A CONSTITUTIONAL "LITMUS TEST" FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES
PART 2 of 2

 

 

 

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
February 9, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

(4) The fourth relevant precept of Marxism-Leninism that currently befouls America�s judicial system is AMORALISM or even IMMORALISM. As Benjamin Gitlow, once a high-ranking operative in the Communist Party USA wrote, "[g]etting the American communists to reject the ethical concepts of civilization constituted the central point in the campaign for the[ir] bolshevization." The Whole of Their Lives: Communism in America�A Personal History and Intimate Portrayal of its Leaders (Belmont, Massachusetts: The Americanist Library, 1965), at 81. Under the communist creed, traditional morality is rejected as bourgeois superstition, the ends always justify the means, and what is "moral" is simply what advances the agenda of "the vanguard of the proletariat."

In Lawrence v. Texas the judicial "vanguard of the proletariat" suddenly informed America that because "the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." 539 U.S. at 577-78. That is, in one fell swoop Lawrence disconnected law from morality--or, more precisely, law from morality as "traditionally viewed." And how have the moral and the immoral been "traditionally viewed" in this country? Why, through the lens of Christianity. But in the future, according to Lawrence, when interpreting the Constitution judges may--and, indeed, should (just as Lawrence did)--"take account of * * * authorities pointing in an opposite direction" from "the history of Western civilization and * * * Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards." 539 U.S. at 571-72.

Precisely what are the "authorities" that "point[ ] in [such] an opposite direction?" If "Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards" rest on the Ten Commandments, what are their OPPOSITES? Thou shalt have no God? Thou shalt kill? Thou shalt steal? Thou shalt bear false witness?

(i) Undoubtedly the first of these anti-commandments is the contemporary legal Establishment's long-range goal: to drive God, the mention of God, and even the idea of God from every public place and function by means of extending the fictional "wall of separation between church and state." (Perhaps, ultimately to replace God with the deified state; or to infuse into the thoroughly purged public mind some syncretic globalist "religion" wreathed in the smoke of Satan.)

(ii) Abortion on demand is wanton killing--mostly for convenience, and all for profit--that the legal Establishment has made commonplace. Even Moloch typically asked only for the sacrifice of the first born. The high priests of abortion on demand, however, seek the sacrifice of as many children as possible. Americans are dealing here, not with "the separation of church and state," but with a veritable unification of church and state. The "church," however, is the latter-day resurrection of the high temple of the Aztecs, where untold numbers were ritually slaughtered to appease the blood-lust of their sun god, just as untold numbers are slaughtered today to appease the blood-lusts of population controllers, eugenicists, "deep environmentalists," radical feminists, "scientists" eager to experiment with human beings, and other creatures of darkness. (Rather than a monster, Dr. Mengele has proven to be a prophetic figure for these, his spiritual descendants!)

(iii) Thanks to those Justices on the Supreme Court who, unlike America's benighted Founding Fathers, are not "blind * * * to certain truths." eminent domain has been transformed into a method for looting the relatively poor in order economically to empower the relatively rich and the political Pinocchios whose strings they pull.

(iv) And none of these first three anti-commandments could be followed were the fourth not heeded, too. The Constitution requires that "all * * * judicial Officers * * * of the United States * * * shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution." Article VI, Clause 3. But what can an "Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution" mean to someone who believes that he may interpret the Constitution any way he likes, and that his interpretations, no matter how ridiculous, actually become the Constitution by their own force? Moreover, what can an "Oath or Affirmation" mean to a thoroughly modern jurist for whom "separation of church and state" is an article of faith--such that even the possibility of Divine punishment for perjury cannot be suggested as part of the Constitution's plan, and therefore held up as a deterrent? Thus, by itself, the utterly nugatory and absurd nature of an "Oath or Affirmation" under such circumstances proves that the Founding Fathers could never have intended contemporary "judicial supremacy" to have any part in America's constitutional system, let alone to obtain the strangle hold it now grips this country. But then, Americans have been told, the Founding Fathers were "blind * * * to certain truths"...

What kind of society will be created by these and other anti-commandments that majorities of five foolish jurists on the Supreme Court--and, perhaps even worse, hundreds of judges in lower courts--make up as they go along? Dr. Frankenstein experimented on but a single cadaver, and then only physically, but nonetheless with disastrous results. What horrors must one expect from experiments in amorality and immorality that legal quacks perform on an entire country?

(5) The fifth relevant principle of Marxist-Leninist thought now insinuating itself into contemporary American courts is RADICAL INTERNATIONALISM--embodied most fully in Leon Trotsky's doctrine of permanent world revolution. This appears rather starkly in Lawrence v. Texas, which relied on foreign law to "interpret" the Constitution of the United States. 529 U.S. at 571-73, 576-77. That such a procedure repudiates the Declaration of Independence could not have been lost on the Justices adopting it. The purpose for this departure from America's foundational document is also no mystery: Insofar as foreign law can change with the speed and facility of a kaleidoscope, the potential for permanently revolutionizing and especially globalizing American "constitutional law" by reference to it is now limitless.

