Supreme Court

Supreme Court

One Court to Rule Them All?

Is The Supreme Court Really Supreme?

Montfort S. Ray, J.D.

US Supreme Court


To understand the limitations on the powers of the “Supremes,” you must first understand your own power as the supreme sovereign of the American legal and political system.

Sovereignty is all about knowing who you are, and most of us have forgotten. Fortunately, it is easy to remember by reading a very few words.

Just as a mighty oak tree emerges from a tiny acorn, America’s entire political and legal system (the real one) springs from a single paragraph in the Declaration of Independence. America was born when Thomas Jefferson wrote the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.[1]

Let me boil that down for you. You have God-given rights, and the only purpose of government is to protect these rights. That’s American law in a nutshell.

Notice that these rights are possessed only by the individual. The People as a collective do not have legal rights. Legally, the concept known as “the People” is a fiction, like a forest – only the individual trees are real.

It is the individual who is the supreme sovereign of the American political and legal system. It is the individual who is the source of all governmental authority.


The Obamacare Decision

The founding fathers did not fight a war for independence only to replace one tyrant (King George III) with five more (back then there were only five Supreme Court justices).

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the founders were afraid to endow any branch of government with supreme power.

Their worst fears have been realized. The Nine have become enthroned, and their legal opinions are revered throughout the land.

That wouldn’t be so bad if they were consummately wise and impartial, but the Supremes have become cheerleaders for the Democratic Party. Not all of the justices, and not all of the time; but most of them, when it really matters.

Moreover, the Court has long since abandoned its role as a champion of our founding documents. For example, not a single law of Congress was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court from 1937 to 1995. Does that sound like a judiciary that defends the Constitution?

How hard can it be to spot unconstitutional executive orders and statutes passed by a President and a Congress that treat the Supreme Law of the Land like road kill?

The Politicization of the Supreme Court

“All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by a virtuous and independent judiciary.” -Andrew Jackson

Sorry, Andrew. That bubble has popped. The Supreme Court has become politically weaponized. It has largely (not completely, but largely) abandoned the rule of law in order to assist in the creation of an authoritarian state.

Consider the “Obamacare” decision.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare," was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's “individual mandate” (requiring individuals to participate in Obamacare) in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.[2]

The majority opinion in that case began well when Chief Justice John Roberts correctly declared that we have a government of limited powers, and Congress can only act when it is expressly and specifically authorized by the Constitution to do so.

Roberts concluded that Congress was not expressly and specifically authorized to require that Americans participate in Obamacare. He points out that the interstate commerce clause enables Congress to regulate existing commerce, but not to require citizens to initiate commerce (by paying healthcare insurance premiums).

The Court therefore ruled that the “individual mandate,” the heart of Obamacare, is therefore unconstitutional. Hallelujah!

Whatever Happened To John Roberts?

However, Roberts then declared that the individual mandate was nonetheless constitutional because it could have been passed as a tax.

No, it couldn’t have. The Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on imaginary cases.

Consider the rumored dispute between the extraterrestrial humanoid races known as the Klingons and the Romulons. Would a High Court ruling on that case have any force of law? No, because that case doesn’t actually, uh, exist, (and if it did, the Supreme Court does not have any off-planet jurisdiction).

The Court has the power to rule only on the actual/specific case before it, in this case, NFIB v. Sebelius. That case was not a case involving a tax bill. All tax bills (bills for raising revenue) must originate in the House of Representatives, and Obamacare did not. The Court admitted that, and even admitted that Obamacare was not in fact such a bill.

Therefore, Roberts’ conjecture that Obamacare could have been passed as a tax has no force of law. His conjecture and ruling applied to another case, an imaginary case, a case which did not exist -- on this planet, anyway

Also, Roberts had exceeded his judicial authority to the extent that he attempted to amend the Obamacare statute in order to save it. Amendments are legislative functions reserved for Congress. This is a gross violation of the doctrine of separation of powers (between the legislature and the judiciary). The judiciary’s job is to interpret law, not to make law. Therefore, the Court’s opinion is a nullity.

