Judicial Myth: The Judiciary’s Role Is To Protect The Minority From The Majority

Share Button

The Bill of Rights, which clearly and distinctly lays out some of the rights we have from nature and from nature’s God, is for every individual.

This is part three of a four part series. Here are the links for the previous posts:

Part 1 – Myth: The Judicial Branch Is Equal To The Other Two Government Branches
Part 2 – Myth: Federal Judges Are Guaranteed A Lifetime Appointment

As in previous writings, I have made it clear that I believe the judicial branch as a whole is currently tyrannical, power-hungry, and anti-constitutional. In law school, instead of The Constitution and other founding documents being taught, it is case law and the opinions of jurists, who have stolen power from the legislative and executive, which are being taught. This has resulted in our judicial system being riddled with arrogant high-priests of the law who are re-forming our constitutional republic into an anti-constitutional, anti-liberty, anti-religious, incestuous, and chaotic oligarchy.

During the past 100 years, liberties and rights have been slowly but continually whittled down, due large in part to anti-religious and anti-constitutional judges. Well, citizens have equal blame, since most of us just accept these judges’ judicial bowel movements as indestructible proclamations of wisdom and irrefutable orders. We are so poorly educated on The Constitution and are so apathetic on civic matters, most of us fail to recognize when our liberties and constitutional rights are in danger of extinction. Most of us have been poorly educated on the constitutional role of the judiciary.

We need to start pushing back!

Myth: The Judiciary’s Role Is To Protect The Minority From The Majority

Fact: Equal justice under law. The judiciary should be blind.

There are times that tyranny from the majority can be possible. How to remedy this? Hmmm, perhaps we should make a list of really important rights that NO ONE can take away or eliminate. Oh, wait, we already have such a list: The Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, which clearly and distinctly lays out some of the rights we have from nature and from nature’s God, is for every individual. These rights are supposed to be protected by government. They are not given to us from government. The rights are not contingent on whether or not we belong to a certain group. The judicial branch is to help protect every person from encroachment of constitutionally guaranteed rights when there is an obvious imbalance of justice.

If rights are not clearly and distinctly written in The Bill of Rights, nor in other parts of The Constitution, then they are not constitutional rights, but are in reality soluble, because of how they have been created. Because of this, the majority can rule. However, this does not mean we have a democracy. Because we have distinct and eternal rights constitutionally protected by government, despite any possible contrary view of the majority, and due to our system of representatives and electors, we have a republic.

In all areas not restricted by The Constitution, the will of the people shall rule. Otherwise, it will be a small group that will dictate to the rest of us. On November 19, 1794, in response to the whiskey rebellion, George Washington stated:

…to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.

In recent decades, the courts have elevated certain groups above the rest of the populous, bullying the majority to comply with the minority, and in some instances, limiting actual constitutional rights for those in the majority.

Need examples? Okay. I am not going to cite precise numbers, since they vary depending on the source, but suffice it to say, the following does indeed involve the majority:

  • A majority of the populous are okay with the ten commandments being displayed on public property, including in schools, but the courts don’t agree.
  • A majority are okay with voluntary prayer in school, the courts are hostile to this.
  • A majority want restrictions on abortions, but the court has granted this “right” of abortion.
  • A majority want both evolution and intelligent design to be taught in school, the court does not.
  • A majority of the country opposed gay marriage at the time the courts bullied every state into complying with gay marriage.

Nonetheless, the court felt it necessary to “protect” the minority on those issues and in other issues. But isn’t that a good thing that the rights of the minority in those instances were upheld?

What rights? No one had a legal right to marriage prior to the courts overreach. Marriage isn’t mentioned in The Constitution, therefore, not able to be touched by the federal government. Why isn’t it mentioned in The Constitution? Since God established the first marriage, between Adam and Eve, marriage is not government’s jurisdiction, but God’s. The Founders new this, but in the 21st century, the court’s in a perfect example of sacrilege, falsely elevated themselves above God and flipped Him the bird.

What about school prayer and the ten commandments in school? Doesn’t that violate the separation of church and state? I am not going to spend too much time on this, but no. The phrase “separation of church and state” exists nowhere in any founding document. The relevant part of the First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

The establishment clause merely means that congress shall not establish a national church. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less. This is supported by the next clause, the free exercise of religion (and religious conscience), which was defended and supported by the framers, and echoed in state constitutions.

However, the supreme court has opined that “congress” actually means any government employee, and the phrase “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” actually means shall not publicly say or do or support anything that may be perceived as religious or spiritual in any way. Therefore, if you are a government employee, your constitutional rights are limited.

Other individuals, according to the courts, must have their constitutionally guaranteed rights limited if a certain group feels “oppressed” by those individuals. A Gay couple can bully a baker into baking them a cake, despite the conscience of the baker.

Coercing a christian baker to make a gay wedding cake when it violates his religious conscience is a violation of his first amendment right. However, the court didn’t care. “Bake the cake, you bigot! This gay couple has a constitutional right to a gay wedding cake”

Instead of leaving the bakery and finding another, the gay couple rushed to the aid and comfort of the judiciary’s bosom. What right was denied to the gay couple? Apparently, the right to not have hurt feelings. You know, that right clearly stated in the 28th Amendment. In the eyes of the anti-religious and anti-constitutional court, the feelings of that couple trumped the constitutional rights of the business owners. The judiciary elevated one group above everyone else.

What right is violated by allowing voluntary school prayer, even if it is lead by a school official? None. There is no right to be free from religion. If you hear a prayer, see a religious symbol, or read religious words and you don’t like or agree with what you’ve heard, seen, or read, ignore it, don’t think about it, don’t adopt it. You have a right of conscience just like religious folks do. You don’t need to run to the judiciary and coerce others to adopt your own opinions and limit their freedom of speech and religious expression and conscience.

Early iterations of our judiciary knew this common sense philosophy, upholding religious freedom and other constitutionally guaranteed rights, but modern courts have increasingly become hostile to religion and to traditional thought. They have also become anti-majoritarian in many instances, instead favoring the feelings of the few. They ignore the words written on their main building of worship, aka the supreme court building, which say “Equal justice under law.”

The Bill of Rights is for every individual.  Justice needs to put that blindfold back on.

Part four of this series coming soon…

Share Button

4 thoughts on “Judicial Myth: The Judiciary’s Role Is To Protect The Minority From The Majority”

  1. a lot of activist judges on the bench.

    Did you know that even though the supreme court limits school employees from speaking about religion, they still allow students to pray, read the Bible, write about religion for school projects, and talk about religion to friends at school? More than what most people knew. Even though the supreme court still doesn’t get the first amendment totally right, at least they allow students to pray at certain times at school. It is actually on the department of education’s website somewhere. Burried deep, so its hard to find. but they have to uphold the law in this matter or else they can’t get one dime from the federal government.

    1. I have heard that. In fact, I had planned on writing about that after part four in this judicial series. I need to verify the information first, by finding that buried page at edu.gov. But, I trust the folk that told me about the info, I just need a link to provide my readers so they have an original source. It is sad that The Constitution isn’t a good enough source for the government. Too hard to read I guess. I also plan on writing about the perceived separation of church and state.

  2. Um you’re totally wrong on the founders. They hated religion. Here’s probably one of the most damning quotes, John adams said “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

    1. Wow. Yes, that would be rather damning. But you would have to ignore many other pro-religion Adams quotes as well as the full context of the quote you cited:

      “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!’ But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”

      When a person reduces Adam’s quote the way you have, it falsely makes Adams say the exact opposite of what he actually wrote to Jefferson.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.