(6) Perhaps the most far-reaching of the Marxist-Leninist precepts that have gained a foothold in "constitutional law" is

POLYLOGISM. Polylogism denies that human minds are uniformly logical or rational. Marx applied polylogism primarily to socio-economic classes, particularly "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat." As Mao Tse-tung expressed the idea, "[i]n a class society everyone lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a class." Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung (Peking, China: Foreign Language Press, 1968), at 8. For Marxist-Leninists, "class war" is the inevitable, inescapable product of innate, antagonistic differences in the way men think. Social peace is therefore impossible unless all the "classes" that think in ways "the vanguard of the proletariat" condemns as "deviant" are suppressed, or actually eliminated.

Contemporary Supreme Court Justices have gone Marx and Mao one better, by utterly "democratizing" polylogism as a principle of "constitutional law:" "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Lawrence v. Texas, 529 U.S. 558, 574 (2003), quoting from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). According to this theory, everyone has his own "concept of existence" and "of meaning." One man's truth is not necessarily another's. Which entails that no objective truth exists at all, only subjective "concept[s]." All "truth" reduces to mere opinion--perhaps intelligible only to the person holding it.

Self-evidently, this doctrine is utterly lawless. Under its aegis, there are no actual "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
and "unalienable rights" upon which all men of good will must agree, or perhaps even which all men can understand. And every point of "constitutional law" can import one thing to one individual, another thing to someone else; or even one thing to an individual at one time, and a completely different thing to the selfsame individual at some other time--with all these meanings being of purportedly equal validity at all times.

Taken literally, this would unleash anarchy. But, in the spirit of "democratic centralism" (with emphasis on "centralism"), the Justices never intended to apply this elastic "concept" of "liberty" equally to everyone. In the final analysis, it empowers only the "interpreters" of the Constitution, the judicial elite, "the vanguard of the proletariat." Because "liberty," as well as "property" and even "life," can be denied with due process of law, the contours of which judges under color of "judicial supremacy" claim the final authority to define, some people's "concept[s] of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" can be denied outright, and other people's "concept[s]" imposed upon them. "Truth," then, becomes whatever judges�say it is, simply because they say so, and without possibility of contradiction--no matter how idiotic and socially destructive their "concept[s]" may be.

And even when judicial "concept[s] of existence * * * and of the mystery of human life" contradict the plainest facts of human experience. For example, the Supreme Court's opinions licensing abortion as a "constitutional right" refer to unborn human beings as having only "potential life," which supposedly disqualifies them for any right to life itself. E.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852, 859, 870, 871, 875, 876, 877, 878, 882 (1992) (opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). This is truly the Justices' very own "concept of existence * * * and of the mystery of human life," because every gestating human being is actual life, actual human life, and actual genetically distinct human life, not a "potential" anything. No scientific concept of "potential life" applies to unborn human beings. The notion does not derive from biology, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, obstetrics, or any other relevant discipline. It is alien even to the common sense of animal breeders, who know that gestating horses or cattle are just that, and not "potential life."

So, too, the Justices' concept of "potential life" is alien to Christianity. But, then, the Justices also never tire of informing America that a "wall of separation between church and state" must be maintained when they interpret the Constitution. Except, of course, that they may "take account of * * * authorities pointing in an opposite direction" from "the history of Western civilization and * * * Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards"--which logically must permit them to peer over the "wall of separation" just enough to determine what Christian "moral and ethical standards" are, so that they can find "authorities pointing in an opposite direction." (Meaning that the "wall of separation between church and state" is actually a turnstile that revolves in only one direction--the wrong one.)

But if one may wonder from exactly what source, antithetical to science and antagonistic to Christianity, comes the Justices' peculiar notion of "potential life," no one need doubt that "potential life" is yet another excrescence of the immoral, "democratic centralism" of the "vanguard:" that is, the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power. "Arbitrary," because it provides no reasons with which all Americans, in the exercise of a common rationality and morality, ought to agree (there being no such reasons within anyone's understanding that condone the theory of "potential life.") "Unlimited," because without objectively rational definitions of "life, liberty, and property" there can be no limits to deprivations thereof. And, as all arbitrary, unlimited power ultimately does, expressing itself in homicidal violence on a massive scale.

Not surprisingly, each and every one of these Bolshevist principles flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence: namely,

So, too, does every one of these Bolshevist principles affront the Constitution, because the legitimacy and authority of the Constitution depends upon the Declaration.

Even more than that: If the Colonies declared their independence, formed State governments, and then combined in a Union legitimately, some law other than that of Britain sanctioned their actions. (Under British law, after all, the Colonists were simply traitors.) Moreover, the legal principles affording legitimacy to the Colonists' actions could not have been created by the Colonists themselves, out of nothing. So, not only must those principles have been superior to British law, but also they must have preexisted and been superior to, as the creators of, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which utterly depended upon them. Therefore, those principles must then have had, and must still retain, their own separate, superior existence and authority--notwithstanding and in contradiction of any supposed "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life" asserted by judges, politicians, or special-interest groups.

Consequentially, today, no officials within any government created perforce of this higher law--be it the General Government or the government of any State--can assert any authority to set that law aside. Or to adopt, or even to subscribe to, principles in opposition to it.

So no nominee to the Supreme Court--or any other court, for that matter--who does not categorically and absolutely repudiate every one of the pernicious principles of Marxism-Leninism described in this Commentary is fit for judicial office.

That is a "litmus test" all patriotic Americans should demand.

Click here for part -----> 1

� 2006 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved