SCOTUS – The Abortion Decision: Awake Society!

Exclamation MarkI have written about abortion previously.  I have discussed the problems with legislating from the bench and the societal issues when judges take powers unto themselves.  Today, the media is in shock and awe over the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) making an abortion decision not to strike down a law in Texas.  Would it shock and dismay anyone if I explained that SCOTUS still got the decision wrong?  From the pen of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, we find why the current SCOTUS got the latest decision wrong.

The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas [and] the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The history of abortion on demand is fraught with legislative attempts that were superseded by judicial activism.  By judges acting to legislate from the bench and cram new moral authority into American law, without the consent of the governed, problems in governance arose.  The most egregious problem is the dependence upon judges to solve legitimate legislative issues, and therein lay both the destruction and the solution to the current dilemmas of American society.

What are moral issues?

A person smoking is a moral issue, not a legal issue.  Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal issue.  Moral issues deal solely with how a person chooses to live their lives, regardless of how another person thinks they should live their lives.  Drunk driving is a legal issue as it places other members of society in danger when an intoxicated person operates a vehicle impaired.  But, drinking is a moral issue, provided that person is of social/legal age to drink.  Is the distinction clear?  Provided the exercise of a person’s moral choices does not interfere with another person’s ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.  The moral decisions of the first individual do not become legal issues of the second person.The Duty of Americans

The feminists of the day wanted to control women’s bodies and control how often men had sex with women.  This was part of a larger social trend to see women gain more rights and privileges in society, a moral issue.  The feminists used friendly judges to chip away at the social fabric until they obtained a legal decision that allowed for abortion on demand.  Fundamentally, the decisions of the feminists to exert control of mass populations of females was a violation of those females’ moral agency as many of them did not join the feminists’ associations before becoming influenced by the consequences of the decisions made in the name of females everywhere.

Social Change Needed

The separation of moral agency and legal rights is thin but distinct; unfortunately, the line has become blurred through social influencing, social media, and judicial activism.  Society has fallen into helicopter parenting, and the courtroom has become both the parent and the potential gold mine.  Find the right case, find a friendly judge, and take the current case to the media to inflame a population and try the case socially before the case is conducted legally.  The other side barely stands a chance anymore.  Even if you lose the case in court, you win socially, which changes minds and hearts, leading to more changes to laws, just a smaller payday.Gavel

As a kid, if you took a decision to a parent and the first one told you no.  Then you went to another parent for a second opinion; how much trouble were you in?  In my family, you got punished by both parents, twice the beating for the same decision.  My buddy, his parents were getting a divorce; he used this tactic to the fullest all the time as a weapon against his parents, as his parents used him (only child) as a weapon against each other.  Only later did I fully appreciate the horror and tragedy my buddy was in during this time in his life.  Worse, it has only been in the last couple of decades that I have realized how terrible this lesson has been for all of American society and what it has done to our courts and legal system.

The Opportunity

Freedom means being responsible for our own actions and their consequences.  Our moral agency allows us the power to act and puts us in the driver’s seat to control our choices in our lives.  But, we do not get to pick the consequences, when the consequences land, or the severity of the consequences.  We can only control what we do with our choices.  I prefer to have unfettered freedom than nanny-state control.  Who controls the government in a nanny-state?  Honestly, look to Cuba, China, Venezuela, the USSR, and ask who controls the nanny-state, as they strive to control every aspect of you?Behavior-Change

In representative governments, we, the people, are responsible and control the government.  We cannot abdicate this responsibility, and the government cannot seize power without our consent.  Herein lays our golden ticket to the chocolate factory; their bounds are set, ours are not!  The government can only go as far as we declare they can.  After leaving American citizens to the ravages of the Taliban in Afghanistan, polluting our shores with an unsecured southern border, and all the other crises we are dealing with, it is time we started restricting the government of consent.

SCOTUS’ decision was still wrong because they should never have issued a decision in the first place.  The decision SCOTUS should have given should have been a single sentence, “Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal issue, and we are removing the courts from this issue and returning it to the legislative bodies of the United States for further decisioning.”  With that single sentence, all legal proceedings, legal determinations, and laws on abortion would have been halted, awaiting a legislative determination.  Then, and only then, would a great injustice have been legally righted in America and the 50 individual states’ legislative bodies being empowered to choose as their citizens saw fit.

Knowledge Check!SCOTUS could then do the same for same-sex marriage and every other moral issue they have legislated from the bench over the last 200 years.  This leads to a dramatic change in and correction of the judicial branch and honoring the legislative and executive branches of government.  When judicial activism ends, people understand that liberty is more precious than gold and silver and then live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciousness, leaving others to do likewise.  Our opportunity is to return to this manner of legal system, seize this golden ticket and return to sanity in freedom!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

The Proper and Improper Role of Government – Part 1

Several years ago, I tripped across a paperback book and felt to read the book.  It was written by Ezra Taft Benson, who was the 15th US Secretary of Agriculture, whom I respected for his keen mind; I felt compelled to read his book.  Mr. Benson, writing about the proper role of government, providing a running commentary about the founding of the United States of America, is worthy of study by every student as a part of social studies.  Before reading this book, I had not thought about the role of government, proper or improper. However, after reading this book, I came to understand why America is in such trouble and how the government is the perpetrator of the crimes against the citizen of America.

If they were missed, I have written articles about the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, the role of the “Rule of Law,” and other founding documents.  All these and more are essential or fundamental principles of understanding for discussing the government’s proper and improper role.  Please note, when talking about the proper and improper role of the government, I am not explicitly discussing The United States of America; but all non-Communist governments and many of the principles should be applied to communist governments to improve the situation for the citizens.

Private Property Produces Liberty and Freedom

Unfortunately, to fully appreciate all Mr. Benson is discussing, one must first understand the role of private property.  Charles Reich, an American legal and social scholar and an author while also a Professor at Yale Law School, wrote a paper every American citizen needs to read and be concerned over.  With the US Government changing the definition of private property and selecting winners and losers for government investment, the US Government radically changed and fundamentally destroyed the basic fabric of American law!  “Property is not a natural right but a deliberate construction by society. Like the Bill of Rights, property represents general, long-range protection of individual and private interests, created by the majority for the ultimate good of all” (Reich, 1964, p. 771-772)

Starting in the 1930s, during the “Great Depression,” changes were made to America’s methods of governance by the President, a willing media, including sycophants in the Senate and House, continuing a trend that began under President Woodrow Wilson (D).  Thus, establishing the Federal and State Government’s ability to rule by largess, picking winners and losers based upon obeisance to a bureaucrat’s whims, wishes, and will.  Reich lays out this history, walks the reader through the laws, and makes the case that because of democratic rule, America’s Republic has been reduced to a feudal system where the government decides who gets the largess and who does not.  With the Federal and State Governments making these decisions, businesses do not compete fairly upon their own merits but upon how much taxpayer money they can bamboozle from Uncle Sam.  Unfortunately, the entire system hinges upon reducing private property ownership and the freedoms private property allows feeding the ever-hungry beast of Government consumption.

The United States of America and every representative government can only provide freedom to their citizens if that country allows ownership of private property.  From private property principles comes every freedom and liberty enjoyed, as even the government must bow to the will of the people owning private property. So how did the government hijack your personal liberties and freedoms; well, there are a couple of wrongheaded Supreme Court cases, several Federal Court Cases, a complicit Congress with supermajorities, and a couple of presidents who were forward-looking and planning on stealing for personal gain.  The judicial interpretations opened judicial activism, released judicial restraint, and Congress stepped into the vacuum to protect itself from the people’s will.

One of the scariest ways personal freedoms have been stolen has been through owning a home but not owning the property under that home.  Homeowner’s Associations and the United Nations Agenda 21 actions have stripped personal property and made the homeowner pay ever-increasing homeowners association fees for the privilege of losing liberty and freedom.  All these actions, and many more, originated in the government actions under President Woodrow Wilson and were compounded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Many will try and claim WWI and the Great Depression, and WWII triggered taking “bold action” through the legislative process.  What they mean was the Legislative Branch kowtowed to the Executive Branch, while the Judicial Branch twiddled their collective thumbs and began to legislate from the bench.  Never forget, the two presidents with the most executive orders are Wilson and Roosevelt, and this was even with a complicit media and friendly legislative branch.