The Sebelius decision is a bizarre departure from the rule of law. However, America does not know that. The People regard the Supreme Court as an infallible priesthood whose rulings become the Supreme Law of the Land.

Not so! Only the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are our Supreme Laws. Judicial opinions can never attain that status.

Anthony Weiner –

Spokesperson For Oscar Meyer

That’s pretty damn unlikely. Even more unlikely is whether, as Chief Justice Roberts claimed, Congress actually could have (honestly and openly) passed Obamacare into law as a tax. No way!

If the American people had been told that the individual mandate was to be a tax, they would have gone ballistic. That kind of tax – a direct tax – would have to be equally apportioned throughout the population. We would have instantly known that everyone would be liable for it.

Instead, we were told that Obamacare was a way to provide insurance only for a particular class of people – the uninsured – and that it was optional for everyone else.

Obamacare was therefore a denial of equal protection because its (alleged) purpose was to provide medical insurance to a certain class – say 20% of the population. The law was overly broad and inclusive because it also applies to the 80% of the population who already had medical insurance and who were therefore denied equal protection by the Obamacare statute.

The creators of Obamacare were careful never to reveal that it was to be enforced as a tax. Until it was passed into law, our alpha male President (the Man Who Will Say Anything) laid down covering fire by daily lying to us (the People Who Will Believe Anything) that our participation was voluntary-not-mandatory and that we could keep our current insurance.

Legislative deception of this magnitude is rare in our history.

Only after Obamacare became law did the American people learn that it was mandatory and that the payment of their insurance premiums would be enforced and collected as a tax by the New Gestapo, the politically weaponized IRS. If the People had known this in advance, Obamacare would never have made it to first base.

Legislator Passes Law “To See What’s In It”

The Progressive “pack” on the Hill did its job by pretending not to know what was in the Obamacare bill. “We’ll have to pass the bill to see what’s in it,” said Nancy Pelosi.

She lied. She already knew what was in it.

Are we to believe that one who is elected to evaluate and vote on legislation should propose that a bill be passed into law so that she could discover what’s in it?

Well, yes, you should believe that. It happens all the time. The federal legislature is monumentally incompetent.

However, in this case, Ms. Pelosi was also the House Majority Speaker in charge of enacting an historic law which would dramatically advance the Progressive/collectivist agenda.

Nancy Pelosi knew damn well what was in the bill. How could she not? She had a huge staff of legislative assistants who kept her fully informed. So did Barack. Obamacare was his signature legislation.

However, they couldn’t tell you about Obamacare in advance because the bill was such a stinker. So they pretended ignorance. They lied.

The Republican leaders were likely in on the scam. How could they not be? Is it really believable that they knew nothing about the content of a major bill slowly making its way through the House for over a year?

If they didn’t know, then they are corrupt and incompetent. So, whether they knew or didn’t know, they don’t deserve to hold office.

The Supreme Court was also in on the scam. How could it not be?

Our keepers simply could not take the chance that the Court would strike down Obamacare (which was a virtual certainty; it was outrageously unconstitutional). The Progressive movement had staked its reputation (and Obama’s legacy) on Obamacare.

The law was flagrantly illegal, so they had to be assured that the “High” Court would be willing to check the rule of law at the courthouse door in order to somehow put legal lipstick on a legislative pig.

Everyone did his part, and as a result, one sixth of the American economy is now under the control of the Progressive ruling class. As Adolph Hitler said,

“It is not truth that matters, but victory.”

Victory was the real goal. Progressives never gave a damn about providing healthcare. If they did, why isn’t Obamacare fully functioning today – over five years since it became law? That would require a level of sincerity and competence which is completely un-Progressive.

The Progressives’ overarching goal is not to provide service. It’s to increase the size of the federal government “by any means necessary” in order to eventually amass enough power to completely control the social and political order.

By upholding Obamacare, the Supreme Court is sending America a message: Congress can pass any law it wants, even if it is not authorized to do so, even if it violates the Supreme Law of the Land – if the law can be passed as a tax! And if it can, you had better comply or the New Gestapo will make your life miserable.

Under that reasoning, what future law cannot be enforced as a tax? For example, what if congress passed an outrageously unconstitutional law outlawing all firearms? The Court could simply rule that the law could have been passed as a tax.

The Obamacare decision demonstrates why it is folly to regard the Supreme Court as an infallible priesthood. Thomas Jefferson tells us:

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.

Their maxim is boni judicius est ampliere jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.[3]


Relativism -- The War on Truth

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – no more, no less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is to be master – that is all.”[4]

How can it be that the High Court has fallen so low and that the rule of law has become the rule of (nine) men and women? I’ll give you a one-word answer: relativism – the core of the ideology of the Hard Left.

Relativism is the view that all truth is relative to the observer and his environment, having no connection to a permanent realm of virtue and morality.

Barack Obama is the ultimate relativist, as was his mentor, Saul Alinsky, who tells us that a community

“organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.[5]

[T]he free society organizer is loose, resilient, fluid, and on the move in a society which is itself in a state of constant change. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations our society presents.”[6]

Progressivism regards truth, morality and law as “shackles of dogma.”

These people are absolutely bound to the material world. Matter is all they know and believe in, because it’s all they have experienced, all they can comprehend at their current level of consciousness.

The material world is always changing. Nothing is permanent in that world. Nothing.

This is why animal-dominated individuals (most of humanity) have such profound disrespect for principles, values, religion and the rule of law. They see those things as merely the result of an individual’s or a society’s ever-changing opinion or point of view, and one is as valid as another.

The animal ego revels in the absence of restraints, like law and morality. Our animal nature is concerned only with the immediate satisfaction of its personal self-interest.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. – Pope Benedict XVI.

Animal consciousness is not evil. It is simply immature. The Animal Left cannot yet comprehend a reality which is independent of time and space. The collective mind is not yet strong enough to assume responsibility for individual sovereignty and decision making, and alpha male leadership is always waiting in the wings.

Legal Relativism -- The War On The Rule Of Law

“A constitution should be short and obscure.”

-- Napoleon Bonaparte

During the twentieth century, relativism has increasingly infested the American legal system.

To legal relativists there is no such thing as a higher and superior system of law. For them the U.S. Constitution was the creation of eighteenth century sod busters. Their primitive legal system was just perfect for a wilderness society, but not for us “moderns.”

The Constitution is viewed by the Left as a “living” document which must be re-interpreted when new circumstances arise. In the opinion of today’s judiciary, the Constitution no longer contains truths and principles which spring from a permanent realm of virtue, supportive of all life. All laws are simply “relative” to their ever-changing context.

Many advocate that the Constitution be amended, or even repealed.

What’s the point? Relativist judges are already interpreting the Constitution in such a way that, for all practical purposes, it no longer exists. It has already been repealed -- by (mis)interpretation or by those who simply ignore it. I am reminded of an old lawyer saying: “The law is in the judge’s law.”

For example, the Supreme Law of the Land, which the 50 states have agreed to obey and defend, specifically requires each state to have a militia.

Judges today tell us that the militia requirement of the Second Amendment needn’t be enforced. Why not? Because there are no state militia anymore.

Follow the logic. All you have to do to amend/subvert the Constitution is to disobey it. Apparently, disobedience is one of those “changing conditions” to which law must be responsive.

Also, the Second Amendment declares that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Applying the above logic, if all guns are confiscated, then the right to keep and bear them cannot possibly be infringed because there are no more guns to keep and bear.

Relativists argue that the right to bear arms changes with the circumstances, and that guns were appropriate for the frontier, not for today’s big cities. After all, when was the last time you had to shoot a squirrel at Times Square for your supper?”

Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.

Monetary Relativism

The same argument applies to the gold-as-legal-tender requirement. It’s no longer a requirement because the states aren’t actually using gold and silver as legal tender. So, the legal tender law is no longer needed because no one is complying with it.

Also, gold may have been okay for Davey Crockett, but it’s so heavy and cumbersome, you know.

