This from Harry Browne:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The Supreme Court Scam
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
For the past year, Republicans have been trying to explain
to us small-government advocates why we should vote for
George W. Bush. But since Mr. Bush has no plans to
reduce government or improve our lives in any significant
way, Republicans have had only one argument: he isn't Al
Gore. ("You don't want Al Gore in the White House, do
you?")
But after seeing the Republican convention -- with its
theme, "big government can be compassionate
government" -- it turns out that George Bush is Al Gore
after all.
Since George Bush loves big government as much as Al
Gore does, Republicans have had to find another reason
for us to choose Bush over Gore. So they remind us that
the next President may select as many as three or four
new Supreme Court judges.
"Do you want Al Gore choosing those judges?" they ask.
The Supreme Court is a favorite Republican whipping boy.
They blame the court for many of today's ills -- hoping
we'll ignore the role of the big-spending Reagan and Bush
administrations and the pork-obsessed, over-regulating,
power-hungry Republican Congress.
They neglect to mention that Republican presidents
appointed seven of the nine judges on the court they love
so much to hate. They expect us to jump at the chance to
vote for a president who will undoubtedly appoint more
judges like Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and
David Souter.
And they ignore the fact that even their favorite judges --
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- often ignore the
plain meaning of the Constitution in an effort to impose
their own values on America.
Picking a Supreme Court judge
We have bad Supreme Court judges because bad
presidents have chosen them. And the court won't be
improved by electing another big-government president --
whether his name is Al Gore or George Bush.
Every modern Supreme Court justice decides constitutional
questions by referring to something other than the plain
language of the Constitution. They invoke "original intent,"
a "living Constitution," "penumbras," "the greater good," or
the "compelling interest" of government. In so doing, they
demonstrate that they're unqualified to sit on the Supreme
Court.
What should be the proper qualifications of a Supreme
Court judge? Should the president apply a litmus test in
choosing nominees?
Yes, he should. If I become president, I will ask six simple
questions of any potential judge.
The First Amendment says,
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, when Congress or a legislature makes a law
censoring the Internet, restricting political advocacy,
prohibiting cigarette advertising on TV, or barring hate
speech, the judges don't strike it down automatically. They
deliberate to determine whether the government has a
"compelling interest" in regulating speech or the press.
But the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no
law. ..."
It doesn't speak of the government's "compelling interest"
or provide for any exceptions or qualifications. It says very
simply, "Congress shall make no law. ..."
No law.
So the first question I would pose to any potential Supreme
Court judge is:
1. Can you read?
If the prospect can pass a reading test, we can move on to
the second question:
2. What do the words "Congress shall make no law"
mean?
The Second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again, no exceptions or qualifications are given. So my
next question is:
3. What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean?
And on from there:
4. Do the thousands of gun laws now on the books
infringe in any way whatsoever on the "right of the
people to keep and bear arms"?
The Ninth Amendment says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the
power to take away your right to privacy, your right to
defend yourself, your right to keep your property, your
right to choose your own retirement program, or in fact
any other right.
So my next question is:
5. What rights do the people no longer have, and
where in the Constitution were those rights taken from
the people?
The 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
My final question will be:
6. Where in the Constitution was it delegated to the
United States government the power to interfere in
education, health care, law enforcement, welfare,
charity, corporate welfare, or any of the many other
areas that form a part of today's overbearing,
over-regulating, over-expensive federal government?
These six questions will tell me all I need to know about
the kind of judge a potential nominee would be.
Plain English
The Constitution isn't written in Chinese, Swahili, or
Esperanto. It is in plain English. We don't need anyone to
translate or interpret for us. It isn't even necessary to
study the history of the adoption of the Constitution, since
there's nothing mysterious about its words.
Phrases like "make no law" or "shall not be infringed" or
"retained by the people" or "reserved to" are comprised of
everyday words that require no search for "original intent"
or "penumbras."
The Constitution means what it says it means -- or it
means nothing at all. And any judge who overrules the
plain English of the Constitution is no judge at all --
whether he's been appointed by a Republican or a
Democrat.
Will either Al Gore or George Bush choose judges on the
basis of their respect for the plain words of the
Constitution?
Of course not. They both believe in big government. They
both believe your leaders know what's best for you.
Neither of them thinks of you as a sovereign individual
with inalienable rights he should leave alone. And neither
of them intends to have his grand plans for a Brave New
World derailed by the plain words of the Constitution.
Al Gore doesn't want a Supreme Court judge who will
strike down his vision for federal pre-school programs.
George Bush doesn't want a judge who will strike down
his vision of federal school vouchers.
Neither of them wants judges who will keep him from
meddling in education or violating the Constitution in any
other way. Quite the contrary.
So why should you think you'll be any freer with a Bush
Supreme Court than one selected by Al Gore? Do you
believe George W. Bush -- who hasn't proposed a single
reduction in big government -- is determined to keep the
government's nose out of your business?
I don't think so. He can't wait to get his hands on the reins
of power so he can use your tax money to promote his
favorite charities. He can't wait to impose his concept of a
good society on you.
What Do You Want?
Do you want smaller government?
If so, you will never get it so long as you support those
who are making government bigger. You will never get it
by inventing excuses to vote for those who are working to
make government more expensive, more intrusive, more
oppressive.
If you vote Republican or Democratic, you're giving up.
You're saying there's no hope you'll ever be free, and so
you're just going to make the best of a bad bargain -- by
voting for the person who will take you to Hell at the
slowest rate.
If you want freedom, you must vote for freedom -- not for
big government. When you do so, you may not get what
you want this year. But you're paving the way to get
freedom in your lifetime -- and maybe even in this decade.
But with the Republicans and Democrats, you'll never get
what you want. Instead, you, your children, and your
grandchildren will face an ever-larger, more intrusive
government.
To get freedom, you have to vote for it -- for candidates
who are unconditionally for smaller government, with no
exceptions and no excuses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The Supreme Court Scam
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
For the past year, Republicans have been trying to explain
to us small-government advocates why we should vote for
George W. Bush. But since Mr. Bush has no plans to
reduce government or improve our lives in any significant
way, Republicans have had only one argument: he isn't Al
Gore. ("You don't want Al Gore in the White House, do
you?")
But after seeing the Republican convention -- with its
theme, "big government can be compassionate
government" -- it turns out that George Bush is Al Gore
after all.
Since George Bush loves big government as much as Al
Gore does, Republicans have had to find another reason
for us to choose Bush over Gore. So they remind us that
the next President may select as many as three or four
new Supreme Court judges.
"Do you want Al Gore choosing those judges?" they ask.
The Supreme Court is a favorite Republican whipping boy.
They blame the court for many of today's ills -- hoping
we'll ignore the role of the big-spending Reagan and Bush
administrations and the pork-obsessed, over-regulating,
power-hungry Republican Congress.
They neglect to mention that Republican presidents
appointed seven of the nine judges on the court they love
so much to hate. They expect us to jump at the chance to
vote for a president who will undoubtedly appoint more
judges like Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, and
David Souter.
And they ignore the fact that even their favorite judges --
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia -- often ignore the
plain meaning of the Constitution in an effort to impose
their own values on America.
Picking a Supreme Court judge
We have bad Supreme Court judges because bad
presidents have chosen them. And the court won't be
improved by electing another big-government president --
whether his name is Al Gore or George Bush.
Every modern Supreme Court justice decides constitutional
questions by referring to something other than the plain
language of the Constitution. They invoke "original intent,"
a "living Constitution," "penumbras," "the greater good," or
the "compelling interest" of government. In so doing, they
demonstrate that they're unqualified to sit on the Supreme
Court.
What should be the proper qualifications of a Supreme
Court judge? Should the president apply a litmus test in
choosing nominees?
Yes, he should. If I become president, I will ask six simple
questions of any potential judge.