Reich (1964, p. 773) implicitly details that the power to change the culture and definitions of private property and liberty started with judicial activism that led to government intrusion.  “During the first half of the twentieth century, the reformers enacted into law their conviction that private power was a chief enemy of society and individual liberty. Property was subjected to “reasonable [emphasis in original] limitations in the interests of society. The regulatory agencies, federal and state, were born of the reform. In sustaining these major inroads on private property, the Supreme Court rejected the older idea that property and liberty were one and wrote a series of classic opinions upholding the power of the people to regulate and limit private rights.”  Continuing, Reich (1964) detailed relevance and the conflict of having government contractors and bureaucrats inventing the rules to provide services or grant largess.  Concluding that “many agencies take action which is penal in all but name,” and how these penal actions are punishing the citizen through adjudication without a judge, jury, or trial.

To review, the US Government stole private property, abused the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights, and fundamentally changed America.  Private property is the source of freedom and liberty in a representative government.  By choosing to limit private property, many have never been able to possess the most basic of human rights and liberties.  Worse, the deck has been stacked to keep the average citizen from owning private property.  When the US Government used statehood to strip constitutional authority from the states to own their own land, America started a decline where private property produced liberty and freedoms.  These are crucial steps in the journey to understanding the proper and delineating the improper role of government.

Finally, Reich brings us to the summum bonum of the problem where the government, Federal and State, have been leading the citizen, the “Welfare State” as a “Right.”  Consider, “It is time to recognize that “the public interest” [emphasis in original] is all too often a reassuring platitude that covers up sharp clashes of conflicting values and hides fundamental choices. It is time to see that the “privilege” or “gratuity” concept, as applied to wealth dispensed by government, is not much different from the absolute right of ownership that private capital once invoked to justify arbitrary power over employees and the public”  (Reich, 1964, p. 787).  Who is smart enough to “know” “the public interest?”  Honestly, which political party, politician, business leader, or influencer would you select, always to know the “public interest” and work for the “common good?”

Without private property, the citizen will not find a secure place to consider how to vote and who to vote for properly. This has been designed into government to facilitate single-party rule.  I agree with Reich (1964, p. 787), “Above all, the time has come for us to remember what the framers of the Constitution knew so well-that “a power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” We cannot safely entrust our livelihoods and our rights to the discretion of authorities, examiners, boards of control, character committees, regents, or license commissioners. We cannot permit any official or agency to pretend to sole knowledge of the public good.”  Hence, before we can understand the government’s proper and improper roles, we must have liberty derived from private property!

References

Benson, E. T. (1995). The proper role of government: The Improper Role of Government. H. V. Andersen (Ed.). Heber City, UT: Archive Publishers.

Charles A. Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. (1964). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol73/iss5/1

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

America: Unity is Our Strength

President Lincoln, quoted the New Testament, and said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Since the 1960s cultural rebellions by the children of the day, America has been slowly and inexorably torn asunder.  We have been split along racial lines, in the name of racial equality.  We have been split along sex lines, in the name of love, peace, and harmony.  We have seen rabid separation along political lines to the point where a sitting president can feel safe in physically threatening the lives of political opponents and never be held accountable.  We have seen the dumbing down of America’s children through K-12 Education, and then the propagandization of those minds in colleges.  We have seen neighbors trying to help neighbors and had the fist of government, wielded by petty authoritarians, create angst and trouble.  We have witnessed a complicit and biased media throw away common sense for political power, and openly aid and abet criminals in their work of destroying America.

Worst of all, we have seen activist judges usurp power from the legislative and executive branches and creating laws for America from whole cloth.  Members of the House and Senate, the legislative branch, now regularly feel they can usurp the powers of the executive with the help of the judicial branch and their media cheerleaders.  We have seen the executive branch crumble, and American’s have died with no help ever arriving.