Instead, we have a “fiat” currency, a currency established by government fiat. Fiat means “because I say so.” It is a currency imposed by decree, by force, by “fiat” -- even if that fiat currency is not only unauthorized but is specifically prohibited (“No state shall “emit bills of credit.”)

Relativist judges wear the chains of the Constitution lightly. They really believe that the ban on unbacked paper money (Federal Reserve Notes) no longer applies because … we are using unbacked paper money. After all, why should law interfere with monetary reality, even if it is illegal? Indeed, why should law be concerned with illegality at all? Illegality is therefore acceptable … because it exists.

Therefore, the Constitution doesn’t have to be enforced -- if it’s being violated. Violations are merely new circumstances which courts must accommodate.

Banking Relativism

Also, the feds no longer have to worry about monetary illegality because they have cleverly given the money power to a private entity (the Fed) and THEY are the ones burning up the printing presses.

Government is forbidden to create paper money, so they got a private bank to create it, and then they borrowed the money from the bank. The government didn’t issue the money; they merely borrowed it.

The Federal Reserve is America’s central bank. The Fed was created by an act of Congress. It’s even called “federal” to make it sound official and respectable. However, the Fed is a private bank because it issues stock, and the stock is owned by other privately owned banks, like Citigroup. The Fed is owned by the largest commercial banks in the country.

So, by creating a private central bank (the Fed) there was enough distance between the government and the bank for the government to disavow government involvement in the creation of the money supply.

I am reminded of the sleazy lawyer on Saturday Night Live who was so fond of saying, “It’s not me. It’s them, isn’t it? It’s not me. I didn’t do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can’t prove anything. It was them. Not me. Them.” (“Me,” of course, is the federal government, and “them” is the Federal Reserve.)

“One may not do indirectly that which is prohibited directly.”[7]

The Constitution requires that “no State shall use any Thing but gold and silver Coin” as legal tender. Loophole sharpshooters say that this doesn’t apply to the federal government because the federal government is not a state.

Rubbish!! It is absurd to suggest that the Constitution permits a separate federal currency. It requires the states to use only gold and silver coin. Does that impliedly authorize the federal government to use another form of currency, one which specifically forbidden (“bills of credit,” i.e., paper currency, i.e., FRNs)?

The Constitution of the United States of America is not just a noble resolution and statement of national purpose. It is the law. Actually, it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

To interpret a law you look to the plain meaning of its words. If the meaning is still in doubt, the intent of the legislators who passed the law will decide the issue, and the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding money is clear.

The Fathers wanted the state and federal governments to stay completely the hell out of the money business. The power to coin money is not the power to print unbacked paper money, but to strike into coin precious metals occasionally brought by the people to the U.S. Mint.

Occasionally, there is a need for a whole lot of currency “right now,” e.g., to mobilize for war. Conceivably, under martial law, the government might (unconstitutionally) print money, but for a limited time and purpose only. When peace returns, so should the Constitution.

If you don’t like what the Constitution says, then amend it. That’s been done twenty-seven times, and that’s perfectly legal. If you don’t amend it, obey it. However, to obey it, you first have to know what the Constitution says. Most people have no idea because they’ve never even read it.

I wonder if the nine justices on the Supreme Court have ever read the Constitution from top to bottom. I’m serious!! How do you go from constitutionally mandated gold and silver coin to a forbidden paper currency and still have a federal judiciary, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America that can look itself in the mirror?


A Government of Laws or Men?

The Supreme Court believes that “the law is in the judge’s jaw.” For example, Justice Thurgood Marshall once said “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” Justice Arthur Goldberg said that his goal was to achieve “what is the just result.” [8]

Bullfeathers! Your job is not to channel or create or divine what you feel is right or just. Your job is to compare the facts of a case to the Constitution as written and as intended by the Founding Fathers. The law is not in your jaw or in the jaw of your Higher Self.

Because we rely so heavily on the federal judicial system to tell us what’s constitutional, Americans have forgotten their roots. Even our Senators and Congressmen know little about our founding documents and principles. Today I heard a reporter ask a U.S. Senator about the Constitutionality of the bailout legislation, and he begged off by saying “I’m not a lawyer.” That’s pathetic. He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but he doesn’t know what it says?

