If you had been out of the country for a while and then came back, you would think that the role of America’s Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, had changed from ruling on the law of the land to striking down Popular Votes by American Citizens.

According to Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in this Federalist Paper, Americans have nothing to fear from the Judiciary when they act alone. It’s when they act in concert with another Government branch, that Americans need to be afraid.

From The Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

Do you think that Hamilton foresaw the rise of Activist Judges, whose sole purpose, working in concert with an out-of-control Administration, is to carry out the re-engineering of American Society, under the guise of “equality”?

The great American Economist and Conservative Pundit (who just happens to be Black) Dr. Thomas Sowell, wrote the following in a paper on the subject of Judicial Activism:

The claim that judicial activism is necessary to rescue us from bondage to the past– from having the writers of the Constitution “rule us from the grave”– defies both logic and history. There is no contest between the living and the dead. The contest is between those living individuals who wish to see control of change in judicial hands and those who wish to see it in other hands. There has been no argument that either statutory or constitutional laws are not to change. The only meaningful question is: Who is to change them? The reiterated emphasis on change, like the reiterated emphasis on morality, argues what is not at issue and glides over what is crucially at issue: Why are judges the authorized instrument? The original cognitive meaning of laws– constitutional or statutory– is important, not out of deference to the dead, but because that is the agreed‑upon meaning among the living, until they choose to make an open and explicit change– not have one foisted on them by the verbal sleight-of‑hand of judges.

Existing social philosophies and political alignments cannot be presupposed in discussions of long-run questions, such as constitutional interpretation. Even within the judiciary, differences in “substantive values” have been drastic over time, and by no means negligible even at a given time. The belief that a constitutional structure can be maintained while jurists with radically different visions make “substantive choices” within it seems dangerously similar to a belief that one can slide half-way down a slippery slope. The argument for judicial activism must stand or fall in general and enduring terms, not simply on whether some current political or social creed is considered so superior to competing creeds as to justify judges’ decisions in its favor. It is ultimately not a question of the relative merits of particular political or social creeds but of the long-run consequences of opening the floodgates to the generic principle of constitutional decisions based on “substantive values.” Once you have opened the floodgates, you cannot tell the water where to go.

What must be rejected is precisely the general principle that judges’ “substantive values” should govern constitutional decisions. Nor is anything fundamentally changed by saying that judges are only agents of general moral ideas, rather than their own personal inclinations. If the Constitution does not enact Herbert Spencer’s “”A Theory of Justice”.

As any American with half a brain has figured out by now, the purpose of using the Judiciary to overthrow the will of the American People who voted against “Gay Marriage” is to reinforce the notion that the average American is prejudicial is nature and, that allowing homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” is a matter of “Civil Rights”, not social re-engineering brought about by the desire of the Gay Mafia and their Progressive Supporters to redefine the American Family Unit. 

Because the overwhelming majority of Americans still profess a belief in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, there was no way that Gay Activists would ever win a popular vote in the majority of American States, and fulfill their quest to have same-sex relationships classified as normal through the use of the word signifying the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

Therefore, through the usurpation of the People’s will by Activist Judges, they are succeeding in realizing the overturning of popular votes against “gay marriage” in several states.

However, if I am any judge as to the reaction of average Christian Americans, they will continue to fail in their quest for “acceptance” of their sexually deviant behavior.

Christian Americans, as shown through our overwhelming support of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, are still clinging to our traditional American Faith and Values, and no Liberal Judge, backed by a Progressive (i.e., Liberal) Government will push us off of the Solid Rock on which we stand.

We’ve read The Book. We know how all of this ends.

Until He Comes,

KJ