Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: The Supreme Court in the American System of Government

Dear Sir,

After reading your article: Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: The Supreme Court in the American System of Government,
I have come to the conclusion that you are not publishing content that you have produced through your own research
and verified as the whole truth.

Your information holds to, and contains untruths. The Constitution shall be followed, to the letter, as the absolute
foundation of our country. There are to be no interpretations by anyone for any reason, ever. Interpretations are nothing
more than opinions. Opinions, made by anyone, no matter how learned they may be, are subject to personal convictions
of the moment. Or, in the case of people appointed to their positions by a politician for political reasons, interpretations
by them are likely to be influenced by their allegiances to the person, and or party mindset of the moment.

Supreme Court Justices do not have the duty, or authority for interpreting the Constitution! The Constitution can, and must
stand on its own. It is absolute in its commands and demands from which no variances are permitted no matter how strong
the desire of some, or many, to have certain demands agree with their needs of the moment. Interpretations can, and are,
I am afraid, used for exactly those purposes.

I reference the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the rights of people having the same sex to marry. A gross
injustice was done to the social mores of the United States for the purpose of political agenda advancement. Not only was
injustice done in the ruling, the Supreme Court legislated from the bench in demanding that every State, no matter the
content and protections their respective constitutions contained, immediately allow same-sex marriages. A definite
infringement of States Rights. Then, there is the illegality of two Justices sitting on that case that should have recused
themselves based on their prejudices for same-sex marriages evidenced by each of them having performed same-sex
marriages. Those Justices were Ginsberg and Kagan. Had they recused themselves as the law requires when their
participation is likely to cause a public conversation, same-sex marriages would not be allowed today. Those two
Justices broke the law to achieve a political objective at the expense of destroying the credibility of the Supreme Court.

Since it is now well known that are Supreme Court is corrupted and has become a tool for accomplishing political agenda
we can no longer have faith in that court upholding the Constitution much less in their interpreting any part of it.

The following paragraph, taken from your article, subject of this email, shows that you, Sir, have taken a drink of the
Kool-Aid and are perpetuating untruths, intentional or not.

“The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive
actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given
the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad
provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.”

You statement was right on until you inserted propaganda with: “as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad
provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.” The Constitution is not, and shall not be considered as
a “living document” to be kept up with the times. You surely must see the fallacy in your statement. In order for the
Constitution to be kept up with the times it, and its meaning, will have to be changed. Any changes that are made
outside of the processes in Article V. thereof, are unconstitutional. Amendment is the only approved process for
changes to the Constitution, as the Framers wrote it and as it has been legally amended in the past.

No Supreme Court Opinion, Presidential executive order or decree, Judge’s ruling, Legislation, or consequence of any, or all the
methods possible in our government, or as a consequence of any/all of them can change the Constitution or give its
requisites a convenient meaning suiting the political needs of a moment through interpretation.

The opening paragraph in your treatise continues another falsity.

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW — These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express
the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for
all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law,
the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions
as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.”

More Kool-Aid effects: thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.” Not so. Nothing in the
Constitution gives/allows the Supreme Court the duty or responsibility for interpreting what the Framers have so clearly
and concisely stated. You mention that fact in your article.

“While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption
of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions.
Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution;
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers,
which urged adoption of the Constitution.”

“The function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution” means it is not there. No Justice can assume it
should be and act as if it were. Article V. must be followed. No assumptions of authority or license are to be permitted.
The United States belongs to the People, not to government. Government is a tool for the People’s use to manage their
country since they are too many and spread over too large of an area to participate individually. “The Consent of the
Governed” by necessity and by design.

The Governed consent to having those they choose to be public servants through the election process provided by the
Framers, to represent their voices in the management of their country. Without the People, government would not
exist in America. It is the Constitution and the People that make our country what it is and has been. Not government.
The United States Government is a non-entity having no shape, no substance, no odor, no color, nothing that could
make it self-supporting.

BUT, if those who have gained unGodly influence within, and as a result of our governing processes are allowed to continue
to advance their agenda the United States will cease to exist by the year 2030 or shortly thereafter. That is not far away.
Obama has obligated, unilaterally, the United States to participation in United Nations Agenda 2030 which, by the way,
is United Nations Agenda 21 (which Bill Clinton unilaterally obligated us to) on steroids. Both are based on the bogus
idea that Global Warming is a threat to man on Earth and the need for sustainability of Earth’s ability to support human
life. They profess to make this possible through sustainability of nearly everything on Earth including populations

The real end result of “sustainability” will be a One World Government situated in the United Nations comprised of
the rich and powerful from the World over who will control everything for their own profit and benefit. We’ll be
right back to feudalism in spades.

So, I think you had better rethink your ideas on the power of the courts and the Constitution. The Constitution is
written to be the absolute control for governance in the United States. What it says is what it means. If it says
we have the freedom of speech that means we can say whatever we wish to whomever we wish without restriction.
But, we must understand that there can be laws carrying penalties related to the results of our free speech. The
example of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater comes to mind. You are free to yell “Fire” but you could be
arrested for starting massive panic that caused injuries.

All the best,
Joseph D. Hollinger
God Bless America,
My Country tis of Thee!

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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