http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress Idaho Common Sense® Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:02:45 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Welcome to - The truth as I see it™. Dr. Bosley writes sociopolitical columns with a conservative view that is well articulated and defended, provoking thought and discussion without telling people what to think. He poses questions, while offering his personal views and reasoning for them, allowing readers to better understand his opinions as they develop their own. His advice to himself - "Writing the truth as I see it; trying not to offend those who will disagree." Craig L. Bosley, MD no Craig L. Bosley, MD webmaster@craigbosley.com webmaster@craigbosley.com (Craig L. Bosley, MD) 2010 Craig Bosley The truth as I see it™ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/rss_default.jpg http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/#comments Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:15:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1728 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2011/12/what-happened-to-our-hallmark-values/feed/ 2 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/#comments Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:09:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1646 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/10/unlimited-power-part-iv/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/#comments Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:02:17 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1626 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/unlimited-power-part-iii/feed/ 1 Bill of Rights,Great Depression,Law,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution Since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court has found a constitutional answer to every case brought before it. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a document prepared in the 1700s could address all issues for more than two hundred yea... Since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the Supreme Court has found a constitutional answer to every case brought before it. Doesn't it seem unlikely that a document prepared in the 1700s could address all issues for more than two hundred years? We currently have nine justices, none elected by the people, all appointed to their office for life, who claim absolute control over the United States Constitution. Is this what the founding fathers and the states intended? With their fear of government, why would they give unchecked power to any branch of the federal government? During the 1930s and 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt intimidated the Supreme Court, coercing it into giving unlimited power to the United States Congress. With two rulings, the court neutered the United States Constitution, ruling that it actually does not provide for a limited government. Roosevelt was demanding more control of the economy to bring us out of the Great Depression but he needed to expand congressional powers to do this. Although Congress near-blindly passed whatever legislation he proposed, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional eight of his first ten programs. Infuriated, he and his party proposed amending the Constitution to get what he wanted, their platform saying, "If these problems cannot be effectively solved within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendments as will assure the power to enact those laws." But he dismissed this plan because "it would take months or years to get substantial agreement upon the type and language of an amendment. It would take months and years thereafter to get a two-thirds majority in favor of that amendment in both houses of the Congress. Then would come the long course of ratification by three-quarters of all the states." The process was too long and he feared he might not get what he demanded. So he claimed that "in the last three national elections an overwhelming majority of (the American people) voted a mandate that the Congress and the president begin the task of providing protection (from another Great Depression) - not after long years of debate, but now." With his interpretation of a mandate, he was determined to find a way to modify the Constitution without an amendment, concluding that he needed to "infuse new blood into all our courts." So, he proposed expanding the Supreme Court by six justices, providing "a reinvigorated, liberal-minded judiciary necessary to furnish quicker and cheaper justice." Though his "court-packing" scheme failed, the court got the message and decided to protect itself rather than the Constitution. In 1936, with Butler v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the "general Welfare" clause of the Constitution was actually an enumerated power of Congress. The court gave Roosevelt the constitution he demanded, agreeing that Congress could pass any legislation it determined was for the "general Welfare of the United States." The court added that challenging Congress would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the range of discretion permitted to the Congress." Realizing the staggering power they just gave Congress, Justice Roberts said, "How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark." But to grant this unlimited power to Congress, the court ignored one of the "rules of construction" about how people enter into legal relationships. The Latin translated rule says, "Words should signify something - they should be understood to have force." The founding fathers would not have violated this rule by giving Congress unlimited power to do anything it determined was for the "general Welfare" followed by a meaningless text listing specific powers. They would have omitted such an unnecessary list. Nonetheless, Roosevelt got his new constitution, no need for an amendment, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:59 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/#comments Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:29:09 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1617 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-beginning-of-the-end-part-ii/feed/ 0 congress,Federal government of the United States,John Marshall,Supreme Court,Thomas Jefferson,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court Three Supreme Court rulings changed our lives, making our Constitution near irrelevant. One gave the Supreme Court unlimited, unchecked power; the other two gave Congress unlimited power. The first ruling created the concept of judicial review, Three Supreme Court rulings changed our lives, making our Constitution near irrelevant. One gave the Supreme Court unlimited, unchecked power; the other two gave Congress unlimited power. The first ruling created the concept of judicial review, which ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 5:17 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/#comments Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:02:40 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1608 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/09/the-path-to-socialism-part-i/feed/ 0 Bill of Rights,Federal government of the United States,government,Law,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution "We do not have socialism. We have regulated capitalism." - ISJ reader comment Is that true? Is it all or none? Or is the path to socialism a process so slow that each individual step is logical, masking the eventual outcome and encouraging inattentio... "We do not have socialism. We have regulated capitalism." - ISJ reader comment Is that true? Is it all or none? Or is the path to socialism a process so slow that each individual step is logical, masking the eventual outcome and encouraging inattention and indifference until it's too late? More important, if we are not yet socialist, is our federal government still the limited government the founding fathers created with the United States Constitution? Does it still respect state's rights? Does it still respect individual rights and freedoms? Before answering, remember that this past summer the Second Amendment was upheld by only a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, a constitutionally guaranteed right only one political appointment away from revocation. Is this what the founding fathers intended for the federal government they created? Or, did they intend something different, something limited, something not at all like our federal government? What was the purpose of the United States Constitution? Why did the states create a federal government and what did they want it to do? The states had some common needs, like defense, they realized could be more efficiently managed as a national unit rather than individually. But they only intended the federal government to oversee a limited number of things on their behalf, demanding the government they created remain subservient to the states, which were subservient to the people? Although the Constitution lists the limited powers of the federal government, in 1791 the states added the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, because they wanted to better clarify the people's and the state's rights. Keep in mind that these rights are not the same as privileges granted by the government. Our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the government cannot amend or revoke them, although the Supreme Court came perilously close this summer. Moreover, with the Tenth Amendment, the founding fathers intended to prevent the federal government from usurping powers not in the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With ratification of the Constitution and these amendments, neither the people nor the states abdicated control to the federal government. Instead, if you will, the states employed the federal government to perform certain tasks for them, outlined in a contract - The United States Constitution. Has the federal government been a good employee? Has it honored the terms of its contract with the states and the people? In the 219 years since the Bill of Rights, only 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution; only 17 times has the federal government admitted it needed an amendment to address an issue before it. Is that logical? Do you believe the founding fathers were so brilliant that they capably addressed all but 17 issues? Instead, maybe the founding fathers knew they could not address all that was to change, and in anticipation of needed changes to the Constitution, they gave us Article V, a mechanism to amend it when needed. Perhaps they also appreciated and valued the sanctity of the United States Constitution, intentionally designing it to be cumbersome to amend, requiring the agreement of two-thirds of each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Perhaps they recognized that something as important as our Constitution should not be amended lightly, should not be amended at a whim, should not be amended as political fortunes dictate. Would they be appalled with the irreverence and irrelevance our federal government shows the Constitution, reducing it to a constitution in name only. Would they be appalled that our federal government ignores the Constitution with its legislation and Supreme Court rulings, offering only a passing nod to the document they swore to uphold and defend? What happened? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:48 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/#comments Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:18:11 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1248 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/07/constitutional-coup/feed/ 0 Antonin Scalia,congress,David Souter,John Marshall Harlan,Supreme Court,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court " . . . the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." - - Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Are we witnessing a non-violent coup of the United States Constitution, " . . . the discretion of the judge is the first engine of tyranny." - Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" Are we witnessing a non-violent coup of the United States Constitution, methodically carried out by the ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:57 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/#comments Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:35:56 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1151 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/06/football-and-government/feed/ 0 congress,Federal government of the United States,House (TV series),Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States House of Representatives The federal government could learn a lot from professional football - teams competing with each other, each team doing all it can to win, referees ensuring they follow the rules, together part of a league whose owners have the final say on the rules an... The federal government could learn a lot from professional football - teams competing with each other, each team doing all it can to win, referees ensuring they follow the rules, together part of a league whose owners have the final say on the rules and how the league works. Our league is the United States of America and the teams are our free market system, individuals and companies competing with one another, doing all they can to win. The referees are our elected officials, there to ensure the competitors follow the rules. The head referee is our Supreme Court, appointed to maintain the integrity of the rulebook when questions arise. The rulebook is the United States Constitution. And, "We the people" are the league owners, the only ones who can approve changes to the rulebook and the ones hiring the referees, including our president and Congress. Although it would be ideal if the teams voluntarily followed the rules, human nature being what it is, disputes arise, rules are challenged and referees are needed. Imagine what would happen if the NFL's referees failed to do their job, if they acted like our league referees? What would happen if they twisted the rules? What would happen if they accepted money from the teams they are supposed to regulate? What would happen if they interfered with the coaching or play of the game? What would happen if they had their own team in the league they regulate? What would happen if they coerced a team to bend the rules just to please a few of the owners or other referees? Does that sound frighteningly familiar, frighteningly like how our league referees act? Maybe the president, the Senate and the House of Representatives should attend football officials school. Maybe they need to learn how to do their job, and more important, what the rulebook does not allow them to do. The president and Congress, rather than enforcing the rules, interfere with the coaching and play of the game. Moreover, our head referee, the Supreme Court, "interprets" the rulebook, deciding for us what is best and usurping powers from the league owners, us. The court believes it should decide if the rulebook is correct, if it is up to date, if it has evolved with the game, and the like. Further, unlike football referees who refer questions about the rules to the owners, our Supreme Court sees no need to do that. Instead, it just "fills in the blanks" with rulings called precedent, meaning new law and potentially a forever-altered rulebook. Our rulebook, the United States Constitution, states that "We the people" are the league owners. It states that the referees work for us, not us for them. It states that only the league owners can change the rulebook. It states that the head referee and other referees are there to enforce the rulebook, not interpret it. Wouldn't it be nice if our elected government officials understood what their jobs are? Wouldn't it be nice if the head referee, the Supreme Court, understood its job is to maintain the integrity of the rulebook? Wouldn't it be nice if the government understood that it works for the league owners - "We the people?" Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees limited their involvement with the free markets to ensuring that the teams in the game, whether individuals, banks, Wall Street or corporations, followed the rules and played fair? Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees only stepped in when rules are broken rather than inserting themselves into the game, interfering with coaches and players? Wouldn't it be nice if the government referees could simply read and follow the rulebook? Maybe we do need a referee school for elected officials. It certainly couldn't hurt. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/20100614-Football-and-government.pdf) (http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=049b12da-87b6-4694-a12f-ec85e813fd59) Craig L. Bosley, MD no 3:54 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/are-they-asking-the-right-questions/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/are-they-asking-the-right-questions/#comments Sun, 23 May 2010 19:05:08 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1125 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/05/are-they-asking-the-right-questions/feed/ 0 Constitution,Elena Kagan,Mitch McConnell,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,Thomas Jefferson,United States,United States Constitution The constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Thomas Jefferson Why is a Supreme Court nominee so important? According to their only constitutional requirement, The constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Thomas Jefferson Why is a Supreme Court nominee so important? According to their only constitutional requirement, justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," allowing them to serve for life and affect generations to come. And knowing a nominee to the Supreme Court usually survives the "advise and consent" of the Senate, selecting a nominee to the court is one of the most important things a president does. Is that all there is to it? Nothing about being a lawyer or a judge? Nothing about being a constitutional scholar or having the "proper" educational pedigree? Nothing about being male, female, black, white, Hispanic or anything else? Why? Maybe the founding fathers just wanted intelligent people with common sense. Thomas Jefferson voiced concern because justices serve for life, are appointed rather than elected and are not only outside the checks and balances of government, but also "prescribe rules" for the other branches of government. Seeing the potential for the Supreme Court abusing its power, he wrote, "Whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also." The president and Congress have recognized this unchecked power since the times of the founding fathers, relegating Supreme Court justices to political appointees, wanting the justices to "twist and shape" the Constitution like a piece of "wax" - but only if in agreement with the party that selected them. Senators sanctimoniously question the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee with less interest in protecting the Constitution and more interest in advancing their own political agenda. More often they offer self-serving speeches to the television cameras than important questions to the nominee. Further, from administration to administration the questions don't change, only the party asking them. On the recent nomination of Elena Kagan, one Senator suggested she is not qualified because she has never been a judge. Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested she is not qualified because this job "does not lend itself to on-the-job training." Sen. John Cornyn claims, "Most Americans believe that prior judicial experience is necessary." Constitutional concerns or party posturing? What questions might we, who are not a part of the political aristocracy, ask a Supreme Court nominee? Will the nominee apply the Constitution to every question before them? Will the nominee preserve and protect the Constitution rather than try to "fix" it? Will the nominee always look to the Constitution first, even if it's in conflict with prior court decisions? In other words, will defending and protecting the Constitution take priority over defending and protecting prior court decisions? Does the nominee believe the Constitution is a "living document," needing the Supreme Court to alter it to fit the times, or do they believe, as stated in the Constitution, that only "We the people" can approve changes to the Constitution? Does the nominee believe if there are issues not addressed in the Constitution it is their right or duty to "fill in the blanks;" or do they believe that Article V of the Constitution, which outlines the process for a constitutional amendment, is the only constitutional way to "fill in the blanks?" Would the nominee have the courage to say, "The Constitution does not clearly address the issue before us; therefore, we cannot render a decision and we will refer this to the Congress to decide if it wishes to propose a constitutional amendment to the people for their approval?" Thomas Jefferson - "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." "Ordinary rules of common sense. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:37 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/#comments Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:19:30 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1046 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/1046/feed/ 0 Business,capitalism,Freedom of speech,Politics,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States of America,United States Supreme Court "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan American drama critic and newspaper editor I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, "Make Mine Freedom," which tells the story of Ism elixir. "Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote." George Jean Nathan American drama critic and newspaper editor I watched a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding College, "Make Mine Freedom," which tells the story of Ism elixir. If you have already viewed this, my apologies. If not, let me share the tale of Ism. The cartoon starts with a reminder of our good fortune to live in America with the freedom to work, freedom of speech, freedom to peacefully assemble, freedom to own property, protection from unlawful search or seizure, the right to a speedy and public trial, protections against cruel punishments, the right to vote and to worship God in our own way. But the government grows powerful, promoting divisions, labor believing management is "lousing" up everything, management convinced labor is "ruining the country" and the politician telling each one they are correct. Then Dr. Utopia arrives, offering his "sensational new discovery," Ism elixir, a cure for everyone. Laborism elixir guarantees higher wages and shorter work hours. Managementism elixir grants enormous profits and no strikes. Politicalism elixir gives the government control and politicians the power to vote on their own salary. Moreover, it's free. All that's needed is a signature on a "little scrap of paper." All are ready to sign, no need to read it. The only naysayer? A questioning John Q. Public, who dares ask to read the agreement before signing – "I hereby turn over to Ism Inc. everything I have, including my freedom and the freedom of my children and my children's children, in return for which said Ism promises to take care of me forever." He quizzes Dr. Utopia about the foolishness of signing away our freedom, then explains the many wonders that our less than perfect free enterprise system has given us. He recalls the countless number of people our freedom allowed to "dream their dream and tinker," dreamers who borrowed money from friends and neighbors, turning them into capitalists. He describes businesses expanding, hiring and training more skilled laborers, showing it was dreamers and laborers who helped create our great nation. John Q. asks everyone to think before throwing away our freedom for "fancy double talk." He suggests they taste the Ism elixir before signing, getting a glimpse of what they would get in exchange for their freedom. Labor tastes and sees a worker threatening to strike, but the government forbids strikes. He sees a worker threaten union action, but the unions collaborate with, and are controlled by, the government. Management tastes and sees the government giving money to private business, then taking control of it with new and ever-changing rules. Management then threatens to go to the Supreme Court, but is rebuffed, told the government's decisions are final and without appeal. On tasting the Ism elixir, the hapless politician sees himself quickly "educated" to regurgitate the party line, "Everything is fine. Everything is fine. Everything is fine." Seeing the future, they fearfully and intelligently pour out the Ism elixir as John Q. tells them that "anybody who preaches disunity or tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives." With pride he adds, "Working together to produce an ever greater abundance of material and spiritual values for all. That is the secret to American prosperity." I was stunned; a 1948 cartoon becoming a prophesy come true in 2010. The Ism elixir? Promise everything, don't read anything, give money to private business, then control them, pit unions against management, ignore the people, let politicians set their own salaries, speak only the party line and most important - ignore the United States Constitution. President Lincoln reminded us that a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:53 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/the-supreme-court-%e2%80%93-omnipotent-and-divine/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/the-supreme-court-%e2%80%93-omnipotent-and-divine/#comments Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:13:55 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=1008 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/03/the-supreme-court-%e2%80%93-omnipotent-and-divine/feed/ 0 Bill of Rights,congress,Marbury v. Madison,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,William Blackstone The Supreme Court is hearing arguments to decide if the Second Amendment right of the individual to "keep and bear Arms" applies to the states in addition to federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. Can the court please point to the section of the Un... The Supreme Court is hearing arguments to decide if the Second Amendment right of the individual to "keep and bear Arms" applies to the states in addition to federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. Can the court please point to the section of the United States Constitution granting it the power to choose