Eagle Forum
EF Twitter
Alerts Nominations Architects vs. Activists Court Cases Courts & Culture Links
We the People Court College Curbing the Courts Court Comedy Law Library Resources

VOL. 8, NO. 5Apr. 20, 2006
Fighting for the Constitution, the Courts, And the "Contract"
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman

What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this [Supreme] Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? . . . Day by day, case by case, [the Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize. (Justice Scalia dissenting in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 688, 711 (1996). Emphasis added.

A decade has passed since Antonin Scalia raised this scathing objection to the Supreme Court's usurpation of the power to govern the United States. Judicial power has become much more bloated in that decade, and Americans-both leaders and laymen-are finally beginning to say "enough!"

In a recent meeting in Washington, D.C., a number of leaders approved a "Values Voters' Contract with Congress" which lays out a battle plan for fighting to revive our Constitution and reclaim our courts. The "Contract" enumerates many reasons why we Constitutionalists are deeply disturbed by the growing infection of judicial supremacy in America. "The Contract" also outlines a number of specific action items directed toward restoring constitutional supremacy to our nation.

The "Contract" addresses nine critical policy areas where judges have run amok and plunged our nation toward disaster: (1) our national relationship with God; (2) the institutions of marriage and family; (3) the fundamental rights of parents; (4) the God-bestowed right to life; (5) our God-granted liberties, e.g., religious liberty and speech; (6) our God-given stewardship of property; (7) our right to an environment of decency; (8) our right to just taxation and protection from immorally destructive taxation; (9) securing of our national borders and identity. A central theme running throughout "The Contract" is federal judges' responsibility for our national disaster, and the necessity of curbing the courts and reversing our plunge toward disaster.

The "Contract" calls for the restoration of the Judeo-Christian worldview in all these policy areas, through a variety of actions — new legislation by Congress, effective enforcement of existing laws; and constitutional amendment. Topping the list for immediate action are several bills. Here is a simplified description of four high-priority bills:

  • The Pledge Protection Act of 2005: This removes from federal court jurisdiction challenges to the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance;

  • The Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: This bill protects from court challenge a government or government officials' acknowledgment of God "as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.." The bill further prohibits our courts involved in interpreting the Constitution from relying on the actions "of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States."

  • The Marriage Protection act of 2005: This bill reinforces the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 by prohibiting any federal court from hearing a "Full Faith and Credit Clause" challenge to a state law protecting traditional marriage. No federal judge can order any state not recognizing the legality of same-sex marriage to recognize as legal a same-sex marriage that has been performed in a state where such arrangement is legal.

  • The Judicial Conduct Act of 2005: This bill establishes standards for impeaching federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Of particular significance is the bill's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is a ground for impeachment under the Constitution, Article II, section 4. Among the impeachable grounds cited by this bill are: a judge's "usurpation of power," "disgraceful or indecent behavior," "use of the office for personal ends," making dictates or decisions "beyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the justice or judge serves," a judge's basing his/her dictates or decisions on actions of "foreign institutions, governments, or multilateral organizations (e.g., the UN and European Union), making decisions or dictates "inconsistent with the text of the U. S. Constitution," and relying on "precedent from previous Federal court decisions that conflict with or are inconsistent with the text of the Constitution

The need to save the Constitution from its greatest enemy — the courts — is eloquently explained by law professor Michael Paulson in his expose of Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania (1992) as the "worst constitutional decision of all time." Paulson's concluding paragraph states in part, "[the] Supreme Court, as currently constituted, [is] a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time." Multiple forces have contributed to this destructive judicial supremacy: "The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions [and other anti-constitutional decisions favoring homosexual rights, evolutionistic censorship, discrimination against Christians, etc.] the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people" toward the rogue judiciary means that "The lesson of the Holocaust — "Never Forget" — is lost." We must re-learn that lesson and revive our Constitution!

Support the "Values Voters Contract with Congress!"

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
PurposesPrinciplesPrograms Personnel