I am incapable of seeing anything other than a consortium of kings and queens when I look at the Supreme Court. Despite their objections, they act as often irrationally and insanely as they do rationally. One good ruling that seems to represent the Constitution is obliterated by another that is pulled out of thin air or over-reliant on the vaguest clauses.
The Constitution was not vague, it was specific. Those few instances where generalities were employed have been given undue weight and importance to give legitimacy to the congress and gravitas to the president. Since the Supreme Court is the last stop in the legal process it is given the power of all forms of government combined. Being insensitive to the electorate, they operate impervious to the voices of the people whose lives they affect with their random rulings.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there an establishment of Stare Decisis, that is an invention of the courts themselves. Case law is useful in many ways, but to establish case law as a precedent to override a clear and common understanding of the English language is an abuse of power rectifiable only through nullification, or mass rebellion.
To better understand the insanity of these nine kings and queens, let us examine seat belt laws. I have never seen a legitimate argument for the imposition of a seat belt law. There is some mention of the state having a defined interest in the health and welfare of the individual and were seat belt laws uniformly and perfect in their solution to injury and death they might have a point, but where a seat belt can be the cause of death and injury even in a minority of cases, it is too vague to override an individual's personal judgment.
Also, where the court has ruled that a woman has a right to end the life of her child in order to honor her personal judgment about her health and welfare, it seems in direct conflict with the previous ruling on seat belts. The question comes down to whether an individual has the right to make decisions about their health and welfare, or not. In one case the court has ruled that it is so and in another ruling they have held that it is not.
This is only possible where clear definitions and intentions are abandoned in favor of government control and social engineering. Roe v. Wade is also insane when considering gun laws. In one instance a right unmentioned in the Constitution is discovered in the shadows of other rights where the whole body of intention is taken as gospel, but the clear and concise language of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow an all too vague and ill-defined clause to be faithfully upheld. It is clear from the whole Second Amendment that it is not the "well-regulated militia" that is the object of the action of the amendment, but the people's right to keep and bear arms is the object and the requirement of a "well-regulated militia" the means to "the security of a free state" the security being the responsibility of the people.
I ask you: how has the security of a free state ceased to be the responsibility of the people? The police act as the one thing all of the founders feared: a standing army at the behest of a government hostile to the liberty of the people.
You have the right to employ the 1x1x1 doctrine.
Graciously linked and quoted at Free North Carolina.
Graciously linked at Western Rifle Shooters Association.
Graciously linked at The American Patriot.