As we continue with our discussion of the 2000 election and the results of court intervention at both the state and federal level, there are some questions that should be answered.

The first question is, “Was President Bush legally elected by the people, including the people of Florida”? The answer is yes. An event happened on November 26, 2000 which sealed the election. According to both the Florida State Constitution and the US Constitution nothing further needed or could be done. The following is what Mark R. Levin says in his book, Men In Black concerning this event:

“On November 26, the deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court passed. Harris’s submission to Governor Jeb Bush was consistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s decision of November 21. Harris was legally obligated to certify the results of the popular vote and submit those results to Governor Bush, which she did. Bush (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In keeping with the flow of following Mark R. Levin’s Book, Men In Black which can be purchased on the link to your left, we will pursue the subject of a Tale of Two Courts. In Mr. Levin’s book, he has an entire chapter called “The Court Counts The Ballots” discussing at great length the chronology of events surrounding the Presidential Election of 2000. We have found this chapter to be illuminating and fascinating as we relived once again the history of events surrounding that election.

What we experienced during that month long time of intense emotion and agony was caused by the ultimate exercise in Judicial Activism first by the Florida State Supreme Court, and finally by the United States Supreme Court. The courts made their rulings based as a result of a lawsuit filed on behalf of presidential candidate Al Gore who initiated the first (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For our Judicial Review today, we want to revisit Roe v. Wade in relation to the confirmation of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court.

Ed Whelan, President of Ethics and Public Policy Center and contributer to Bench Memos has written the most lucid explanation of three possible positions on Roe v. Wade which we have found as of this date in, Abortion & Justice. For our purposes today, we are going to outline Mr. Whelan’s three positions, set forth his observations, and finish with our conclusions.
Here are Mr. Whelan’s three positions:

1. “The pro-abortion position. The first position is that the Constitution prohibits, to one degree or another, laws that protect the life of an unborn human being against her mother’s desire to have her killed.
2. The pro-life position. A second position is that the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Last week we wrote concerning the issue of “enemy combatants”, and the Supreme Court’s having afforded rights to terrorists that should be reserved only for citizens of the United States.

Today, we want to move into the area of individual liberties for our citizens. We have observed over the years, the encroachment on our individual rights and freedoms, and most have not understood the process whereby those freedoms have been lost. We want to give an example of how a single clause in the Constitution has been so eviscerated from it’s original intent, and twisted into something it was never intended to become, so as to facilitate the gradual evolution of socialism in our free enterprise society.

The commerce clause can be found in the United State Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The separation of rights and privileges is the issue before us today.

The United States Constitution, states very plainly and unequivocally in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the following:

“The Congress shall have Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

The Supreme Court has usurped this unequivocal right and responsibility of the legislative branch of our government, and placed it upon themselves. They have once again become the legislators by using their rulings to enact policy and write the laws of the land.

The cases to prove this point are, Graham v. Richardson in 1971, Sugarman v. Dougall in 1973, In Re Griffiths in 1973, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong in 1976, Nyquist v. Mauclet in 1977, and finally, Plyler v. Doe in 1982.

In the above cases, the Supreme Court has granted illegal immigrants (illegal (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

As we examine once again the right to privacy issue which we began exploring last week, we want to look at the next step taken by the SCOTUS in “legislating” this right and all related rights into law.

We left off last week with Griswold v. Connecticut, and how a case involving contraceptives evolved into this issue. In 1972, seven years after Griswold, the Court took under consideration, contraceptives and unmarried couples. Griswold was about the use of contraceptives, but Massachusetts had laws restricting their distribution. William Baird, during the course of a speech at Boston University on birth control and overpopulation, gave a contraceptive to a young lady. He was promptly arrested and convicted with the case ending up in the SCOTUS on the lone issue of distribution in Eisenstadt v. Baird, and the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection grounds.

Mark Levin, quoting Justice William (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Most commentators on both sides of the political landscape would acknowledge the fact of judicial activism in our Federal Courts. The question is: How did we arrive where we are? How did our Federal Courts, especially the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS for short) take over the authority of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Federal Government?

The foundation for judicial activism began with Marbury v. Madison in 1803, but the history goes back even further. The Judiciary Acts of 1789 and 1801 set the stage for the players to craft what today would be called a political soap opera.

The Judiciary Act of 1801 was introduced before the presidential election of 1800, but wasn’t passed until after the election, which ultimately was determined in the House of Representatives. President John Adams signed the bill on February 13, 1801, three weeks before the end (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Today is the beginning of what we hope will be an interesting and fun exploration of the activism in the United States Judiciary. We will be using Mark R. Levin’s Book, Men In Black along with other history books, articles, and direct quotations from the Men and Women who sit as judges in our courtrooms. We will be looking primarily at the Supreme Court of The United States, SCOTUS for short.

Why would we embark on such an undertaking? The answer is simple. There is a lack of knowlege concerning our judiciary among our population that stems from a long held view that these Men and Women in black robes can do no wrong. It is our intention to take a closer look at these individuals and their decisions in the courts. We hope what we write will be understandable by anyone who reads this, and will be (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

David Limbaugh, in an article today entitled, Death Penalty Thrown Out Because Jury Discussed Scripture, which points to the CNN article entitled, Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out. Mr. Limbaugh’s comment makes a valid point. See below:

“Have you ever noticed the facility with which we ban the Bible and other things Christian? If this had been any other book — including, I dare say, holy books of other religions — I am very doubtful that we’d see a reversal in this case.”

The CNN story, makes this point:

“Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

What has our society come to? What has our judiciary come to?

These questions will haunt many for some time to come. We have found three different posts that provide further information on the Terri Schiavo case that is captivating the nation.

Hugh Hewitt, has written 2 posts on this issue. The first entitiled, Endangered Vegetables Get More Protections Than Terri Schiavo. Excerpts are here:

“On such category of special cases is the case where harm is alleged to be imminent to an endangered plant or animal, like the Riverside Fairy Shrimp, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly, the Stephens Kangaroo rat, or, yes, Munz’s Onion –a genuine vegetable as opposed to the horrific term that has been thrown around in this case.”

Mr. Hewitt’s second post entitled, In the Spirit of Pontius Pilate: Congress and the President be Damned, Terri gets (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)