Updated date:

The Left's Assault on The Constitution

Leftist Judicial Tyranny

Tyranny as defined by dictionary.com is, “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”. According to the free dictionary a despot is, “a person who wields power oppressively” or, “a person with absolute power”! Judicial tyranny in America occurs when judges bypass Constitutional limitations and become a law unto themselves. Judges abuse their constitutional role by stepping into a policy making role rather than acting as a neutral arbitrator in interpreting the Constitution.

Burning The Constitution

Burning The Constitution

Tyranny in the Name of Justice!

Tyranny in the Name of Justice!

Liberal social justice

Liberal social justice

Examples of Leftist Judicial Tyranny

In the 1990’s the state of Nevada voted twice to have an amendment to their state constitution requiring a two-thirds majority vote for tax increases. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled to increase the tax by one billion dollars thereby nullifying will of over a million Nevadans by a simple court majority ruling.

In 2000 the state of New Jersey tried to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual scout leaders. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale the Supreme Court narrowly affirmed the Boy Scouts First Amendment rights in a 5-4 decision, with all the court liberals dissenting. Later the courts used this decision to drive the Boy Scouts off public property.

In 2002 the California US 9th circuit court of appeals, ruled the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional based on the First Amendment’s Establishments Clause. The court ruled that the phrase “under God” in the pledge constituted an establishment of religion. In 2006 the same litigant, the atheist attorney Michael Newdow, brought a suit to have “in God we trust” removed from our currency, because of the establishment clause. Fortunately a federal judge rejected his claim but only on the grounds that it didn’t dictate anyone’s belief.

In 2003 The Us Supreme Court upheld a policy of the University of Michigan to have an affirmative action program. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner reasoned that diversity trumped the clear meaning of The Constitution. Diversity trumps the clear meaning of the Constitution, whose country is this; does it belong to a group of black robed tyrants or “we the people”?

In 2003 the Florida Supreme court nullified a state law requiring the parents of under aged girls to be notified before obtaining they obtain an abortion.

In 2004 Queens Superior Court Justice Laura Blackburne, aided robbery suspect Derek Sterling in evading arrest. Sterling was under arrest for a mugging charge in connection with a drug offense. Upon hearing of Sterling’s imminent arrest, Judge Blackburne, harried him away through a private exit reserved only for court personnel, for the purpose of helping him avoiding arrest by an NYPD detective who had entered the court building to place Sterling in custody. Two years prior to this Judge Blackburne ordered all 13 charges be dropped against a suspected cop killer because of supposed delays to the trial. She freed him without bail and even refused to restore the charges against him later on. The only consequence for the actions of Judge Blackburne was that she was reassigned to civil court. Queens’s county district attorney Richard A. Brown admitted that Blackburne should have been removed from the bench but refused to take any action against her.

In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled on a case that sparked a public outcry involving the rights of private property owners in Kelo v. City of New London. The court liberals with the aid of Justice Kennedy ruled to condemn a property for the purpose of economic development. The court reasoned that property can be condemned for the purpose meeting the diverse and always evolving needs of society. Originally eminent domain was restricted only to public use in which the government had to use the property themselves. Now public use has evolved to mean public purpose, with the courts of deciding what public purpose is. The courts have destroyed property values through various means including court imposed regulations, for the purpose redistributing property to whatever cause they deem to be in the public interest.

In 2005 there was a case in which Christopher Simmons was convicted of premeditated burglary and murder of Shirley Crook. Simmons, with the aid of several accomplices’ broke into Crooks’ residence, bound and gagged her and drowned her by throwing her into a river. The Supreme Court liberals with the aid of Justice Kennedy ruled to shield Simmons from the death penalty because he was 17 years old. Justice Kennedy opined that at 17, the defendant was still struggling with his identity therefore it should be viewed as a lesser offense. Later the youth bragged about his exploits, while his victim is buried under ground leaving behind heartbroken and angry family members. Is the meticulous planning of a robbery and then a murder to silence the victim the result of childish immaturity and identity issues? I think not!

In 2010 a US District judge ruled the national day of prayer to be unconstitutional thereby denying the clear meaning of the Constitutions Free Exercise Clause. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham was removed from the Pentagon prayer service. Many believe that President Obama was behind Graham’s ouster because of Graham’s criticism of radical Islam. President Obama declared overseas that America is no longer a Christian nation while maintaining America to be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. President Obama chose not to participate in the National Day of Prayer but has chosen to observe the tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House. While it is true that the president has been friendly at times to Christian interests, the president’s apparent disregard for Christianity seems to have emboldened liberal judges to ignore the First Amendment rights of Christians.

In 2010 Federal judge Vaughn Walker declared proposition 8, which prohibits a California state recognition of gay marriage, to be null and void. He reasoned that the justification for gay marriage is found in the 9th and 14th Amendments, something that no former court has ever acknowledged. He likewise reasoned homosexual marriage to be an inalienable (God given) right. This ruling negated the will of millions of California voters. Similar initiatives prohibiting gay marriage have been promoted in 31 states with overwhelming voter support. Judge Walker condescendingly declared the people’s decision to be irrational and motivated by moral disapproval. But there are many laws motivated by moral disapproval, for example the laws opposing incest, polygamy, and prostitution. If moral disapproval is no basis for laws what should be the basis for laws, personal opinions, what most people think, international laws,don’t laugh this has become a factor in deciding cases for liberal judges.

Current Supreme Court

Current Supreme Court

Minority Rights and Judicial Independence

Much of the rationale of liberal judges for opposing the will of the vast majority of the people is the protection of minority rights and judicial independence. While it is true that judges are somewhat insulated from the public for the purpose of not being caught up in the political passions and fads, the Founders made it clear the majority must prevail.

As described by George Washington:

The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins (requires) that the will of the majority shall prevail.

Thomas Jefferson concurs:

“The will of the majority is the natural law of every society and is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.”

Contrary to the liberal idea that the courts are the best protectors of minority rights, the courts have had a very poor record in this regard. For instance in 1875 Congress banned segregation in a majority vote, in 1882 the Supreme Court struck down Congresses decision and it wasn’t till 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that the courts finally banned segregation. Minority rights have been best kept by the will of the majority. Congress, not the courts, has been a better guardian of the people’s rights because of their proximity and accountability to the voters.


There are a number of remedies to the problems created by arrogant and unaccountable liberal judges. Congress has the power to determine court’s jurisdiction and the nature of cases that come before it. Many today are under the impression that judges can only be removed for criminal misconduct but this is not true. Congress can also remove judges by impeachment for many reasons other than criminal misconduct, although Congress has not recently chosen to enforce these provisions. These include usurping the power of Congress (making policy), personal misconduct, and regularly ignoring the interests of people.


Kathryn L Hill from LA on January 09, 2013:

Good point.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on January 09, 2013:

Kathryn L Hill- Your so right, freedom has a price, bondage and dependency comes without any effort at all!

Kathryn L Hill from LA on January 08, 2013:

Freedom is only one side of the coin of Liberty. The other side is discipline. Thank You for bringing John Adams to speak to those of us who have the eyes to read. :)

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on January 08, 2013:

Thank your for your gracious words, and I wholehearted agree with you that a Godly foundation is the only foundation that we can build on in America. The founders knew this and said so, John Adam said;

“we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.”

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Kathryn L Hill from LA on January 07, 2013:

The fact is, we cannot have a democratic republic without the belief and foundation in God. He gives us the ten commandments, the laws of nature, the boundaries created by common sense (common to all mankind) and common decency, and through these boundaries gives us freedom. I, for one, give you encouragement and energy in the direction you are going and are bringing us toward, through writing here on HP. Thank You.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on December 06, 2012:


Luke A. Hall from Ohio on December 06, 2012:

LOL I get you wba108... enjoy the blog. Keep writing!

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on December 06, 2012:

Veritas Separatim- Great advice, sometimes I just hope beyond hope that the truth will somehow slowly sink in to minds that have been closed by years of liberal indoctrination! As you alluded to, there are multiple reasons for thier lack of basic understanding therefore the problem goes deeper than it appears!

I sometimes like to debate to strengthen the weaknesses my own arguments or to provide answers for the few who would read the comments section.

Luke A. Hall from Ohio on December 06, 2012:

My advice... don't bother with the lefty... they do nothing but hurl insults (ala "small minded and conservative are synonymous.") Liberals are a complete waste of time to reason with because they (1) have absolutely no sense of historical context, (2) believe that the constitution is a list of suggestions and (3) discard the founding fathers as antiquated old farts whose thoughts have no bearing on our current state as a nation. Seriously, take it from someone who has built a life on studying political science and economic theory. It is a complete waste of time reasoning with a liberal bent on moral relativity and living in an invisible Utopian dreamworld.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on February 10, 2012:

Thank you so much! Since you've commented on almost all my articles I guess maybe its time to write more.

James A Watkins from Chicago on February 10, 2012:

Thank you for this fabulous article! I could not agree more with your analysis. Well done!

