Dr. Dan UpdatesUS Constitution and Individual Freedom
Trending

Our Political Supreme Court

Our nation’s founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – were written to specify and enshrine the basic principles under which our nation was to be governed.  Those documents refer clearly to inalienable “laws of nature and nature’s law” which we simplify as Natural Law Rights.  By definition, Natural Law Rights belong to each individual as a birthright from an almighty God in whose existence our founders believed.  In our Constitutional Republic, the rights of every single individual are protected from the whims of majority rule, which is the failure of “democracy” as a governing system.  If you accept that concept, you should also understand that the “laws” created by government are merely “rules”.  Furthermore, government-created “rights” are not inalienable and can be altered and eliminated as required by the expediency of politics. This distinction was clear in our founders’ minds as it should also be in ours. 

Government often enacts legislation and calls it a “right,” but it really is just a set of rules designed primarily to purchase votes from favored voting blocs.  When government creates rules and regulations it calls “laws”, we have the option to obey, disobey, or work to remove from office the mortal men or women who enacted them.  That is what elections are designed to accomplish.  As long as elections are fair, honest, and carried out in compliance with established rules, all citizens should accept the results as valid.  When the populace loses faith in the validity of the electoral process, the result is chaos and anarchy.   

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically require the federal government and the states to protect and secure the Natural Law Rights of individuals.  In the divided balance-of-power structure created by those documents, it is the Supreme Court that is tasked with verifying that Congress and the Executive Branch comply with those constitutional constraints.  The Supreme Court must protect the rights of the individual, regardless of pressure from power-hungry politicians to “constitutionalize” rules that restrict Natural Law Rights or that change the accepted policies by which we live our lives.  The Supreme Court must also resist the urge to comply with popular trends or to be swayed by the will of the mob that blackmails us with illegal mayhem and violence.

The Supreme Court cannot perform those critical functions, however, if justices are appointed and confirmed based on their political allegiance instead of their ability to uphold the written word of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In our severely divided nation, the results of the presidential election will likely produce legal challenges that end up in the Supreme Court.  A court that is able to make decisions by a majority vote may be more likely to follow constitutional principles and avoid a national disaster.  

Tags
Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button

Close