The First Amendment says,
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
And yet, when Congress or a legislature makes a law
censoring the Internet, restricting political advocacy,
prohibiting cigarette advertising on TV, or barring hate
speech, the judges don't strike it down automatically. They
deliberate to determine whether the government has a
"compelling interest" in regulating speech or the press.
But the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no
law. ..."
It doesn't speak of the government's "compelling interest"
or provide for any exceptions or qualifications. It says very
simply, "Congress shall make no law. ..."
No law.
So the first question I would pose to any potential Supreme
Court judge is:
1. Can you read?
If the prospect can pass a reading test, we can move on to
the second question:
2. What do the words "Congress shall make no law"
mean?
The Second Amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again, no exceptions or qualifications are given. So my
next question is:
3. What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean?
And on from there:
4. Do the thousands of gun laws now on the books
infringe in any way whatsoever on the "right of the
people to keep and bear arms"?
The Ninth Amendment says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the government given the
power to take away your right to privacy, your right to
defend yourself, your right to keep your property, your
right to choose your own retirement program, or in fact
any other right.
So my next question is:
5. What rights do the people no longer have, and
where in the Constitution were those rights taken from
the people?
The 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
My final question will be:
6. Where in the Constitution was it delegated to the
United States government the power to interfere in
education, health care, law enforcement, welfare,
charity, corporate welfare, or any of the many other
areas that form a part of today's overbearing,
over-regulating, over-expensive federal government?
These six questions will tell me all I need to know about
the kind of judge a potential nominee would be.
Plain English
The Constitution isn't written in Chinese, Swahili, or
Esperanto. It is in plain English. We don't need anyone to
translate or interpret for us. It isn't even necessary to
study the history of the adoption of the Constitution, since
there's nothing mysterious about its words.
Phrases like "make no law" or "shall not be infringed" or
"retained by the people" or "reserved to" are comprised of
everyday words that require no search for "original intent"
or "penumbras."
The Constitution means what it says it means -- or it
means nothing at all. And any judge who overrules the
plain English of the Constitution is no judge at all --
whether he's been appointed by a Republican or a
Democrat.
Will either Al Gore or George Bush choose judges on the
basis of their respect for the plain words of the
Constitution?
Of course not. They both believe in big government. They
both believe your leaders know what's best for you.
Neither of them thinks of you as a sovereign individual
with inalienable rights he should leave alone. And neither
of them intends to have his grand plans for a Brave New
World derailed by the plain words of the Constitution.
Al Gore doesn't want a Supreme Court judge who will
strike down his vision for federal pre-school programs.
George Bush doesn't want a judge who will strike down
his vision of federal school vouchers.
Neither of them wants judges who will keep him from
meddling in education or violating the Constitution in any
other way. Quite the contrary.
So why should you think you'll be any freer with a Bush
Supreme Court than one selected by Al Gore? Do you
believe George W. Bush -- who hasn't proposed a single
reduction in big government -- is determined to keep the
government's nose out of your business?
I don't think so. He can't wait to get his hands on the reins
of power so he can use your tax money to promote his
favorite charities. He can't wait to impose his concept of a
good society on you.
What Do You Want?
Do you want smaller government?
If so, you will never get it so long as you support those
who are making government bigger. You will never get it
by inventing excuses to vote for those who are working to
make government more expensive, more intrusive, more
oppressive.
If you vote Republican or Democratic, you're giving up.
You're saying there's no hope you'll ever be free, and so
you're just going to make the best of a bad bargain -- by
voting for the person who will take you to Hell at the
slowest rate.
If you want freedom, you must vote for freedom -- not for
big government. When you do so, you may not get what
you want this year. But you're paving the way to get
freedom in your lifetime -- and maybe even in this decade.
But with the Republicans and Democrats, you'll never get
what you want. Instead, you, your children, and your
grandchildren will face an ever-larger, more intrusive
government.
To get freedom, you have to vote for it -- for candidates
who are unconditionally for smaller government, with no
exceptions and no excuses.
