The United States Constitution was drafted between mid 1776 and late 1777. It was finally ratified by all thirteen former colonies in 1781, and has been the law of the land ever since. The framers of our Constitution were very wary of placing too much power in the hands of any individual or group of individuals. They had too much experience living under the despotism of the monarchs and parliaments of Europe, mostly England. So, they wisely divided power between three branches, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The President was supposed to either approve or veto laws passed by the two branches of the Congress, the House and the Senate. Finally, the Judicial branch, comprised of Federal Judges, including those of the Supreme Court, who were tasked with determining whether the actions of either of the other two branches were indeed “Constitutional”. That simply meant that the actions followed the plain language so laboriously crafted by the framers of that document. All this went well until the courts began to “interpret” the language of the Constitution. Let’s examine that situation.
A dictionary definition of the word “interpret” is:
“Explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions)”
The Constitution speaks for itself. The words are very plain, and indeed not open to “interpretation”. Actions taken by the Executive or Legislative branch are either covered by the Constitution or not. The problems started when the judges began inserting their opinions as to what, or what not, ought to be there. A classic example of that is the supposed “separation of church and state”. This is based on a comment made by Thomas Jefferson, who was very concerned that the new country would not have a “State Religion” like the Church of England, which had so repressed other faiths since the time of Henry VIII. Jefferson never intended that any mention of religion would be prohibited from the workings of government. The Declaration of Independence, for instance, is replete with the mention of God, and imploring His guidance and protection for the new nation. Atheists protested, and a judge was persuaded to issue a ruling prohibiting any mention or display of religious symbols or language on government property. An amazing concept since our very Supreme Court Building has phrases from the Ten Commandments emblazoned on it’s facade. So, because of the beliefs of a minority of our population, we now have a country where we practice “freedom FROM religion” rather than “freedom OF religion”.
The practice of “legislating from the bench” has become more and more prevalent in recent years. More so from the left than from the right, but the concept is dangerous to our personal liberties, no matter which political persuasion is allowed is allowed to wield it. A case in point is the current debate over whether President Trump should be allowed enact a temporary ban on people from seven countries in the Middle East while the procedures used to “vet” them as being safe to enter are studied. Most of these countries are failed states, involved in violent civil wars, or are hotbeds of anti-US sympathizers and havens for Islamic terrorists.
A federal judge from the State of Washington issued a stay against the Presidential action, and the issue is now being considered by the very liberal leaning Ninth Circuit Court, based in San Francisco. Listening to those judges question representatives from both sides of the issue gives very little doubt as to which side they will probably rule in favor of. So, while the issue grinds it’s way to the Supreme Court, there has been a mass influx of people from these countries entering our nation. Do any of these individuals pose a threat to America? As John F. Kelly, the new Director of Homeland Security, said when he testified before a congressional committee: “We won’t know until we hear the bang”.
If a terrorist attack occurs in this country because we allowed improperly vetted individuals to enter, responsibility for it will fall directly in the laps of the men and women in black robes who allowed that to happen. In the case of federal judges, we didn’t elect these people to rule over us. They have been appointed, by politicians, to the bench for life, should they wish to remain. Too many of them have allowed their political leanings to cloud their rulings. They are indeed “legislating from the bench”. For the good of the nation this practice must stop, and quickly.