Social Justice Warrior 3All these problems and more have torn at the basic and fundamental power American’s have always held, unity.  Unity born of hope, fed a diet of accomplishment, nurtured with education and exposure to work.  The unity of farmers has seen America fed.  The unity of churches has seen America support religious freedoms and become a bulwark to religious beliefs.  The unity of schools of higher education kept standards for academic performance that paved the way for great minds to leave academia prepared to lead industries and stand against tyranny and oppression.  The unity of the states has allowed America to weather fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and every other natural disaster.

Unity of being “AMERICAN,” UN-hyphenated, whole, and linked with other American’s has seen compassion thrive, poverty fought, and hunger abated.  Americans, (Ah Me I Can) is a statement of power. The power of “I can” built the Panama Canal and changed the world.  When hundreds of people committed, who were and accustomed to the motivating power of “I Can” and stood shoulder to shoulder, two World Wars were fought and won, hundreds of brush-fire wars were scuttled and despots removed for the betterment of society.

When America forgot the power of “I Can” Vietnam fell into disarray and ruin and those who lost lives never came home.  Cuba and Venezuela have been lost to communism and tyranny.  The Ukraine has all but become a territory of Russia.  Alliances have been written off, red-lines crossed with impunity, and more people have lost their lives.  The political left was able to force shame upon the body of America, and in so doing captured power that never should have been theirs.  Refusing America, the ability of coming together and unifying after Vietnam, the political left kept pushing new powers of separation, new lines of contention, and new causes for concern until chaos reigns and terrorists can be called “peaceful protestors.”

Religion Quote 2America has suffered since the 1960s from the disease of disunity.  We have failed to grasp the power we all possess, which is exponentially greater than the sum of our individual numbers, when we boldly stand and commit to “I Can” America’s enemies quake and pale.  Combined, “I Can” does not become “We Can.”  Combined, the power of “I Can,” is a force greater than “We” because each person shoulders their own load, looks after their own families and friends first, and in doing so multiplies the power of “I Can” into the wonder and majesty that has lured millions of people to come to America and become citizens; that is unity in action!

        • A house divided cannot stand.  A house divided cannot long endure.  A house divided is weak and ready to be pushed over and destroyed.
        • A unified house can stand.  A unified house can long endure.  A unified house is strong and pushes back against all the winds that blow.

A principle that the political left has failed to grasp and refuses to believe, we can have differences in opinion and still be unified in purpose.  Americans have always been contentiously unified, we have regularly disagreed about ways and means, but until the 1960s cultural revolutions we remained unified in purpose, unified in belief, and unified under the rule of law.  America, we must return to being unified or we will lose this the Republic of the United States of America!

Consider how normal it has become to castigate California and New York for pushing America ever progressively leftist, socialist, and communist.  While states like Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, and others are quietly moving socialist at the same or faster rates.  Instead of fighting back against this intrusion, the political leaders have embraced something that is fundamentally anathema to the majority of Americans, the loss of America.  But, these politicians could do this, because the citizenry have been so wrapped up in petty separations foisted upon us by the same people trying to destroy us.  We have lost our purpose, had our unity shredded, and remain in danger of losing America.

The Duty of AmericansAn example, illegal immigration.  If you support the rule of law, and fair play, you would see illegal immigration closed for the good of all current and future immigrants.  But, between rabid and hostile factions, a complicit media, the person opposed to illegal immigration is castigated, denigrated, and derided; while, those who are for illegal immigration, law breaking, and chaos are heralded as heroes.  Simple right and wrong, many of us were taught at our parent’s knee, but the issue has been twisted and warped until confusion reigns and the issue now divides homes, families, and communities.

One might ask, what is the purpose of America; the US Constitution’s preamble gives this answer clearly.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” [Emphasis Mine].

That is why America was created, the US Constitution written, and blood shed to establish this country. Establish justice, create domestic tranquility, improve the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our children, and provide a common defense, which leads to a more perfect union.  All this is possible through unity in purpose, where we the citizens of America understand the rule of law is a tool to meet our obligations.

Want to know how far we have fallen from being unified in purpose, look at the hostility heaped upon a person not wearing a mask in a grocery store.  Look at the vile and pernicious comments left when a police officer is killed.  Check out the hate and discontent when you simply praise on social media the sitting president for accomplishing peace deals in the Middle East.  That is where disunity and all the petty lines of separation have left America.