which parts of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, apply to the states, reducing the Bill of Rights to nothing more than a buffet of suggestions for the court? In 1791, the states ratified the Bill of Rights to guarantee basic rights of the people that government could not remove. But, the Supreme Court ruled that until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not state governments. Further, it ruled that only the court could decide if a part of the Bill of Rights applied to the states. This meant states could ignore our basic rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Was that the intent for the Bill of Rights, to be nothing more than empty promises? The Supreme Court continues to claim this unconstitutional authority to decide which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, even taking over 130 years to decide that states could not infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Didn't the British government display this same tyrannical omnipotence, leading to the American Revolution? So, what went wrong after ratifying the Constitution and Bill of Rights? In 1803, ruling on Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court said it had the constitutional authority to override legislative acts it felt were unconstitutional, otherwise it would "subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions" and give Congress "a practical and real omnipotence . . . ." That is their constitutional role; but the Supreme Court then unconstitutionally claimed, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Although supporting the constitutional authority of the president to veto a bill from Congress and Congress' power to override a presidential veto, the court unconstitutionally claimed neither the president nor Congress could override the court. Rather, the president and Congress must submit to, and be subservient to, the court. In 1804, Thomas Jefferson described the three branches of government saying, "That instrument (the Constitution) meant that its co-ordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." The Supreme Court removed the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, becoming the "despotic branch" of government with the very "practical and real omnipotence . . ." it claimed was unconstitutional for Congress to have. To add perspective on why the court is inconsistent with the founding fathers' intentions, we need look no further than the 1760s British Parliament. Sir William Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, described the British Parliament of the 1760s as an "absolute despotic power" because it could modify the constitution at will; neither the King, nor the courts, nor the people could override its actions. This "despotic power" led to the American Revolution. Why would the founding fathers then create an even more repressive government, giving the Supreme Court a "practical and real omnipotence . . ." with "absolute despotic power?" The Supreme Court's unconstitutionally self-proclaimed power is far more dangerous and threatening to our Constitution than the British Parliament of the 1760s; because unlike the Parliament's House of Commons' members who faced periodic elections, the Supreme Court justices rule for life, nine men and women claiming the unquestioned, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:39 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/#comments Sun, 07 Feb 2010 23:36:16 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=471 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/02/its-our-constitution/feed/ 0 Add new tag,John Adams,John Jay,Law,Supreme Court,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790, Contrary to the wishes of Congress, the Supreme Court and the lower courts, "we the people" in our capacity as jurors and state legislators have the power to nullify laws we find unconstitutional. Did the founding fathers opine on this power? In 1790,... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 2:06 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/#comments Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:47:26 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=130 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/supreme-court-constitutional-guardian-or-guardian-council/feed/ 0 congress,Law,Oliver Wendell Holmes,Separation of powers,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, Does the  Supreme Court submit to the authority of the United States Constitution, as it should?  Or, is it complicit with Congress, functioning beyond its constitutional powers? In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, trying to preserve the checks and balances in the Constitution said, “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained."  He was addressing Congress, explaining that Congress could not decide if a law it passed was constitutional, that checking power reserved for the Supreme Court. Sadly, subsequent Justices used this process of judicial review to place themselves above the Constitution, and unlike their ruling on Congress, seeing no need for checks and balances on themselves.  Is this unlimited, unchecked power constitutional? How do Judges and Justices view the United States Constitution?  Do they revere it as they should?  Do they defend it as they should?  Or do they perceive themselves superior to the Constitution, the Supreme Court becoming the American equivalent of the Iranian Guardian Council, a supreme oligarchy deciding all law? In 1920, Associate Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes may have violated the Constitution when he said, "The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago.  We must consider what this country has become in deciding what (the Tenth Amendment) has reserved."  Where does the Constitution grant the Court this intuitive power?  Can a Supreme Court Justice continue to serve if he or she seeks constitutional rulings outside the Constitution? In 1949 Associate Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter insulted our intelligence when he said, "The words of the Constitution . . . are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free . . . to gather meaning not from reading the Constitution but from reading life."  Should  a Justice who claims the United States Constitution is immaterial be impeached and removed from the Court? In 1992 Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sevnth Circuit said, "We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by the framers of the Constitution."  Could he not recall his oath was to uphold the Constitution, not to fix it? Were the framers of the Constitution so flawed they failed to foresee it not addressing all that it should, needing Judges and Justices to fill in the gaps?  