Most of the media wouldn’t recognize the Constitution if it ran up and bit them on their press cards. That’s why the servile press never questions what is handed down by the Supremes. One is reminded of feeding time at the seal and walrus pool at the zoo.

The Constitution isn’t complicated. It’s not over your pretty little head! We no longer have the luxury of deferring to legal “experts.” The expertise of others is what got us into this mess.

Is Judicial Review Constitutional?

We look to the Supreme Court to tell us about the most fundamental context of American jurisprudence because we actually believe that the Court has the final say on the subject. Judicial supremacy is a myth which was conjured up by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.

Marshall preposterously ruled in that case that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and that its opinions, because they enjoy the same status as the Constitution itself, are binding on all departments of state and federal government pursuant to the supremacy clause.

Actually that clause confers supremacy status only on federal laws, and judicial decisions are not laws. They are interpretations of laws.

Judicial supremacy seems to presume judicial infallibility. Of course, this would mean that the Supreme Court could never commit tyranny or treason if its opinions are the supreme law of the land.

One Justice Was A Klan Member

How can human beings be infallible? Indeed, several justices were clearly mentally incompetent. Some were flagrantly racist and anti-Semitic. Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and justice James C. McReynolds . . .

“refused to stand next to Justice Lewis Brandeis, the Court’s first Jewish justice. He would leave the room whenever Brandeis would speak in conference. He was also openly hostile toward the second Jewish justice Benjamin Cardozo. “He often held a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench on opinion day.” [9]

Do you regard these men as “infallible”?

How infallible is a Supreme Court which has approved an act of Congress (creating the Federal Reserve) that gave the right to create money (which right Congress did not have) to a private bank (which none of Congress’ 18 powers permitted), authorizing the creation of money in a form which the Constitution specifically forbids? I am reminded of Edwin Vieira’s recent comment:

“But if the principle that any thinking American can reject a decision of the Supreme Court that fails to square with the Constitution applies to any case, it applies to every case. The greater the stupidity of the decision simply increases the speed with which the reader recognizes its unconstitutionality.” [10]

Largely, the nation’s response to John Marshall’s power grab was to simply ignore it. The states and the other federal departments regarded his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison as just that – his opinion. As Andrew Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”[11]

Like most of America in 1819, Andy was aware of the precise legal authority of the Supreme Court. In response to the Court’s ruling in McCullough vs. Maryland,[12] Andrew Jackson, an old war horse (not a lawyer) wrote the most sublime description of the limits of judicial authority in the history of American jurisprudence.

“Mere [judicial] precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as well settled . . .

[T]he opinion of the Supreme Court . . . ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.

It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive . . . , but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.”[13]

The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Is Just That

Thomas Jefferson, no less an authority on judicial power, said that “whenever a free people should give up in absolute submission to any department of government, retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their liberties were gone.” [14] He also added:

“The Constitution intended that the three great branches of the government should be coordinate and independent

of each other. As to acts, therefore, which are to be done by either, it is given no control to another branch . . it did not intend to give the judiciary . . . control over the executive . . . . I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury vs. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law.”[15]

Abraham Lincoln tells us that

“the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” [16]

The Founding Fathers intended that the legislative, executive and judicial branches be equal in their ability to interpret the Constitution, and to act accordingly within their respective departments. Indeed, each had taken an oath to do so. The Fathers did not intend that one branch have veto power over the others, i.e., the final word on what the Constitution really means.

“[T]he purpose of this division was, not merely to divvy up the chores, but to balance one branch against the other. The goal was not to make government efficient but to deliberately make it inefficient. Each president and each legislator is morally bound even by oath, to uphold the Constitution. If each of them does not have the power to decide in conscience what is constitutional, then taking an oath to uphold it has little meaning.”[17]

Regarding the McCullough case, Jefferson added the following:

“My construction of the Constitution is that each department [branch of government] is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action.”[18]

If the President and Congress enjoyed freedom from judicial supremacy, then the creator of the entire federal government -- the states -- should feel even less bound.