PatriotismToday’s America is full of hyphenated Americans, “Black-American,” “Irish-American,” “Mexican-American,” and the list goes on.  Today’s America is full of petty and pernicious lines of separation, Republican, Democrat, Atheist, Catholic, Protestant, and so many more.  Today’s America is full of hate, spite, envy, malice, and every type of egotistical maelstrom possible to keep feeding the fires that separate, divide, and destroy.  It has gotten to a point that what one watches, or does not watch on TV is now prey for creating and casting aspersions, insults, derogatory commentary, or worse physical/mental abuse and violence.

Why is America different, because our unity has always been our strength.  But, the strength of unity is like a muscle, if not used regularly it begins to shrink and atrophy.  President Lincoln said,

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as newNorth as well as South.”

Right now, America is in the same place as when President Lincoln made these remarks.  We are divided; make no mistake.  Either the opponents of America will destroy America, shred the Constitution, and remake the laws to fit their own idiocy catapulting America in socialism and thence to communism.  Or.  America will unify, rediscover her purpose, discover she is strong, and begin to thwart the evil plans of her opponents who have been elected as political leaders, placed into professorships, and held in other offices of power by the enemies of the state.

Image - Eagle & FlagPresident Lincoln’s full address can be found here and represents a blueprint for how America found herself in the first Civil War.  Pray that we quickly learn the lessons of unity, that a second Civil War is not necessary!  America must put on her strength, what strength must she put on, unity of purpose.  Casting off the chains of separation, classification, and division, and embracing unity to conquer the political will and wiles of the socialists, communists, anarchists, and fascists who have taken advantage of America’s hospitality.

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/

Republican Government: The Judicial, the Executive, and the Legislative

Disclaimer:  Calling America a Republic is the correct form of language to describe America’s Governmental system, it does not refer to the political party of the same name.  Referring to America’s government operations as democratic, does not refer to the political party of the same name.

The US Constitution set forth three separate and equal branches of government, possessing their own powers, authority, and processes for governing America.  The problem America is facing right now, the legislative especially, and the executive too frequently, have abnegated their powers to the judicial branch until it is quite common and acceptable for a Speaker of the House of Representatives to rely upon the judicial branch to ascertain intent of a piece of legislation, instead of fixing the legislation in the House of Representatives and the Senate.  So, since America’s schools have refused to teach this coequal system of government, and have bastardized the US Constitution, the following is produced.

The executive branch of government is where a person finds all the bureaucrats, or government employees, who exert the government influence through their decision-making authority granted them by elected officials.  This is one of the reasons why certain offices in government need both the Mayor, Governor, or President’s approval and the approval of an elected governing body, city council, State or Federal Senate.  The US Constitution put in place multiple checks and balances between the three coequal branches of government to ensure that no single branch could dominate all the branches or government.

The legislative branch, which includes city councils, state Houses of Representatives and Senators, and Federal House of Representatives and Senators, write the laws the executive branch is mandated to uphold and serve.  Thus, the will of the people in establishing laws through representation was established.  Therefore, legislators and senators have such tremendous power as to attract the special interest groups in our representative government.

The judicial branch does nothing more, or less, than interpret the constitutionality of a problem brought before a judge.  Criminal judges have a slightly different and more expansive role, but the constitutionality of an action remains the core and the boundaries of their power.

Inherent in the republican form of America’s government is the fundamental belief that there are boundaries and restrictions to action.  This is called the US Constitution.  Not to be confused with Federal, State, and Local rules, laws, and procedures.  A city ordinance is not the US Constitution and if that city ordinance is deemed unconstitutional for the state or federal constitution’s, a judge should declare as much and return the core issues to either the executive or legislative branch for correction.

We must be clear on this issue, the judicial branch can levy fines to encourage behavioral changes, but cannot, and should not, legislate from the bench.  Yet, when the legislatures refuse to enact laws that are fair, just, and timely, it has become common practice to run to a judge and get a judicial ruling.  Thus, causing chaos in the citizenry, and developing a new term for legal scholars, Lawfare.

