 |
|
I have been thinking as to why we are where we are, as a nation and society. As I have said before, I am at least 10 years behind my peers. So this will come as no great revelation to most everyone else.
The point that I have pondered is why the judiciary does not and will not consider "Constitutional/Bill of Rights" arguments in court (ie, Jim Smith Sr. and Rick Stanley cases among others). I have heard of cases for the last 10 or 15 years (when I started paying attention to such things) where the judges refuse to hear or consider any Constitutional/BOR arguments and it seems to be becoming more common each day. This brings up a personal question. Did I waste my time swearing an oath and serving my time to "defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic". While I think that capitalism is the only way to go, I understand that in a capitalist society that we "T-shirt collar" citizens should work diligently, spend profusely, and be occupied and amused by trivial matters till we die, leaving little or no worth to those who follow. We "T shirt" citizens are ill equipped to effect any significant change since we have a collective "memory" of approximately one generation, while corporate "memory" encompasses many generations. At this point the key concept is "work".
It is human nature to avoid work. Corporations, labor unions, and individuals avoid as much work as possible and expect as much income as possible. It is OK to work, in fact commendable, as long as some one else is doing it.
Another concept that I learned years ago was "Once you struggle into a rule making position, it is human nature to make rules that beat down and diminish the chances that any challenger will take your rule making position from you".
It is commonly acknowledged that the Constitution with it's Bill of Rights are the standards and rules by which we formed and operate this government. Our founding fathers did a lot of thinking/work for us by considering and including almost every concept, consideration and concern in their recipe for a government of the people, for the people and by the people. In this Constitution a "judiciary" was established as a third leg of the triad to interpret and pass judgement of the laws made by Congress. The Judiciary appointed itself as the sole interpreter and final word as to the acceptability of a law. In effect assuming final veto power and the absolute ability to dictate the implementation of laws.
Every law at any level of government should pass the basic test of being Constitutional, local, state and federal. Final approval of the passage of that test is judiciary approval. Determination of the approval of every law and every challenge to previously accepted laws takes an enormous amount of time and effort. Therefore the judiciary established the concept of "stare decisis" (in simplistic terms it is "judicial follow the leader"). Once a law or concept outlined in law is approved then it becomes an end item in itself. Afterwards all laws similar to or based upon an approved law is accepted as being constitutional with little or no question as to the actual conformation of the new law to the constitutional standards, thereby saving the judiciary an enormous amount of time, research, and brain power. Good in concept, but falls short in actual implementation.
The general presumption is that absolutely no mistakes are made in the approval of a law. Judges are human, with human ways and human frailtys. They make mistakes. Ah Ha, appeals enter the scene. But appeals can be dismissed or ignored by the judiciary for a multitude of reasons. And the appeal will be reconciled with the concept of "stare decisis" applied. Reconciling errors, based on potential previous errors is not a responsible or acceptable standard, but the judiciary DEMANDS that stare decisis be observed and that constitutionality be disregarded.
My opinion is that stare decisis is a work saving measure, that allows lazy, biased, unprepared, treasonous bastards to pass judgement, and use government "force of arms" to compel "we the people" to comply with unconstitutional standards, citing stare decisis as justification and refusing petitions for redress of this grievance.
Stare decisis was originally supposed to be applied, in cases governed by black letter law, only after examination of the black letter law (such as the applicable constitution) and the historical background of that law, had been exhausted, then only to clarify the fuzzy boundaries of that black letter law. Its major realm is civil litigation, where common and equity law are the rule, and black letter law does not apply.
Clearly, judges have come to extend stare decisis beyond its proper bounds, and are traversing a path beyond constitutional limits, like the walk of a drunken sailor.*
* Called a "Markov chain" by mathematicians.For an INCREDIBLE source of information about the foundation
of this nation, do drop by:
 |
|
 |