A typical response to the McCullough decision at the state level was made by the Ohio legislature which declared that “we are aware of the doctrine, that Federal courts are exclusively vested with jurisdiction to declare, in the last resort, the true interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To this doctrine . . . [we] can never give [our] assent.” [19]

Thomas DiLorenzo tells us:

“Common sense suggests that it would have been the height of absurdity for the Founding Fathers to fight a revolution in the name of liberty and then turn around and write a constitution that placed everyone’s liberty in the hands of five government lawyers with lifetime tenure. [20]

Yes, such a thing as “judicial review” of the constitutionality of federal legislation existed. But until the end of the War Between the States, it was considered by many Americans to be merely the opinion of the Supreme Court and did not necessarily carry more weight than the opinions of the President, the Congress, or the citizens of the sovereign states.”[21]

Making Up The Law

The most prominent feature of the doctrine of judicial supremacy is its arrogance. The doctrine maintains that the judicial branch is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, even though there is nothing in that document which gives the Supreme Court that authority. Further, the doctrine of judicial supremacy maintains that the Court’s opinions ascend to the same status as the Constitution itself -- that is, they become the Constitution.

However, judicial opinions are not law. Only federal laws may become the “supreme law of the land” pursuant to the supremacy clause. In the entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence, a judicial decision has never been considered to be a law. Law is the product of legislation. Law is what judges interpret. It is therefore impossible for Supreme Court opinions to be the supreme law of the land.

Judicial supremacy further maintains that, not only does the Court have the final say on interpreting law; the judiciary may also create law. Consider once more the breathtaking arrogance of Thurgood Marshall.

“You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” [22]

Judicial activism (legislation/creation of law by a court) is a usurpation of popular sovereignty. Only the people have the authority to create law in this country, and they confer that power on “legislators,” whom they elect for that purpose. Federal judges are not elected; they are appointed, and they are appointed for a purpose other than legislating.

The Supreme Court itself has declared that “the power to enact carries with it the final authority to declare the meaning of the legislation.” Proper v. Clark, 337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949).

It is the People who have the power to enact, albeit through their elected representatives. Therefore, the unelected Supreme Court cannot be the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The “living Constitution” is a fantasy of activist judicial legislators who seek to increase their power and prestige by illegally substituting their own personal opinions for the only legal mechanism for altering the Constitution -- the amendment process, a process they find cumbersome and inconvenient. Sorry about that.

Judicial decisions are not laws because they are by definition interpretations of laws. If unconstitutional laws are void, the same reasoning applies with greater force to unconstitutional acts of the judiciary. Those acts have no effect because they have no existence.

Supreme Court decisions (indeed, all judicial decisions) are meant to be supreme over no one. Over the past 200 years this understanding has been gradually eroded by our legal profession -- case by case, on little cat feet -- as that profession ascended the pyramid of power to join our current financial and political overlords in the penthouse of power.

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away,

for expedience and by parts.”

-Edmund Burke

The appropriate rule of construction for interpreting the Constitution is the “original intent” of its legislators. Interpretation is not a matter of personal preference. It is a matter of law. There aren’t any other legal rules of construction that (legally) apply to this subject.

“Original intent” (also known as “original meaning”) was the legal rule of construction used in 1787 and which therefore must be used today. It does not refer to the original intent of the founding fathers themselves but of “a typical educated American conversant with Anglo-American law in the late 1700s.” [23]

The People Are the Supreme Court

The American People have a right to defend themselves against tyranny by their government. Our national birth certificate (the Declaration of Independence) declares that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” Indeed, not only is it their right, “it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

The right to abolish an entire government includes the lesser right to alter it, i.e.,

“to condemn and set aside the mere statutes, judicial opinions and other purported public acts of tyrants or usurpers - and to condemn and set aside the tyrants and usurpers themselves - without “alter[ing] or abolish[ing]” the basic institutions of government.”[24]

Edwin Vieira has four degrees from Harvard (A.B., M.A., J.D., and PhD.), but he’s not an egghead. [I know he will be glad to hear that.] Dr. Vieira is a great constitutional lawyer whose specialty is monetary law and its history. The following is the conclusion of a speech he gave on March 25, 2003, to the Rotary Club of New York at the Princeton Club.