No.  Fully aware of this probability, they addressed changing the Constitution in Article V, allowing us to amend it when needed. The unacceptable rub for the courts?  "We the people" must approve amendments to the Constitution.  Nowhere in it is the Supreme Court granted the power to rule based on it "reading life" rather than "reading the Constitution."  Only "we the people" decide changes.  And this is as it should be. Justices can be impeached; yet Congress continues to turn a blind eye to its constitutional responsibility to impeach Justices who fail to "hold their Office during good Behavior." The Supreme Court has become the American version of the Iranian Guardian Council, the Constitution subservient to its supreme power, just as in Iran.  The only difference?  The Iranian Council has six theologians and six jurists who each serve six year terms; we have nine near-deities who serve for life. Is it time to take back the unconstitutional powers the Justices have usurped?  Is it time to demand the Supreme Court and Congress submit to the United States Constitution?  The Justices and Congress have claimed powers not theirs.  Is there a power above the Supreme Court?  If so, what should happen? Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:26 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/#comments Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:12:45 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=129 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-consitution-v-the-federal-government/feed/ 0 Articles of Confederation,British Empire,Federalist Papers,James Madison,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,United States,United States Constitution The Declaration of Independence states, “. . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”  This sentiment was reaffirmed in 1781 in the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, The Declaration of Independence states, “. . . these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”  This sentiment was reaffirmed in 1781 in the Articles of Confederation which states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, ... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:42 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/#comments Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:11:02 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=128 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/the-bill-of-prvileges/feed/ 0 Bill of Rights,James Madison,McDonald v. Chicago,Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court,Washington D.C. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791. The Constitution was ratified four years earlier in 1787. Our Bill of Rights came into existence amid debate and delibe... The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution, was ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791. The Constitution was ratified four years earlier in 1787. Our Bill of Rights came into existence amid debate and deliberation. Many anti-federalists who supported it previously opposed ratification of the Constitution because that document did not provide many of the individual protections that would be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But the federalists, voiced by Alexander Hamilton, considered the Bill of Rights unnecessary, believing “the people surrender nothing” in the Constitution, and offering protections of specific rights would imply that any unmentioned rights were not protected. With obvious disagreements, the Bill of Rights, proponed by Thomas Jefferson, was introduced by James Madison during the First United States Congress in 1789.  Near-prophetically, these anti-federalists feared the Constitution created too strong a national government which was a threat to individual rights and would lead to the President becoming a King.  Thomas Jefferson offered this resigned assessment:  “Half a loaf is better than no bread.  If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.” So was born the Bill of Rights, our constitutionally guaranteed rights protecting us from the government.  And there lies the problem.  Which government?  Until the early 1900s, the Supreme Court held the view that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, a fact supported by the failure of Madison to get any specific mention of state governments into the Bill of Rights. The high court did not change its interpretation until decades after ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. Rep. John Bingham, the framer of the 14th Amendment, argued that it applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states, the ninth and tenth not referring to specific individual rights. He believed the first eight amendments to the Constitution, ratified by the states, better represented the people’s wishes than case-by-case rulings of the Supreme Court. He did not want the justices arbitrarily deciding how to apply the 14th Amendment to the states, contending the needed individual “due process” protections of the 14th Amendment were already present in the first eight amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed.  Justice Felix Frankfurter said the court would decide which sections of the Bill of Rights should apply to the states by determining if abridgment of the right would “shock the conscience,” meaning the court would decide, case-by-case, if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. The first real application of the Bill of Rights to the states occurred in 1925, when the Supreme Court ruled that states must uphold the First Amendment right of “freedom of speech.”  And so started an ongoing application of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states; most cases using the “Due Process Clause” of the 14th Amendment as the basis for the new application of the Bill of Rights. The process continues today, the justices deciding our constitutional rights, injecting personal biases of what they want the Constitution to say.  The court is currently hearing the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which asks the court if the Second Amendment “right of the individual to keep and bear arms” applies to states rather than just federal enclaves like Washington, D.C. Some 218 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, we continue going before the Supreme Court, trying to regain our rights.  We the people “plead our case,” hoping the court will return to us constitutionally guaranteed rights—constitutional rights that are to protect us as citizens of the United States, regardless of our state of residence. Perhaps I was too hard on President Clinton.  