Roberts did not misspeak. Reviewing his history, it is clear that he meant what he said: "That experience left me with a profound appreciation for
the role of the court in our constitutional democracy."
He again refers to "democracy," more specifically, "the institutions of our democracy" in his final words:
"And I also want to acknowledge my children — my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack — who remind me every day why it’s so important for us to work to preserve the
institutions of our democracy."
It is PATHETIC that most Americans don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. It is precisely the apathy and ignorance of the American public that allows the politicians to manipulate away the principles upon which this country was founded.
What is the role of our institution--the United States Supreme Court--in our constitutional republic?
It acts as the ultimate source of checks and balances upon the power of the people, through their elected officials, to tyrannize individual and minority rights through oppressive laws.
James Madison wrote:
An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.
Source: Federalist No. 48
These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other (Friday, February 1, 1788).
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_48.html
Our forefathers founded this country to SECURE and PRESERVE LIBERTY . . . not to allow individual liberty interests to fall prey to mob rule through democratic processes.
The proper ROLE of the Supreme Court is secure and preserve individual liberty retained by the people when they formed a government of delegated and limited powers.
Quote:In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. . . .
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. . . .
It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. . . .
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_51.html
Our constitutional republic is what ALL of us must strive to understand and maintain.
There are certain justices sitting on the Supreme Court who do not adhere to the concept of a "constitutional republic," but desire to transform our country into a "constitutional democracy" wherein the Court severely restrains its constitutional role to act as the guardian of individual rights and defers to majority rule (majority tyranny).
All fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. But, some justices (and others) would prefer to abandon the Supreme Court's proper role to secure liberty by leaving individual liberty interests to majority rule.
See, e.g., Scalia's dissenting opinion in PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) wherein he advocates his "constitutional democracy" position:
Justice Scalia wrote:The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html
Scalia doesn't want the constitution to protect and secure individual LIBERTY interests against government interference in private matters--he wants individual liberty interests to be left to the vote of the majority based upon their moral disapproval. After Scalia thoroughly bashed the majority for recognizing that the state has no legitimate basis for criminalizing private sexual conduct between consenting adults, Scalia said the following in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas:
Justice Scalia wrote: Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best.
:roll eyes:
The Fourteenth Amendment protects life, liberty, and property. But, according to those who advocate for a "constitutional democracy," the constitution simply doesn't protect individual freedom/privacy/liberty interests--these interests are subject to criminal penalities based on the moral disapproval alone of a tyrannical majority.
HOWEVER, God (I think it's the Catholic God) forbid if the constitution doesn't protect PROPERTY INTERESTS.
See the majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London:
the majority wrote:We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.
When the majority ruled in Kelo that limitations on "public use" for economic development should be left to the democratic processes of the people in their respective states, Scalia changed his tune.
According to Scalia, the Fourteenth Amendment protects PROPERTY, but not LIBERTY. How convenient to throw democracy out the window in order to extend constitutional protection to property; but sneer in condescending disgust when anyone suggests that it protects liberty.
Let's just put a camera in everyone's bedroom and let the morality police run the country. Don't let them catch you engaging in sex if you're not married. Don't let them catch you married folk spilling that procreative seed on the mattress or using contraceptives . . .
It is clear the the nominee, John G. Roberts, is a Scalia clone.
Again--ours is NOT a constitutional democracy. Roberts' reference to the "role of the court in our constitutional democracy" speaks VOLUMES for those who care to listen. And if you're one of those people who think it's proper to impose your religious and moral beliefs on others through the operation of the laws--Roberts is your man.
Be careful what you ask for . . . you just might get it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace