legal wishes of the electorate.
In Alabama, Judge Roy Moore was forced to remove the Ten Commandments from the State Supreme Court grounds. A federal
judge declared the monument unconstitutional, ignored the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and imposed his will
over the legal wishes of the electorate.
The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, forcibly overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states though its
Roe V Wade decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Tenth Amendment and forced its will over the legal wishes
of the electorate.
Unclear environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are being interpreted by federal judges (who are working
hand in hand with non-governmental organizations and private foundations) to implement radical environmentalist policy,
resulting in the unconstitutional taking of private property in every state.
The common term today is “activist judges.” So great is their power that school boards are literally banning everything from
school prayer to wearing a tee shirt with a Christian message, for fear federal courts will take action against school officials.
Now, even state and local courts are making identical rulings, from fear of being overturned by a higher, federal court.
Activist federal judges have declared themselves the absolute power over state legislatures, school boards, and city councils.
Prayer in public places, personal privacy, and now marriage laws are under siege from federal courts. The courts, in turn, are
responding to a battery of lawsuits filed by such predatory activist groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) –
making the ACLU more powerful than locally-elected officials.
As a result, the U.S. central government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient. The Republic
for which we stand is quickly disappearing. Obviously, that’s not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
To the rescue is Congressman Ron Paul (Republican - Texas), as he introduces a new bill called the “We the People Act.” As
Representative Paul explained upon the bill’s introduction into the U.S. House of Representatives, “Federal judges are
undermining republican government by imposing their preferred policies on states and local governments, instead of
respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people.”
Representative Paul rightly addresses the real problem with activist judges. It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with
the outcome of a federal court ruling. “Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands
individual liberty,” said Paul. He concluded:
“Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best
guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions,
while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power.
This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the
federal government over the states.”
Federal courts that are free to overturn state laws at the whim of a federal judge or from the pressure of an activist group’s
lawsuit literally nullify the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on the power of the national government. “Furthermore,” says Paul,
“when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments…republican government is threatened.”
“Perhaps more importantly,” Paul says, “attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression
of religious belief in the public square increases social strife and conflict." Paul goes on to say: "The only way to resolve
controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to
adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions.”
Paul’s “We the People Act” forbids federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state
laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation, or
reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage form judicial activism by ensuring the
Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage.
In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the "We the People Act" also provides that a judge who
violates the act’s limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according
to the rules established by the Congress.
Every American who wants our central government to fall back within the boundaries of control, as established by the
Founding Fathers, must call or write his congressman to demand he support and co-sponsor Representative Ron Paul’s
"We the People Act."
Concluded Representative Paul, “The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges
who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas.”
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Legal Issues, Lawyers, & America's Judiciary
U.S. Constitutional Law & Political Philosophy
The Constitution of the United States of America
American Government -- Constitutional System
The American Political System -- Politics &
Government in the U.S.A.: Political Science Course
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
English Antecedents
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
Colonial & Early American Antecedents
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The U.S. Constitution -- Ratification & Adoption
The American Constitutional System -- Origins:
The U.S. Constitution -- The Scheme of National Government
The American Constitutional System -- Principal Characteristics:
Constitutionalism, Republicanism, Separation of Powers,
Checks & Balances, Legislative Bicameralism,
& Balanced Government
The American Constitutional System -- Principal Characteristics:
Federalism -- Fedural Union of States
The U.S. Constitution -- Underlying Political Theory:
The Federalist -- Selected Essays
Tom DeWeese is the Publisher and Editor of The DeWeese Report and President of the American Policy Center, a
grassroots activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia. The Center maintains an Internet website at