Perhaps he was truthful when he expressed confusion over “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  As it turns out, Craig L. Bosley, MD no 2:20 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/#comments Sat, 02 Jan 2010 23:37:36 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=126 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2010/01/guns-the-constitution-and-switzerland/feed/ 0 government,Gun politics,Law,second amendment,Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,Supreme Court,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court A fact regularly ignored in much of the gun debate – the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In 2008, the Supreme Court revisited the constitutional meaning of the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms, A fact regularly ignored in much of the gun debate – the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  In 2008, the Supreme Court revisited the constitutional meaning of the right of the individual to “keep and bear arms,” and unequivocally affirmed our constitutional right of individual gun ownership. That should end the debate because a constitutional right is not the same as a governmental privilege; neither the legislature nor the Supreme Court can change a constitutional right.  Yet, gun control advocates continue discounting this reality with ongoing legislative assaults on our rights. The diatribe continues with tired and illegal arguments.  One popular “explanation” for limiting gun ownership is that the Founding Fathers intended for citizens to have muskets; therefore, anything beyond a hunting gun is not protected by the Constitution. False.  First, the Constitution makes no mention of limiting gun ownership in any way, to any type of weapon.  Second, the muskets owned by citizens of the time were the very same muskets carried by the military.  In other words, the Founding Fathers intended the citizens’ weapons to be the same as the military’s, precisely because the Second Amendment was to arm us to protect ourselves from the government, should that be needed. Another argument is that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, evolving with the times and needs, reinterpreted by the Supreme Court. False again.  There is no language in the Constitution suggesting the government or its agent, the Supreme Court, can reinterpret or change the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers clearly stated the only way to change the Constitution is via Article V, an amendment.  The Constitution is amendable, but it is not re-interpretable. Another popular false argument is that gun control reduces crime.  Even if it were true (which it is not), the government simply does not have the legal authority to take our guns. I have a proposal.  Let’s copy the Swiss.  The Swiss build shooting ranges like we build golf courses.  Those who advocate taking our guns away would cringe at the Swiss, labeling them gun nuts.  Guns are everywhere in Switzerland. Why?  Because every able-bodied male is required, at the age of 20, to attend the Swiss equivalent of military boot camp and remain in the country’s national guard until the age of 30.  During those years they keep in their home their military rifle, similar to our military M-4. And when they complete their military obligation, they have the option to keep their weapon, once the fully automatic feature is removed, making it similar to our civilian AR-15. While every able-bodied Swiss male serves in the military, less than 1 percent of United States males ages 18 to 24 serve in our nation’s armed forces, according to the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, a “project dedicated to collecting and distributing United States census data.” Moreover, the Swiss love of guns goes well beyond the military, with the government building gun ranges, sponsoring shooting competitions and holding gun training clinics for all citizens.  Only two nations have more guns per-capita than Switzerland and it has more people trained to use guns per-capita than any place in the world. And guess what?  It is one of the safest places in the world, although one could argue this does not prove a link between gun ownership and less crime because other factors could be involved.  But Switzerland is an excellent example that gun ownership does not mandate increased crime as we are continually threatened it will. And there might be an added benefit.  What if we could get Congress as excited about spending money building shooting ranges and providing the citizens with weapons as they are about spending money on water taxis and bridges to nowhere. Remember, Congress has repeatedly proven its desire to spend huge sums of money, with little concern on how the money is spent. Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:13 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/robert-gibbs-is-a-verb/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/robert-gibbs-is-a-verb/#comments Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:26:55 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=119 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/robert-gibbs-is-a-verb/feed/ 0 Constitution,Executive,Marbury v. Madison,Separation of powers,Supreme Court,Thomas Jefferson,United States,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court The most entertaining moments of this presidency are watching Robert Gibbs explain the ramblings of Vice President Biden.  With a straight face, a feigned sincerity and accompanied by the laughter of the press corps Gibbs says, The most entertaining moments of this presidency are watching Robert Gibbs explain the ramblings of Vice President Biden.  With a straight face, a feigned sincerity and accompanied by the laughter of the press corps Gibbs says, "I understand what he sa... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:23 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/#comments Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:13:23 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=117 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/11/who-really-has-the-power/feed/ 0 Alexander Hamilton,American Constitution,Federal government of the United States,Franklin D. Roosevelt,Patrick Henry,Supreme Court,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution,United States Supreme Court "The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written."                            --President Franklin Roosevelt   Did the founding fathers create a "marvelously elastic" Co... "The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written."                            --President Franklin Roosevelt   Did the founding fathers create a "marvelously elastic" Co... Craig L. Bosley, MD no 4:23 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/#comments Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:52:06 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=115 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/10/spending-the-peoples-money/feed/ 0 Barack Obama,Citizens Against Government Waste,congress,George Washington,Line-item veto,Pork barrel,Ronald Reagan,Supreme Court,Supreme Court of the United States,United States,United States Congress,United States Constitution "Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal -  with a big appetite at one end and no sense of -  responsibility at the other."                                  − Ronald Reagan  Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to fund a "tattoo remova... "Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal  with a big appetite at one end and no sense of  responsibility at the other."                                  − Ronald Reagan  Is it an appropriate use of taxpayer money to fund a "tattoo removal violence prevention program," a Sparta Teapot museum, a program to communicate with extra-terrestrials, the Pleasure Beach water taxi service, a Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative and a swine odor and manure management program?  Moreover, where in the Constitution is the power for Congress to spend our money this way? Is this the work of Congress?  Is this the work of the Constitution?  Is this the people's work?  There is so much pork barrel spending that an organization, Citizens Against Government Waste, devotes a book to it, the "Congressional Pig Book."  That's not a good sign. Even worse, we have become so accustomed to and accepting of this waste that when President Obama promised to cut earmarks to $7.8 billion a year, we applauded.  Think about it.  We accept wasting nearly $8 billion a year as good news. In 2009, Congress passed bills with 10,160 earmarks--10,160 ways they intentionally wasted our money by hiding it in other bills. Fittingly, Vice President Biden summed up the government's ignorance of money management when he said we have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.  A bit different from what I was taught; it never occurring to me the way to solve debt and loss of income was to keep spending money rather than scrimping, saving and paying off debt.  It should bother us that our leaders make such ridiculous statements.  But it should really terrify us that they actually believe what they are saying. The 1996 Congress did try to do the people's work, passing a line-item veto bill, allowing the president to veto specific parts of a bill line by line.  Maintaining our system of checks and balances, the bill allowed Congress 30 days to overturn the president's veto with a simple majority vote. Congress not only preserved the balance of power, it improved it. Too good to be true?  Absolutely.  It ended up before the Supreme Court and was declared unconstitutional because it interfered with the constitutional powers of Congress.  Have members of Congress and the Supreme Court become obstacles "we the people" have to overcome to return to the constitutionally limited government our founding fathers gave us? The results of the Supreme Court supported quid pro quos and unending pork barrel spending?  In 2008 Congress wasted $17.2 billion, in 2009 $19.6 billion and in 2010 it looks like it will waste $21.7 billion.  In the five-year span from 1998 to 2003 earmarks rose 346 percent. Does Congress even have time to do the people's work?  It cannot.  It has a full-time job dealing with the 10,160 earmarks each year, 40 earmarks voted into law every day, spending over $75 million a day on them. Check your savings account.  Do you have $75 million a day to share with the government because the government has no earned income; its only source of money is us.  That is our $75 million a day we allow them to take. Harold Coffin of the San Francisco Examiner accurately summed up the values of government saying, "When George Washington threw the dollar across the Rappahannock River, he didn't realize he was establishing a precedent for government spending." Whose blame?  Whose fault?  Ours.  The voters.  We vote them into office and then refuse to vote them out.  Or, we are too busy or too unconcerned to vote at all, believing our vote cannot make a difference. We can change it.  We have the power each time we go into the voting booth or each time we decide not to vote.  Our vote does make a difference, a huge difference.  Our power.  Our choice.  Our vote.  Our fault. Print Page (http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/20091019-Spending-the-peoples-money1.pdf)  Craig L. Bosley, MD no http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/abortion-call-it-what-it-is/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/abortion-call-it-what-it-is/#comments Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:12:07 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=102 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/abortion-call-it-what-it-is/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/#comments Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:16:15 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=101 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/is-it-too-late/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/how-to-finance-the-u-s-s-a/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/how-to-finance-the-u-s-s-a/#comments Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:12:42 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=108 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/08/how-to-finance-the-u-s-s-a/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:46:20 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=100 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/07/equal-protection-of-the-laws/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/#comments Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:40:14 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=97 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/06/give-me-the-youth/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/#comments Mon, 25 May 2009 14:57:05 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=93 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/role-of-the-supreme-court/feed/ 0 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/who-are-the-real-terrorists/ http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/who-are-the-real-terrorists/#comments Mon, 18 May 2009 07:59:08 +0000 Craig Bosley http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/?p=92 http://www.craigbosley.com/wordpress/2009/05/who-are-the-real-terrorists/feed/ 0