Comments on: The Judiciary: Tyranny’s Active Agent

By: Joseph BH McMillan

Joseph BH McMillan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:27:56 +0000

I hope the arguments I have made (eg, in the Ten Principles of Freedom articles) do not leave anyone with that impression. The original idea behind the Constitution was that it be defined by clear Principles to which both government and the courts would be subjected. It was not. I am saying that now is the time to do that – although it may already be too late.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.conm

By: resourceguy66

resourceguy66 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:46:01 +0000

So, the solution is to amend the Constitution to give Congress an override of judicial review. Perhaps something along the lines of a 60% majority vote to override a judicial fiat.

Could the court, then, declare a portion of the Constitution, ‘unconstitutional?’ I once posed this
question to a law professor, who had no answer.

A tyrant can do whatever they please until natural rights rights are reasserted.

By: Joseph BH McMillan

Joseph BH McMillan — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:05:50 +0000

Dear Mr Brewton, I agree! But if you give a dog a bone, it will chew on it, and it will chew on it, until there is nothing left.

And that has been the effect of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. As I have already observed in a Comment on this site (Do the Democrats Really Believe in Democratic Capitalism?), even Jefferson recognized that the Constitution was capable of being a “blank piece of paper”.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights is subject to any Principles whatsoever. Much as everyone pays homage to our cherished Rights, they really mean nothing.

This is Justice Scalia on these things we call Rights: “the Constitution has a Due Process Clause, which says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Now, what does this guarantee? Does it guarantee life, liberty or property? No, indeed! All three can be taken away. You can be fined, you can be incarcerated, you can even be executed, but not without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee.”

In my book, Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights, I refer to Rights as “procedural expectations”. Oddly, though, I get hammered by those who claim they are only construed so by those Justices who are not ‘strict constructionists’. I doubt that such a charge could be leveled against Justice Scalia.

So, when we give the Courts a “blank piece of paper” we should not be surprised when they use it to make faces at us!!!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com