VI. Amending the Constitution. This “court” has violated Article V”. the process for amending the Constitution. NO Supreme Court can amend [change, alter, delete, add provisions to] the Constitution. This “court” by direct attacks on several Amendments, HAS attempted to, in REALITY, amend the Constitution.
Article V: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments…or, on Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments..”
The Supreme Court, ANY Supreme Court, is NOWHERE listed in this – meaning the Court has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER over changing, i.e., amending the Constitution. Dictionary definition, amend: “to modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from..”
***”Judges are but men, and in all ages have shown a fair share of frailty. Alas! Alas! The worst crimes in history have been perpetrated under their sanction..” [Charles Sumner, Massachusetts Republican]
The Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “supreme court” has been DOCUMENTED in amending the Constitution in several ways; below are just a few of their methods, as reported by legal scholars and analysts:
1] Ronald Dworkin, “The Supreme Court Phalanx”: “..the new conservative phalanx overruled an amazing number of past decisions..in many cases without admitting..they were doing so…Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are judges on a mission: to destroy the impressive constitutional structure that long succession of prior judges have built and shaped in the decades following the Second World War..These four justices do not represent the..jurisprudence of most American constitutional scholars.”
2] Access to courts is provided by Amendments V, Vi, Vii. Other constitutional rights provided in Amendments I, III, IV, VIII, IX, XIII, XIV, XV. Erwin Chemerinsky’s “Closing the Courthouse Door How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable” documents case after case how the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “supreme court” has managed to limit and REDEFINE AWAY citizen’s access to these rights. Rights mean NOTHING if one can’t actually use them – a major Roberts “court” strategy [they exist on paper, but YOU can’t actually use them – diabolical]
3] Federalist Society 2018 conference, Senator Mike Lee Utah: “..urged conservatives “to chart a new course. The good news is that, thanks to President Donald Trump and the Republican Senate majority, we have a Supreme Court that should be ready to do its part in this project.” “Pro-firearms groups, which had spent millions toward Kavanaugh’s confirmation, were disappointed..his first term didn’t bring the gun rights victories they’d bank on…The Roberts Court continued to chip at the wall between church and state, and to favor those who didn’t want to comply with federal laws that conflict with their beliefs.” [Jackie Calmes, “Dissent. The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture Of The Court”]
4] “Shelby County”: “The majority based its opinion on novel constitutional grounds..”equal sovereignty”… The principles ..Congress must treat all the states in the same way was at odds with the usual understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.” [Joan Biskopic, “The Chief”]
5] “Hobby Lobby” The decision, “marking for the first time the justices found that secular corporations held religious rights..” [Biskopic, “The Chief”]
6] “Trinity” “..the Court..declared for the first time..the Constitution’s guarantees of the free exercise of religion required public funding of a religious entity.” [Biskopic, “The Chief”]
7] *** “This Case Shouldn’t Be With The Supreme Court” [New York Times, 12/11/22, editorial]: “The most important case for American democracy” in the nation’s history, conservative icon former judge, J.Michael Luttig, on ‘Moore v. Harper’.”
The case is about the WACKO “independent state legislature theory.” Naturally, it is favored by THE three most reactionary and antidemocratic Republican “justices.” “Justice Elena Kagan rejected the theory out of hand, saying it “gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country.” Under this theory, which has “no basis in law, history or precedent,” a state legislature could become dictator in any state, on that state’s issues, on presidential electors. This could become THE ultimate “amending of the Constitution.”
Times editorial: “Another way to appreciate the absurdity of the theory is to consider who has come out for and against it. [The opposition] is “a large and bipartisan group of judges, government officials, former lawmakers, leading historians and constitutional scholars from across the political spectrum have rejected it. These include a co-founder of the right-wing group of the Federalist Society, the chief justices of all 50 states, multiple Republican former governors and secretaries of state and civil rights groups. On the other side, you will find a far smaller and less bipartisan cast of characters – among them, the Republican National Committee, a group of Republican state attorneys general and John Eastman..”
