CONSTITUTIONAL vs UNCONSTITUTIONAL (what don’t we understand?)

Posted on December 11, 2012



The United States of America Constitutionwas designed to protect the rights bestowed on each of us by our Creator, GOD.  These rights are self evident and irrevocable by man except under the use of force. (Hello IRS)  Our founding fathers were so concerned about protecting these rights against the threat of other nations but also against the threat of our own Government.

 History had shown that governments are inherently evil and over time will usurp power from the people and ultimately the peoples freedom and liberty.  To offset this potential dilemma, the constitution was created, which quite specifically enumerated mans rights but more importantly put down in writing exactly what powers government would possess.

Critic’s espouse that the constitution is a living document that has to change over time.  Our founding fathers took this into consideration and provided means for necessary change.  However, this is the place the road diverges, it is my belief as well as others that any change to the constitution could not invalidate any previous rights granted under the constitution.

The sole purpose of the Supreme Court was to ensure that the government would not try to implement any laws that would be in violation of this premise and if the government should try to succeed in enacting these type of laws the Supreme Court is obligated and honor bound to strike it down as Unconstitutional.

Let us grasp that for a moment, the Supreme Court is required to keep the government from abusing its power and trying to abridge or circumvent We The People’s God given rights.  (More on the Supreme Court in another blog)  Now when a law does not infringe on an individuals rights it is said to be Constitutionalpretty simple, right?

Well my fellow patriots and sovereigns, explain to me how a proposed law can be struck down as Unconstitutional and then be rearranged and be called Constitutional?  Well there is an answer, it can only be done with the sanction of the Supreme Court.  The Justice’s were not doing there job and  as a matter of fact, as you will see in my example, they were helping the government infringe on our rights.

Obamacare was ruled to be unconstitutional which meant that the law in some way infringed on the people’s rights, fair enough.  Now here is where the duplicity comes into play.  The Supreme Court proceeded to not only make there ruling but to tell the government how they could change how the proposed law was to be enacted and they could then sign off on it!!!  

Excuse me but I didn’t know it was the Supreme Courts responsibility or obligation to tell government how to write or enact law.  The real problem however, is not the Court over stepping their bounds, oh no.  The problem occurs by their belief that we are stupid.  It seems to me if a law will infringe on We The People’s rights, how in God’s name can moving it to a different category change that?  The law will screw the people no matter how you implement it which was the reason for the unconstitutional ruling in the first place.  I tell you, what a trick!

We trust our Supreme Court to do the right thing so when they say something is constitutional we accept it without thought.  They want us to pretend that moving a unconstitutional law from the left hand to the right hand changes the result.  I for one don’t buy it, do you?

Your comments are welcome

Byron F. Lindsay