Judicial Activism is where a judge declares that the US Constitution is a “living document” that should bend to every conceivable contemporary value.  Judicial activism removes the voice of the people from the legislative branches of government and interposes the opinions of a couple of judges as being more valuable than the will of the citizens.

Judicial restraint requires intestinal fortitude and limits the powers of judges to the US Constitution and state constitutions.  Judicial restraint is not popular and as such is regularly castigated by the media and those showing judicial restraint have aspersions, insults, and problems set before them.

Here are several examples of judicial overreach, e.g. judicial activism, that support the problem of legislatures or executives writing bad laws or executing poor policies, and demanding the judicial branch sort out the problems.  Where chaos in the citizenry ensued.

  • June 2015 – Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court ruled that a federal program requiring raisin growers to set aside a percentage of their crops for government redistribution was an unconstitutional “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
    • An extension of judicial overreach from In United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, Inc., 307 U.S. 533 (1939), the Court sustained an order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 246, regulating the price of milk in certain instances.
    • The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 was a New-Deal Agricultural order that allowed the government to seize personal property from farmers, dairymen, etc. and give it away, to regulate prices across America. This is the same time where the power of the USDA began to rise and property began to change its definition as elaborated by Charles Reich in the 1960s.
    • Judicial activism allowed the government to break the fifth amendment of the US Constitution, and the practice continues to this very day by bureaucrat’s hell bent on destroying personal property safeguards in the US Constitution.
    • The legal precedent was set by another case of judicial activism in the Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property. This decision started the doctrine of regulatory taking and features prominently in the legal grounds for Eminent Domain.
  • June 2005 – Eminent Domain, Kelo v. City of New London by a 5-4 majority, it affirmed the city’s right to seize private land as part of an economic development plan—a redefinition of the “Takings Clause” under the Fifth Amendment. The US Constitution states clearly that, “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
    • Until this decision the Eminent Domain and Taking Clause had been strictly and rigidly defined. Five judges who believe in judicial activism opened this “Pandora’s Box,” and the havoc has been nonstop ever since.
    • What was in the “Pandora Box;” before Kelo, eminent domain had been limited to direct government ownership, excluding property transfers to private corporations. With Kelo, the question of whether economic gain, resulting from a “taking” for corporate interests, constituted “public use” finally came under Supreme Court scrutiny, and five judges declared that if a corporation has interests, those interests are the same as government interests.
    • As proven by Eminent Domain, corporate interests change with economies and when corporate interests change, the property holder does not get their property back, and if seized under eminent domain, the government can choose what the value of the property is worth.
    • Ever want to see the power of bureaucrats in action, look at the abuses that property owners have suffered through eminent domain. Ever want to see why judicial restraint is critical, look no further than the still undeveloped land in the Kelo case!
  • January 2011 – Obamacare, everyone should remember all the chaos that ensued in this political tug-of-war between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, with a healthy dose of political grandstanding thrown in for good measure by the executive branch.
    • A judge in Florida issued a decision in a case filed by 25 Republican Attorneys General and Governors striking down the Affordable Care Act.
    • Twelve federal judges have already dismissed challenges to the constitutionality of the health reform law, and two judges – in the Eastern District of Michigan and Western District of Virginia – have upheld the law. In one other case, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia issued a very narrow ruling on the constitutionality of the health reform law’s “individual responsibility” provision and upheld the rest of the law.
    • Worse, there remain multiple issues in Obamacare yet to be decided by the courts because the legislature refuses to clarify, act, or even respond to judicial opinions.
  • Continuous Issue (1973) – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
    • A little history on this subject, 1820s and 1830s abortions were common through the fourth month of pregnancy and herbs, pills, and other home remedies were prevalent for use. Then, the physicians of America and the government stepped in to prevent poisoning and assert control over home remedies, midwives, and other medical opinion providers of the time.
    • New York was the first state to legalize, or codify into law abortion, as a public health measure to improve the lives of women. But, the abortion industry had not begun targeting black and non-white communities.  The first women getting abortions mainstream were, a middle- or upper-class white married women.
    • Original feminists opposed abortion practices and wanted only voluntary motherhood through the “right of women to control sex with their husbands.”
    • The original laws banning abortion were enacted to humiliate women who had to discuss their bedroom affairs with the executive and judicial branch representatives.
    • Judges made the decisions to outlaw abortion, through judicial activism because it was taking the legislative branch too long to enact laws the special interest groups, the American Medical Association (AMA), wanted.
    • Judges then made the decision to make abortion on demand legal, through judicial activism, because again it was taking too long for the legislative branch to act and enact the appropriate laws.
    • Thus, judicial activism and abortion have a long and sordid history of causing chaos in America since at least the 1840s. Hence, when a person discusses Roe v. Wade they are only discussing the abortion on demand industry, and not the whole problem of judicial activism on this issue.
  • June 2015 – Homosexual Marriage. The executive branch of government, almost as soon as America was codified into law, began regulating marriage between a man and a woman, based upon Judaeo-Christian understandings of marriage.  By regulating marriage, the government gained a revenue source, a control mechanism for the behavior of the population, and set legal precedents for what is and is not considered a marriage by the state.  Each state adopted their own legal precedents, guidelines, rules, laws, and so forth leading eventually to 50-different opinions on marriage.
    • Important to note, nothing in the US Constitution requires the definition of marriage for all 50 states, nothing in the US Constitution prohibits the state executive branch to regulate marriage. The executive branch acted to regulate marriage licensing as a control measure on individual morality, e.g. the number of wives of husbands a person may have, marriage to animals being forbidden, etc.
    • Five judicial activists decided that all 50-states need to adopt homosexual marriage and exerted their opinion accordingly through the courts. This decision has trumped the executive and legislative branches of government, stolen the individual citizen’s voice, and created untold havoc and uncountable expenses for every person in America.
    • A marriage license and a driver’s license are both executive controls on the population through government setting rules, regulations, and policies. The definition of marriage is a state right’s issue, as the individual states claimed they have the right to regulate marriage when they individually began issuing licenses to marry or drive.
    • For or against homosexual marriage is a state right’s issue, not a Supreme Court, or Federal Government Issue. Hence, the judicial activism that drove this decision is the problem, not necessarily how the judges expressed their opinions.  This decision is a clear-cut example of needing to return a judicial decision to the states to decide through legislative action.

