Rule by Court order

Colorado State Senator Kevin Lundberg recently wrote,

Our nation’s founders knew this balance of power was absolutely essential to restrain the perpetual tendency of government to become the despotic ruler of the people. It is critical that we defend the proper jurisdictional authority of all levels and all branches of government, and resist when they step out of their jurisdictional limits.”

The senator was addressing recent court actions which have taken legislative authority away from not only the people but also their representatives in congress.

The “balance of power” the senator was referring to is the Constitutional principle of balancing power between all branches of government – often described as co-equal branches of government or separation of powers. But over the decades, as professional politicians have confused the language, laws became too complicated for ordinary people to interpret the meaning or even the intent. Courts were trusted to interpret for us. But professional politicians have been able to stock the courts with judges who use a dictionary of political ideology terms for interpretation. The result is that the people have allowed their traditional respect for law to become a tool for courts to become more and more autocratic. (By the way of example, the word autocratic is a gentle sounding word for dictatorial or despotic.)

Over the past sixty years professional politicians have grown more dependent on politically appointed judges to – as Senator Lundberg described it – govern by “rule of the court” in place of the “rule of law.”

Dr. Annette Bosworth, a former conservative candidate for U.S. Senate in South Dakota probably had no idea just how ruthless the revenge would be to her when she announced her candidacy with the statement:

A career politician is someone who’s learned how to use their role in government to make money: a LOT of money.

Bosworth was disqualified from running after being “convicted” of the felony of purgery for signing her name as a witness to some petition papers she “technically” should not have signed. She didn’t lie to congress and no national security was at risk, but she did intend to expose

“corrupt career politicians… … (who) aren’t beholden to the citizens or the Constitution. They are hooked on the money. … … We are losing our country while career politicians get rich.”

Senator Lundberg’s letter continued in detail to address the case of the county clerk in Kentucky who was jailed by federal judge order for following Kentucky state law instead of an “opinion” of the highly political judges of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a very clear case of the political opinion of judges being accepted as “law.” But this is not true. Judges were never given the power to write law. This power was reserved for the people and their representatives in congress. In Kentucky as well as some 33 other states, the people, by an overwhelming majority, wrote a law defining “marriage.” With no higher law yet to be passed, the clerk could have been punished for issuing illegal marriage licenses the law of the people of Kentucky clearly defines. Instead, she was jailed by federal agents with weapons following a dictate of some judges. The charge was contempt of court. This is the “law” judges use to force people to obey them or simply show them respect. What Davis was really guilty of was not surrendering her lawful authority to unelected judges.

Senator Lundberg’s letter continues:

The Supreme Court … … ignored the jurisdiction of their authority, ignored the First and Tenth Amendments, ignored and then trashed parts of 34 state constitutions, and twisted the Fourteenth Amendment out of recognition. Their decision did not create any law which they actually (don’t) have the constitutional authority to create or enforce. I am aware that they have been doing this for a long time, but their bad habits will never make it constitutionally right.

If the courts continue to do the bidding of the politicians, and the most powerful politician is the President, the logical progression of the rule of law being replaced by the rule of courts is the further expansion of the same system of government the colonists originally refused to continue to accept as just – a dictatorial monarchy.

So the question becomes this: When the people begin to revolt against judicial despotism, will “law enforcement officers” follow the orders of the judges or the laws of the people? If the Kim Davis case is any indication, the bloodshed we will experience is going to be something the founding fathers anticipated and accounted for in the Second Amendment.

Craig Masters

This entry was posted in Editorial and Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *