The United States Is Not a Democracy

"Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. 
However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny." -- Patrick Henry

Americans are now living under judicial tyranny as one of our greatest patriots Patrick Henry predicted.   For those who have forgotten Henry, he is the man who said "give me liberty or give me death."

The judiciary's subversion of the Constitution was already recognized by Declaration of Independence author and third President Thomas Jefferson on Oct. 31, 1823 when he wrote the following to Monsieur A. Coray: "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."   

In a democracy the people either vote directly on the nature of social institutions or choose those who make such decisions rather than having those decisions made by autocrats who never have to face the voters.    There is no legitimate reason to allow judges or other  non-elected officials to make decisions about social issues.  

The political hacks who serve as federal judges have no special qualifications for making social decisions.   They are chosen for their political loyalty to a president or his party rather than their intelligence.  There is no legitimate reason to allow them to impose their views on social issues on the people.

As President Thomas Jefferson said:  "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." \

Contrary to a long standing myth, the U.S. Supreme Court has no special exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.   When Chief Justice John Marshall claimed the Supreme Court could  rule an act of Congress unconstitutional in Marbury v.Madison  the only authorization he could find was the oath he and the other justices took to support and defend the Constitution.  The President, members of Congress and state leaders take the same oath and thus have the requirement to support and defend the Constitution. They thus have the same authority to decide what actions are consistent with the Constitution.     

Although officials subordinate to the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court take the same oath they lack authority to act independently of the officials whose powers are defined by the Constitution.   In particular, the federal courts created by Congress cannot rule on the constitutionality of acts of Congress.  The inferior courts can only delay enforcement of questioned  laws pending a review by the Supreme Court.  Allowing inferior courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws would  make them more  powerful than Congress and equal in power to the Supreme Court which is supposed to be the most powerful court. 

If the United States is to provide equal justice under the law, then federal law must be the same in Arctic City, Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii. Key West,Florida, and Portland,Maine.  The current practice of allowing inferior  federal courts to interpret laws or rule them unconstitutional divides the country into separate judicial provinces or colonies each with its own autocratic judicial rulers.   In general, the inferior courts can have no authority to rule state laws or practices unconstitutional, or otherwise illegal, unless the Supreme Court or Congress has determined those laws or practices invalid.  The only potential exception would be laws or practices that involve the operation of state courts or law enforcement agencies.     

Article IV of the Constitution requires the United States government to guarantee the states a republican form of government.  A republic is a form of government in which the people determine social policies directly or through their elected officials.   Federal judges who attempt to impose their social views on the states are violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution.  Congress would be justified in impeaching judges who attempt to deprive citizens of their right to determine social policy.    Only the elected members of Congress can impose uniform social policies on the states.

After the Civil War  Congress proposed that the states add the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the recently freed slaves equal treatment.  In 1896, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Plessy v.Ferguson   told the states they could ignore the intent of Congress by pretending to treat blacks separate but equal manner.   The Court refused to admit its mistake until 1954 when it overturned the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.   

Some autocratic federal judges are currently violating the Constitution by usurping the people's right to decide the co-called "same-sex marriage" social issue.   The issue does not represent a real legal controversy.