“Well, Americans would have to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “We The People.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We The People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States;” not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the People. We The People are the principals.

The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. . . . [Blackstone] wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.

‘We the People’ are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters . . . There is a very simple reason for that. There’s no one else. Therefore, here’s the bad news: it ultimately is your responsibility to find out what your Constitution means with respect to monetary powers and disabilities, and then to do something about it, before history takes the opportunity out of your hands and we all suffer the consequences. Thank you.”[25]


  1. (my emphasis)
  2. 57 U.S.__(2012), 122 S. Ct. 2566.
  3. The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1983), p. 498 (emphasis added).
  4. Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, as quoted in Roger Sayles’ From Sovereign To Serf, Government By The Treachery and Deception of Words (2011) p. 63.
  5. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals (New York, Vintage Books, 1971) pp.10-11.
  6. Ibid at p.11.
  7. -old legal maxim.
  8. Mark R. Levin, Liberty a2216 Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto , p. 39.
  9. Mark R. Levin, Men In Black, p. 4..
  10. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, (San Antonio: Vision Forum Ministries) p. 178-9.
  11. at p. 89 (emphasis added)
  12. This case declared the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, the central banking predecessor of the Federal Reserve decision.
  13. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, pp 220-221 (emphasis added).
  14. at p. 223.
  15. The Real Thomas Jefferson, p. 497.
  16. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, p. 222.
  17. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 349 (emphasis added).
  18. The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 1983), p. 498.
  19. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton’s Curse, How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution, and What it Means for Americans Today New York: Crown Forum, 2008), p. 65.
  20. Ibid at 80.
  21. Ibid at 65.
  22. Mark R. Levin, Men In Black, p. 17.
  23. Edwin Vieira, How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary, p. 66.
  24. Ibid at p. 94.
  25. As quoted by the author in his 2012 article, “Monetary Terrorism,” pp. 60-61.
  26. It is so interesting that the values of high and low levels of consciousness are inverted/reversed/opposed. An atheist would substitute the word “religious” for the word “atheist” in this paragraph. He would also substitute the word “Capitalism” for “Communism.”
  27. Transcendent – to be above and independent of (the universe, space, time, etc.) Immanent – remaining within; indwelling; inherent; indwelling (the universe, time, etc.); immanentism: the belief that the Deity indwells and operates directly within the universe or nature.
  28. Helen Keller, “Shining Soul: Helen Keller’s Spiritual Life and Legacy” (DVD).
  29. Mark Levin, Liberty & Tyranny, (New York, Threshold Editions, 2009), 27.
  30. Cleon Skousen, The 5000 Year Leap, p. 62.
  31. “Thomas Jefferson, A Film by Ken Burns” (DVD).
  32. Webster Adams, Citizens Rulebook (Phoenix, AZ: Whitten Printers, 2002), p.1
  33. Brandon Smith (
  34. David Bohm, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 5 (1975).
  35. David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, (Boston, Ark Paperbacks, 1983) p. 48.
  36. Nisargadatta Maharaj, I Am That.
  37. Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie,” DVD (1995).
  38. John Hagelin, Manual For A Perfect Government. (Fairfield, Iowa: MIU Press, 1998) .
  39. Ibid at p. 37.
  40. Deepak Chopra, as quoted in “God and Buddha, A Dialogue With Robert Thurman” (DVD).
  41. David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005) , p. 6
  42. Iben-Al Arabi, a twelfth century Sufi mystic.
  43. John 14:12.
  44. David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005), p. 8.
  45. Muhammad uttered that sublime statement while he was still in Mecca. At that time he was a very high being, but he crashed and burned when he moved to Medina. The Fall of Muhammad was the greatest spiritual tragedy in history.

Copyright © 2017 by Montfort S. Ray

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Supreme Court