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on February 07, 2012:

poetvix- Its seems that the Constitution has to be bypassed and history revised in order to advance the liberal agenda. A good question for them may be,why have a Constitution when judges can devine it to say anything they want. Thank you for your comments.

poetvix from Gone from Texas but still in the south. Surrounded by God's country. on February 07, 2012:

Thank you for the abundance of facts, cases, and things that are verifiable truths. It is very scary to me how the courts are playing fast and loose with the Constitution, how the current leader is constantly by passing it, squashing it's doctrines and by passing congress. In my thoughts this makes a mockery of our democratic way of government. This was an eye opening hub for me in the sheer number of instances you sight. Placing them all in one place really drives the point home.

Texasbeta on October 06, 2011:

Agreed. How bout them RANGERS!?!?!??!!

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 06, 2011:

Texasbeta - It seems we're having trouble finding common ground, so we'll have to agree to disagree.-WBA

Texasbeta on October 06, 2011:

First, you cannot list a single example of a law we have based upon Christian principles, as the laws we have such as murder, theft, etc...predate Christianity and are evident in societies that are not Christian.

Secondly, your interpretation of the establishment clause is just that, an interpretation, and one that since the Supreme Court has shot down. Nowhere does the Constitution say: "The United States is a Christian Nation", or anything even close to that. In fact, the words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3). The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to seperate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- but as you will soon see, that's the language of Deism, not Christianity. You like quotes:

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches James Madison


"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

-letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."

- letter to John Taylor

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."


"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." - "Notes on Virginia"

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." -Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

-letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519

Do I need to keep going?

You have no more right to impose your religious view upon the children of the country, than a Muslim citizen to make them all pray to Allah. You are not a snowflake. You are not special. The fact that you consider it your right to impose your beliefs upon others is nothing short of tyranny, by definition.

The country isn't yours. You are no more important than any other citizen of this nation, Hindu, Muslim, Athiest, Catholic, etc. Our laws forbid you to push your junk on my kids. Teach your own kids your fairy tales. My kids will learn science and not operate within a belief window from the Dark Ages. Your kids can pretend that the magic man created everything and Noah put every animal on a boat, and my kids will buy clothes from your kids working the checkout lane before they go off to their engineering jobs.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 06, 2011:


When I say that most of our laws were based on Christian principles and Christianity I also include the Old Testament law. While I agree that even before the Mosaic Law was written, people understood many of its principles although many rejected them. In the Scriptures in Romans 1:18-20 I’m paraphrasing it to say that- God’s ways have been known to man since the beginning of creation.

I disagree that this quote wasn’t predicated upon a wartime treaty. The founders openly declared America a Christian nation but they created a constitutional non-establishment clause which applied only to the federal government. Therefore they can rightfully say the federal government of the America was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, without negating the fact that America was founded a Christian nation. And as I mentioned before “by Christian nation I don’t mean that the government coerced people to be Christians, but that our laws and institutions were largely shaped by Christian principles and ideas”.

George Washington declared this in his 1797 farewell address: “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

John Adams said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature”.

Jefferson regularly attended church services as president at the capitol building with government paid chaplains. He also arranged for similar services to be conducted at the War Office and Treasury Building of the executive branch. He use federal funds to aid Christian schools and promote Christianity among the Indians.- Regards-WBA

Texasbeta on October 05, 2011:

You can always do what Sheri does - when she gets her arse handed to her, she blocks the comments. Hmmm...sounds bit like socialism doesn't it? Define irony

Texasbeta on October 05, 2011:

Founded on Christian principles, our laws...really? Like what? It is a commandment of the Christian God to rip the unborn child out of a pregnant belly when a wife is found to have not been a virgin at the time of marriage, and bash the baby against the rocks. Is that in our laws?

What is? You can't steal, murder, etc? Those aren't Christian laws, those are generic laws that predate Christianity and exist in areas where Christianity never flourished. You are being small minded...or conservative, which are synonymous.

The quote isn't predicated upon being included in a wartime treaty. They are clear and direct words written by the hand of our 3rd President, the author of our Declaration of Independence, under the direction of our 1st President, and signed by our 2nd President.

You can play in your fantasyland, or you can read a book.

Being that you are a conservative...we all know which direction you will take. Have fun Shoots and Ladders in your own self delusion. The attempt at education was wasted in your case.

As for being happy conservatives - "Ignorance is bliss" has never been more apparent in your ilk.