8]. “Modern constitutional law as we have known it ended Friday. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe..” [Noah Feldman; 6/26/22; “Originalism was supposed to deliver judicial restraint. It doesn’t”; New York Times]
9] “..it’s clear that over the years the Supreme Court has become yet another partisan institution – and one that’s unaccountable to the American people..it’s hard to see the court’s aggressive moves to remake constitutional law as anything but antidemocratic. the fight to undo Roe..has been a fight to remake our country – and it has succeeded.” [Mary Ziegler; 6/25/22; New York Times: “The Battle to End Roe Has Changed Democracy”]
10] “Once religious freedom is weaponized, they’ll carry it into every other legal fight..public health measures and civil rights laws..license to harm others won’t end with discrimination against LGBTQ..reestablish white supremacy..the fight for voting rights..violate traffic laws..private religious schools at taxpayer expense.. deny bodily autonomy to lesser groups and reproductive freedom to people deemed subservient…Most importantly..declare unconstitutional any failure to recognize these privileges..To declare that equality is hostility..” This “reorients First Amendment religious clauses…NRA “rewriting the Second Amendment succeeded” in 2008 “Heller”…shadow docket use “rewrote the First Amendment.” In “Espinoza”, “Roberts redefined state and church separation.” [Andrew Seidel: “American Crusade”]
11] “The Roberts Court has given major corporations sweeping power to immunize themselves…A Republican Supreme Court will fundamentally alter the structure of the American system of government, and who is allowed to exercise power within that system..Partisan gerrymanders..violate the First Amendment.. The Supreme Court ..permitted redistricting laws that transformed legislative elections into little more than a formality..because Republicans were all but certain to win no matter what voters decided.” [Ian Millhiser: “The Agenda How A Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America”]
12]. “..the Court has..drastically changed its jurisdiction and procedures, most importantly with the rise of the emergency, or “shadow” docket..that allows the justices to intervene in lower court cases at any point it chooses, awarding “provisional” victories to favored litigants..The shadow docket has become a kind of appellate star chamber..closed to the public or the parties, and aggressively wielded in aid of the Court’s reactionary project.” [Garrett Epps: “The Court’s Third Great Crisis”; November/December, 2022; Washington Monthly]
13]. “Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that while Miranda rights have “roots” in the Constitution, “a violation of Miranda does not necessarily constitute a violation of the Constitution.” Alito: “[a]llowing the victim of a Miranda violation to sue a police officer for damages would have little deterrent value, and permitting such claims would cause many problems..” [!!!!!!!!!!] {Sacramento Bee editorial: SCOTUS undermines rights of suspects,” 7/7/22]
14]. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday embraced a vision of the Second Amendment that is profoundly at odds with precedent and the dangers that American communities face today..It was only in 2008..with its decision in ..Heller, that conservatives on the court divined an individual right to bear arms hidden somewhere in the 27 words of the Second Amendment.” [6/26/22, New York Times editorial: “Placing Gun Rights Above Human Life”]
15] Justice Kagan accused the majority of inventing standards to achieve its goals in the EPA case: “The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special cannons like the ‘major questions doctrine’ magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.” [Robert Barnes; 7/10/22, Washington Post Weekly: “Supreme Court upheaval is swift, sweeping”]
16]. “The court could announce a set of rules hat, together, read the Constitution to allow virtually no consideration of race, regardless of the purpose or goals.” Kate Shaw, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law professor. [Adam Liptak; 10/3/22 New York Times: “Race Has Role in Major Cases Before Justices”]
***** Very Important: YOU must examine the above, see THE PATTERN!!!!!!, and BEGIN to understand the MOUNTAIN of evidence NOT presented here on how the Roberts-McConnell-Leo-Trump “court” has been AMENDING THE. CONSTITUTION. by judicial fiat. Do YOUR own research, from mainstream legal sources. Ask. YOURSELF: WHY have all these people said this broad PATTERN of accusations against the Roberts “court”? Do they ALL. “hate America”? Are they ALL. out to get this particular ‘court”?
America is now whatever “democracy” it is or isn’t because of positive reforms [improvements, not just changes] made since 1901 on virtually everything. America became the envy of the world because of all these positive changes enabling more human dignity – to the point that people from around the world are, literally, dying. to share this.
The economic-political-religious-social “right” has been engaged in a determined, very well funded, counter-revolution against all the “democratic’ improvements these real reforms made possible. They have succeeded rolling back much of the democratic reforms enacted, 1901– .
Unable to get much of their agenda through democratic state legislatures and Congress, they have resorted. – BY THEIR OWN CONFESSIONS – to the judicial system, most especially the Supreme Court.
Again, by THEIR OWN CONFESSIONS – they have weaponized the judicial system – making a mockery of the motto above the Supreme Court’s own entrance, making a mockery of their own oaths of office.
They have also made a mockery of the Constitution itself. They have, in fact, illegally amended the Constitution: by redefining rights out of it, by. putting rights into it [for favored groups].
***St. Augustine: “An unjust law is no law at all.”
***Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
With Justice For All 