Additional Titles

 

 

 

Related Article:

Supreme Court Self Destructs...

Shall It Long Endure?

 

Other Taft Articles:

Sheriff Dave Daniel Plays While The Public Pays

Wildfires: Radical Environmenta- lists, Bad Laws or Poor Forest Management?

Sex Treatment Program Allegedly Runs on Fear, Intimidation & Pornography

FIVE SUPREME COURT THUGS PUMMEL CONSTITUTION

 

 

By Investigative Reporter
John Taft

July 1, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

"Equal Justice Under Law," are the words Supreme Court judges can view over the main entrance to the Supreme Court. These words appear to mean nothing to Sandra Day O’Connor and four other judges. In a touchy- feely decision, the court violated its oath of office to uphold the Constitution, ignored the Fourteenth Amendment, and attempted to justify its decision.

In a foggy, murky landscape of muddled decision, Supreme Court members O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg voted for illegal racial quotas in universities. Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas cast dissenting votes in support of Constitutional law. One race can now receive preferential treatment over another race in gaining admission to universities. In this case, a white person can legally be discriminated against along with Hispanics, Asians and Indians, according to the vote and opinion of Justice O’Connor. The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution to prevent one race from receiving preferential treatment over another race in American society. All races are to be equal under the law. The intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear to all that bother to read it. The Supreme Court has now created an American caste pecking-order within the educational system, making some races more equal than others. This is arguably an arrogant, corrupt, and incompetent ruling, leaving no doubt as to the judicial ethics of those who voted for these racial quotas.

What the Fourteenth Amendment Says

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." Stated in slightly more user-friendly words, it is illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment for any state to allow one group of citizens special privileges over another group of citizens. All citizens have equal protection under the law. This is what Ms. O’Connor and her cohorts are ignoring. The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted three years after the Civil War to ensure that the black man had equal rights under the Constitution, not that he had more rights than others.

Congress on the Constitutional Hook

What the infamous five on the court have done is to make an illegal ruling by ignoring Constitutional law they are legally bound to follow. When each member of the court was approved for his lifetime position, he swore to uphold the Constitution. The following words are included in the oath of office most federal officials affirm to gain office. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." It is vitally important that the reader clearly understand the commitment the Supreme Court members have made to the Constitution when accepting this office. By failing to adhere to his oath, each has breached his contract with the people of this nation. The conclusion is quite simple; the slippery five have lied. The fact is your congressmen, just like the Supreme Court members, were required to swear to uphold the Constitution before they could vote on bills, receive salaries, benefits, and other perks. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Will your congressman step forward and protect the Constitution? From the recent actions of a majority of congress, it is highly unlikely that this group who passed the Campaign Finance Law has little interest in the Constitution. President Bush reluctantly signed this unconstitutional law that denies free speech, thus circumventing the First Amendment to the Constitution. His reported attitude was to let the Supreme Court rule on the law. The Infamous Five Supreme Court appointees have shown they will not protect the Constitution when it interferes with personal ideology. This is why their oaths of office tie them to the Constitution. When your Congressman and Supreme Court employees slip their Constitutional leashes, they behave just like Sandra Day O’Connor.

Justice O’Connor’s Compelling Interest

In writing the court’s majority opinion, Sandra Day O’Connor used hocus pocus phrases such as "race conscious admissions" and "compelling state interest." States’ compelling interests are garbage when compared to the compelling interests of the Constitution. Ms. O’Connor continues, "We expect in 25 years from now, the use of racial preference will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." In writing his opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas countered with this passionate statement, "The Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months." The following quote comes from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court and published by the Supreme Court Historical Society. "The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive action which in the Court’s considered judgment conflicts with the Constitution." The key words here are "conflicts with the Constitution." Their oaths of office to protect the Constitution leave them in the position of having to ask themselves, when making rulings, if this decision conflicts with the Constitution. If so, then the court has no legal or moral right to make that decision. Ms. O’Connor and the others who voted in favor of racial quotas should have addressed why their compelling interests were not in upholding their oaths of office and protecting the Constitution of the United States of America.

What’s Next From the High Court

Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said in 1932 during the placement of the corner stone of the present Supreme Court building, "The republic endures, and this is the symbol of its faith." This faith has been severely shaken by O’Connor and her cohorts’ propensity to ignore the Constitution and create their own version of the law. One can only wonder what part of the Constitution they will assault next. Second Amendment rights? Are all handguns to be banned because of a compelling interest by the states? Or perhaps, further attacks on the First Amendment rights of free speech? This affirmative action ruling clearly shows that the Constitution is under siege by a Supreme Court that has slipped its leash and ignores Constitutional law while operating in a touchy- feely mode.

© 2003 John Taft - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

 


John Taft former president of Josephine County, OR. Taxpayers Association is presently an investigative reporter for the US-Oregon Observer and NewsWithViews.com. He has had many years of broadcasting, news writing and reporting experience. He also has written a popular conservative newsletter for a taxpayers organization to inform the public on taxing issues. John can be reached at joconewsline@hotmail.com John's Web site: www.Strobezone.homestead.com


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In a foggy, murky landscape of muddled decision, Supreme Court members O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg voted for illegal racial quotas in universities."

"Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said in 1932 during the placement of the corner stone of the present Supreme Court building, "The republic endures, and this is the symbol of its faith." This faith has been severely shaken by O’Connor and her cohorts’ propensity to ignore the Constitution and create their own version of the law."