Events at the National Archives in Washington, DC

I just finished reading the National Archives event descriptions for September 17, 2015. I understand that
the date has passed.

I want someone to read those descriptions and realize the errors they contained that could lead to misunderstandings
among Americans and others about the fact that the Constitution is written in plain English, following the rules for
English grammar. No interpretation is necessary. No interpretations can be permitted. What the Framers wrote
is what they mean.

One of those activity descriptions states that the speaker will discuss political and judicial interpretations of the
Framers words. Not possible. None of them was there at the signing and none of them participated in the hell
the signers went through to create our Constitution. They cannot interpret that about which they know nothing.
All they can do is state their opinion of what the Framers wrote.

Opinions are nothing more than that, opinions. Opinions are someone’s ideas of what words say or mean. If
their opinions are not correct then their opinions constitute unlawful changes to the Constitution. Since no-one
knows, or can know if opinions are correct and to the letter what the Framers meant, we must err on the side of
caution and use the Constitution as it was written and apply the rules of grammar while reading the Framers’ words.

Political interpretations cannot be allowed. As we are seeing today, politicians will do anything to get their way and
will freely use interpretations that suit their immediate designs to accomplish the agenda of the moment.

The Supreme Court cannot interpret the Framers’ words either because, all though one would think that they are
smarter and more learned concerning U.S. laws, they were not their as the Constitution was drafted and they did
not hear the arguments that ensued as the contents of the Constitution were hammered out. Then, since seats
on the Supreme Court are political in nature because they were each filled by those nominated and vetted by politicians
according to the power and influence of the President that nominated them, and the fact that they are human beings
subject to all of the weaknesses thereof, they cannot be trusted to influence the meaning of the very foundation
of everything that is the United States of America.

The Supreme Court is not to interpret the Constitution in any way. They are to use it as written and legally amended
to determine whether or not the case before it is constitutional or unconstitutional and no more. We have recently
seen that the Supreme Court cannot be trusted any longer. The example I reference is the opinion issued by the
Court concerning same-sex marriages.

The Court overstepped its authority, allowed two Justices (Ginsberg and Kagan) to participate in the decision in
violation of U.S. Law which requires that Justices not do anything that, by so doing, would raise suspicion and/or
create a public outcry. Both Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kagan had previously performed same-sex marriage ceremonies
that would create a conflict of interest for which they were supposed to recuse themselves from hearing that case. They
did not recuse themselves and because of their standing in favor of same-sex marriages, the opinion favoring same-sex
marriages was given. Had the recused themselves same-sex marriages would not have been shoved down the throats
of the 90 plus percent of Americans that were against it. The Court legislated from the bench by issuing a ruling declaring
that same-sex marriages will be legal in every State. By so ruling, the Court violated States Rights as many of the several
States have provisions in their constitutions that concern marriage. Marriage is not addressed in the U. S. Constitution
which makes it a matter to be handled by each of the States, not by the Central Government.

The Supreme Court tries cases and issues opinions which, if further action is necessary, such as laws that support
their opinions, that is the responsibility of Congress to enact or not. The Court has no authority to make laws….
period. The Court has no authority to usurp the powers of State Legislators in regards to matters not included in the
U.S Constitution or forbidden by it, to the States.

A statement made by Thomas Jefferson, cited at:

“Thomas Jefferson, Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us

under the despotism of an oligarchy”

Despotism -Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, ns, Despotism absolute power: tyranny

Oligarchy – is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.

“….despotism of an oligarchy”: tyrannical control by a few

Different types of oligarchy revolve around the basic principle of a small group of people having the authority and power to rule.

The first event scheduled on September 17 included a statement: “The ninth annual State of the Constitution Lecture at
the National Archives, presented in partnership with the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution at James Madison’s
Montpelier, focuses on the voices of young leaders in the spheres of policy, governance, and citizen engagement who
are shaping America’s future as a constitutional democracy.

America is, and must remain a Republic, not a constitutional democracy, whatever that may be.
There are two forms of government; a democracy and a republic.

“These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical,
reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal
safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic
under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.”

“Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional
American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the
Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so
as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure
the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.”

“The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created
by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them
only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative
and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.”

You can read the article from which the the three paragraphs directly above this have been quoted:

Thank you for realizing that you are promoting misunderstandings concerning the Constitution by
allowing speakers to present views that represent dissemination of incorrect information. I suggest
that guest speakers present you with written contents to be reviewed for content prior to speeches
being made. The Constitution must be preserved, protected and defended, always, in the form in
which it was written and has been legally amended in accordance with Article V. thereof.

Joseph D Hollinger
God Bless America!

The Federalist PapersRSSTwitterFacebookGoogle+

Samuel Adams, Right to examine the conduct of those who derive power from the people Patrick Henry, Human nature will never part from power

Thomas Jefferson, Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy

By Steve Straub3 Comments · In Thomas Jefferson

‘+ ” + ‘
‘+ ” + ‘

‘+ ‘Subject
‘+ ” + ‘Message
‘+ ‘Hi, this may be intersting you: \”Thomas Jefferson, Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy\”! This is the link: ‘ + ”, buttons: [
jQuery.extend({}, vex.dialog.buttons.YES, { text: ‘Send’ }),
jQuery.extend({}, vex.dialog.buttons.NO, { text: ‘Cancel’ })
], callback: function (data) { if (data.emailfrom && typeof(data.emailfrom) != “undefined”) { essb_sendmail_ajax386854075(data.emailfrom, data.emailto, data.emailsubject, data.emailmessage); } } }); }); }); function essb_sendmail_ajax386854075(emailfrom, emailto, emailsub, emailmessage) { //alert(emailfrom + “|” + emailto); var get_address = ““+emailfrom+”&to=”+emailto+”⊂=”+emailsub+”&message=”+emailmessage+”&t=Thomas+Jefferson%2C+Judges+as+the+ultimate+arbiters+of+all+constitutional+questions+would+place+us+under+the+despotism+of+an+oligarchy&”; //alert(get_address); jQuery.getJSON(get_address) .done(function(data){ alert(data.message); }); }

Thomas Jefferson, The Dangers of the JudiciaryYou seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. …

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis, (28 September 1820).

Tagged with: despotismexecutive branchJudgesJudicial BranchLegal SystemLegislative

Share →


The Federalist Papers admins do a wonderful job of going through our founding documents (and sometimes others) to find pertinent, timely and always thought-provoking pieces. I have discovered a new admiration for Patrick Henry from their work! Thank you, admins! – Lisa Hoppman

Recent Posts


The Federalist Papers, the education you bring to your readers is immeasurable. Now more than ever, Americans need to learn about their country’s founding and its founders. Keep up the good work. – Buddy Novotney

Recent Comments

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

I would like to read your comments about my posts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s