The de facto U.S. Constitution has dramatically changed from its original conception and understanding, largely through the sleight of hand sophistries and casuistries of jurists; who have connived through judicial review (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)) to eventually usurp and concentrate power into their lawless hands, under which no legislation escapes their purview. They have become the effectual inheritors of King Charles I; nullifying at will, the Sovereign Will of the People whenever they deign that that Will does not accord with their self-regarding Reason.
Jurists are the Talmudic Pharisees of political Constitutions, through whose myriad judicial traditions and interpretative principles, they set aside democratic will. They obfuscate the plain rendering of words; making what is, not; making what is not; is. The dissonance between what law and constitutions plainly state and the current practicable renderings by these lawless jurists, discredits the law and administration of justice and bringing it into disrepute; systematically nourishing contempt for rule of law and consensual abeyance to the laws of the land by its citizens and subjects. From their quill of hermeneutical tricks, they can and do selectively contrive to produce legal outcomes that conform to their capricious preferences and prejudices. In one jurisdiction, States rights will trump Federal jurisdiction; in another, the reverse; in order to arrive at foregone conclusions conforming with the ideological hegemony within the legal priesthood.
Through “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”1, the law becomes opaque and inscrutable; the Secret Will of Jurists, to which no other person is privy aforehand. In inscrutability, a fundamental principle of justice has been violated. It becomes a crap shoot. Thereby, inscrutability becomes the vehicle by which the wealthy and powerful, those with deep pockets who can afford the cleverest of lawyers and thoroughgoing of legal staff to oppress those less endowed with wits or resources to purchase wits.
Instead of being interpreters of the constitutions, they have exalted themselves above constitutions; judging the constitutionality of constitutions under the discretion of their rational competence; which is in effect, their sociopolitical preferences. If Constitutions be a military General and judges their supposedly faithful subordinates; the latter have deigned to disqualify the clear commands of their general through obfuscation and sophistry. They are in effect traitors. And thus, the power and authority of the judiciary must be severely circumscribed; their representatives given political beheading; even if through extra-constitutional means; since the de facto constitution has become a lawless, inconsistent and unjust jumble, courtesy of these criminal jurists; since the de facto constitution is the very hands of these criminals of syntax and semantics.
It is lost on these glorified lawyers, overconfident in the power of pieces of paper and the words inscribed therein and their sly ability to manipulate them, that their own pretensions to the Commanding Height of political authority rests ultimately on moral authority and consent of the governed. Judiciaries do not command armies nor have they been known to successfully conscript private ones. Alphabets, syntax and semantics make lousy soldiers; especially if one has corrupted their plain meaning and enervated the confidence that a populace can place in them. It is only a matter of time before men with chests will challenge these usurpers and Pretenders. In that elected officials have shriveled testicles, it will probably and unfortunately be autocratic tyrants that decapitate the pretensions of judiciaries.
This is not a prescriptive polemic; but a descriptive warning. God forbid should I ever leave a principled pacifism. For, if it is written “what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul”2, even one’s soul is worth far more than the saving of the world, were it even possible. However, like Darwin in his book “Descent of Man”, who could perceive the clear and incontrovertible logic of eugenics on the premises of Natural Selection evolution, yet could not bring himself, at least publicly, to advocate it, I can see and foresee the historical progression and rational and psychological logic of Marbury v. Madison, as did Jefferson. And as student of history, it is advised that should the judiciary not rein in their pretensions, their pretensions will eventually be reined in by others. However, in this, it will be a sign and hallmark that free civil society and politics have come to an end.
- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
- Matthew 16:26