Judicial activism has been carefully cultivated into America, so that every time there is a problem, the solution is to grab a judge and demand a decision.  However, as shown herein, the courts are a gamble, and the worst that occurs is more societal chaos because a judge has overstepped their authority and made unequal the three branches of republican government.  Worse, that judge has rendered the democratic processes of the people’s rights to self-rule invalid, null, and void.

For example, Kelo should have been referred to the legislative and executive branches for a decision, as the “Taking Clause” was constitutional, but rigidly controlled.  But, because the judicial stepped in to “solve the problem,” through adjudication, chaos has ensued, which has forced, at a minimum, 40 different interpretations of the “Taking Clause.”  Which opens a minimum of 80-different potential decisions if the courts decide to take up the Eminent Domain issue again.  Talk about chaos!

The executive branch and the legislative branch must be held accountable for abnegating their duties.  This accountability occurs at the ballot box where the lazy and recalcitrant lawmaker is returned to being a private citizen.  Then, launching a judicially correct investigation into why that person abnegated their duties; especially, if personal enrichment occurred.  Judges are supposed to be held accountable through the actions of the legislative and executive branch taking firm action, not creating new laws.  The judicial branch oversees executive and legislative investigations only to ensure the US Constitution is properly followed.  Proper checks and balances!

However, there is a caveat to the US Constitution provided by the second president of the United States, John Adams.  “Our Constitution, [which includes all the separate state constitutions,] [were] made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other [type of person].”  Why has the executive and legislative branches abdicated their duties to the judicial; they are not inherently moral or religious.  Why has judicial activism exploded; the people in office are not moral or religious.

Thus, the solution for America is to begin hiring through the election process morally upright and religious people.  Every vote, in every election, matters.  Those on the political left understand this policy and use it as a weapon to create enmity and negate the power of the people to self-government and republican rule through democratic processes.  Make the time, get knowledgeable about candidates and issues, and then vote!

© Copyright 2020 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the pictures.
All rights reserved.  For copies, reprints, or sharing, please contact through LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/davesalisbury/