Texasbeta on October 05, 2011:

Apparently, this is where the cattle graze.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 05, 2011:

Hi Sheri- Nice to hear from you! It's a fact that liberals are generally not as happy as conservatives, so you've got to cut them a little slack! I think Obamacare is going down, Justice Kennedy is the swing vote and he has little sympathy for this federal power grab.-Regards-WBA

SheriSapp from West Virginia on October 05, 2011:

I see that you have already heard from one of the most outspoken hate-mongering libs here in hubworld. I bet you can guess who I am talking about here. I must have hope that the SCOTUS isn't so far gone down lib lane that they will finally shred the constitution once and for all when deciding about the constitutionality of Obummacare!!

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 05, 2011:

caltex- I'm not sure if they know either since they believe our constitution to be an ever evolving living document that changes with society. If the liberals continue to consolidate power, try to picture what a dictatorship would look like where a small central power controls everything. I'm believing the revolt against type of oppression is already under way!- Regards-WBA

caltex on October 04, 2011:

WBA, these liberal judges have twisted the provisions of the constitution so much, it makes it hard for me to think what kind of society we will have a few years from now. I don't even want to think what it would be many years from now.

Great hub! Voted up and all!

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 03, 2011:


Good point, it is a contradiction in terms! I think these folks believe thier anointed not appointed! Thanks for stopping by!-WBA

breakfastpop on October 03, 2011:

Bravo! What a sell done and important piece of writing. "Activist Judges" is a dangerous contradiction in terms. Up,useful and awesome.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 02, 2011:


America was founded a Christian Nation; most of its laws were based on Christian principles and Christianity. By Christian nation I don’t mean that the government coerced people to be Christians, but that our laws and institutions were largely shaped by Christian principles and ideas.

The First Amendment was meant to protect religious liberty not to give the government the green light to drive Christianity from the public square. The establishment clause was merely meant to prevent the government from imposing a federally sponsored denomination as was in England and most of Europe. The general purpose of the First Amendment was to keep the federal government from meddling in church affairs and certainly not to keep Christianity from influencing the government as is also the case with the freedom of the press in theFirst Amendment.

The treaty of Tripoli was a wartime treaty to assure the Muslim pirates that America was not a European crusader type Christian nation that meant them harm. Why would you take a quote from a complex wartime treaty as a statement of national principle while ignoring peace time statements which overwhelming affirm America’s Christian foundations?

Texasbeta on October 02, 2011:

". President Obama declared overseas that America is no longer a Christian nation while maintaining America to be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. President Obama chose not to participate in the National Day of Prayer but has chosen to observe the tradition of celebrating Ramadan at the White House. While it is true that the president has been friendly at times to Christian interests, the president’s apparent disregard for Christianity seems to have emboldened liberal judges to ignore the First Amendment rights of Christians."

First of all, Christian's first amendment rights don't include getting whatever you want and if you don't, you are being oppressed.

Secondly, Obama didn't say we are no longer a Christian Nation. He said we were NEVER a Christian Nation. Where did he get that? Try the Treaty of Tripoli, written by the hand of the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, under the guide of the first President of the United States, George Washington, and signed by the hand of the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams. This entire post is essentially a display of ignorance. You are whining because things you want were deemed unConstitutional. Well, some things are Unconstitutional, and we don't live in a "mob rule" country. Deal with it or go somewhere else.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 02, 2011:

dahoglund-Thanks for stopping by! Your right the law has to come first if we're to be a nation ruled by law rather than by men. Parental rights are a basic pillar of our society, you're right they must be respected for our countries moral base to be held together.-Regards and blessings- WBA

Don A. Hoglund from Wisconsin Rapids on October 02, 2011:

The courts need to have a balanced outlook.The law should come first. Rights, such as parental rights, must be respected.It is simply outrageous when things like abortions are performed on minor children without the consent of parents, even without the knowledge of parents.Voted up.

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 02, 2011:

Hi Onusonus- Thanks for taking the time to read this Hub Its always good to hear from you! There's an amazing amount of clear thinking on the Constitution and a dangerous lack of moral clarity in our government, its time for us to get a lot more involved in our government before we lose our precious freedoms-WBA

wba108@yahoo.com (author) from upstate, NY on October 02, 2011:

Point2make- Thanks for stopping by and for your kind comments! You're right to see the danger of these activist judges and the danger they pose. I see the actions of these judges reflecting a deeper spiritual sickness in this nation there is a spiritual force driving these judges to make these types of decisions.-Regards and blessings-WBA

Onusonus on October 01, 2011:

Very interesting.

point2make on October 01, 2011:

An excellent well researched and written hub WBA....well done!. Your hub should be a call to action for every citizen who believes the constitution is still the foundation of the nation and deserves our protection.

Activist judges are far more dangerous to the future and freedom of this nation than any foreign influences including terrorism.

Related Articles