Your Opinion: Liberal interpretation of Constitution flawed
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
“The law is the law” was a common phrase used by German judges after the Nazi regime took office and instituted numerous repugnant laws that the German Courts upheld. Until the Dred Scott case, slavery was the law of the whole United States of America.
Many times courts are often quite wrong concerning the meaning of the law and the only constant is the inconsistency of court decisions. Plus, when courts refuse to hear cases, such as a case that clearly begs for a definition of natural-born citizen then courts are avoiding their responsibilities and not serving the people.
To indicate how far afield law can become, just remember that at the founding of our nation Britain was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy. The same British constitution that was supposed to protect the rights of British citizens was not protecting the rights of British colonists. Yes, at that time the citizens in the colonies were mainly British citizens. Parliament and the king were forcing different laws on the British colonists that did not affect the citizens on the British home isles; yet, they were all supposed to be British citizens equal under the law.
The same unequal application of the law is occurring in the US and some people just want to have an unsubstantiated opinion that ignores gross injustices by the Administration and Congress. Justice Ginsberg recently admitted the present Supreme Court is an activist court, which means interpretations are being generated from personal opinion rather than constitutional core principles.
Mr. Wallemann concludes that Tea Party members desire anarchy yet the opposite is true. Opponents to the present Obama administration are being treated in an unconstitutional manner because laws are being incorrectly interpreted or ignored. Letters to the editor that misrepresent the truth are just another injustice to one’s fellow citizens.