Voters allow judges to usurp legislation

Many, if not most, Americans believe that the US Supreme Court has the last word on what's constitutional or what the Constitution means. Those believers are wrong.

The idea that the US Supreme Court has the final say on the law comes from the Court itself -- not from the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).

The US Supreme Court often issues opinions that are contradictory, wrong, and sometimes outright evil (eg Dred Scott and Roe v Wade). The justices on the Court rarely agree on anything. How can they get so much wrong? Because they rarely rely on the Constitution to determine what's constitutional. Instead, they rely on "precedents" -- often-flawed opinions of past judges as well as their own personal biases!

Now, we learn that, in the background, Supreme Court justices quietly edit their opinions without public notice or input!

The Constitution clearly specifies that Congress is the legislative (law-making) branch of the central government. Not bureaucrats in the executive branch. Not unelected lawyers in black dresses. Yet, these two oligarchies make new law every day!

The Constitution requires all government officials (politicians, judges, bureaucrats, law enforcement officers (including all attorneys) and members of the military) to swear to be loyal to the US Constitution -- not to judicial opinions, political parties, or to any person or group of persons. Sadly, most of these government agents give their loyalty to extraconstitutional laws and judicial rulings.

"One single object will merit the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice. I have no fear of constitutional amendments properly adopted, but I do fear the rewriting of the Constitution by judges under the guise of interpretation." — Justice Hugo Black, Columbia University's Charpentier Lectures (1968)

While many voters don't take a formal oath of loyalty to the Constitution, it is imperative that all voters understand the Constitution and the principles upon it was built and vote accordingly. Vote for principles -- not people, issues, or the letters "D", "R", or "L".

We need smarter voters.

Punish laser pointers!

A mother wants yet another thing banned in our schools because her son was assaulted and injured. This time, it's a laser pointer.

Our schools are full of things that can be used as weapons to assault students, school staff, and visitors: chairs, tables, pencils, pens, books, book bags, purses, nail files, etc. Think of all the potential weapons in shop class! Ban 'em all!

No, I have a better idea: Let's ban assault!

The boy in this story was assaulted. The weapon used in the assault is not nearly as important as the act itself. So, if we ban the act of assault, we can actually get something done about those who would harm others.

If we prohibit assault, the perpetrator could be arrested for assault, charged, convicted, and punished in criminal court. In addition, the victim could sue in civil court for redress -- damage to an eye could be worth a lot of money. The results of these court proceedings could be published to serve as a deterrent to further assaults.

Oh, wait. Assault already is a malum in se (look it up) crime punishable in both civil and criminal court!

Let's not pass yet another malum prohibitum (look it up) restriction which will be largely unenforceable. Instead of punishing laser pointers, how about simply punishing persons who cause harm to others?

Ya got enough government yet? One Mother doesn't think so. We need smarter voters.