This series of articles was actually started a week ago under the title of The Usurpation of Politics and we are certain by the response and readership of such that we should give it some time before carrying on with it. Therefore today we will try and continue on what we shaped in that article and continue with more.
Given the long history of controversy about (some of) the United States Supreme Court’s (USSC) constitutional rulings, the fact that we find such controversy in the present is not surprising. Nor is the nature of the contempory controversy surprising: The claim at the heart of today’s controversy is substantially the same claim that was at the heart of most earlier controversies about constitutional rulings by the Court — namely, that in the guise of interpreting the Constitution, the USSC is actually usurping prerogatives that under the Constitution belong to one or more other branches or agencies of our government.
This process is clearly seen in the current Obama administration’s use of executive privilege; moreover, it can be seen by all when the President begins to make decisions on his very own, when in fact, the money to finance Presidential decisions — amnesty to 5 to 6 million individuals that are here illegally — is a cost to U.S. citizens.
That in and of itself is unconstitutional — insofar as the executive branch of government has never been chartered with immigration policy in the history of this country! This is made very clear in the original US Constitution whereby that authority and prerogative is within the Congress’ charter. This is one reason why there are thirty-nine states currently suing President Obama.
How the USSC could sit and rule on other lesser significant cases is beyond our comprehension. Therefore, what is happening now is a growing alienation of millions of Americans from a government they do not recognize as theirs: what is happening now is an erosion of moral adherence to the political system.
So we ask — what happens to a country where the very fabric that it is based on — begins to suffer because of a lazy body politic (us, or US citizens) that does not have the courage to do the same as our Founders did? No we are not even suggesting revolution; however, to want to stop some of the “madness” that goes on within the special interest groups, that furthermore seem as legislative law simply because a judge from any court says it is, is not the correct way to proceed in life.
The subject before us is the end of democracy. Perhaps the United States, for so long the primary bearer of the democratic idea has itself betrayed that idea and become something different. If so, the chief evidence of that betrayal is and only could be the judicial usurpation of politics.
We will take special notice of what democratic politics means — simply that “the people” deliberate and decide the question: “How ought we order our life together?” In the American constitutional order the people do that through debate, elections, and representative political institutions. Now we ask — Is this true today? How about say, 50 or more years ago? Is it not in fact the judiciary that deliberates and answers the really important questions entailed in the question, “How ought we to order our life together?”
Again we need to be mindful of our readers — this series of articles has its basis in primarily the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution forbids and/or requires involving matters that may or may not be construed as constitutional. Ahead for us is rulings based on sex-based discrimination, homosexuality, abortion, racial segregation, affirmative action, and some of the rulings that have since changed from their ruling such as citizenship and how rife the current regime is not only to give it away, but also to make pathways in order to receive it.