Is the above just a stupid question? Did our founders, the ones who hammered out the Constitution of the United States, several of whom became presidents, fail to understand the Constitution of the United States of America? Why would anyone even ask a question like that?

Because either the Founders misunderstood the Constitution they drafted and the states ratified, or the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is clueless as to the meaning and intent of the Constitution and our founders, as is evidenced by the order to Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, to remove the Ten Commandments from public premises.

That makes the title question valid. Either the Founders had no idea what they meant, or the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has invented another document out of what our forefathers wrote, and meant when it was written! 

It has been stated over and over by administrations, congressional representatives, lawmakers in various states and lawyers across the land that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. That would include the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments. According to past SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land, including all ten articles of the Bill of Rights. Now, enough commentary, it is time to offer the proof.

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” ~ Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions… upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” ~ James Madison, (1778)

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? . . . I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers be held imploring the assistance of Heaven… in this assembly every morning.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship.” ~ Patrick Henry (1736-1799), American Patriot, Founder, Lawyer & Politician

“If we work upon marble, it will perish. If we work upon brass, time will efface it. If we rear temples, they will crumble to dust. But if we work upon men’s immortal minds, if we imbue them with high principles, with the just fear of God and love of their fellowmen, we engrave on those tablets something which no time can efface and which will brighten to all eternity.” ~ Daniel Webster

It is any wonder, then, in light of the statement made in the landmark decision establishing the authority of the Supreme court, Marbury v. Madison, and the statements of the founders of this nation, that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore contends that placement of the Ten Commandments within his courthouse is not a violation but an adherence to the Constitution and within his constitutional rights?

Judge Moore is correct. It is the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that is overriding the Constitution by their unconstitutional opinions. They are in violation of the law of the land that they are supposed to uphold and the laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are illegal.

Thus the rulings of numerous United States Supreme Courts and federal courts are actually in violation of the supreme law of the United States because such decisions, rulings and opinions are in violation of the written words of the Constitution and its intent.

Such subverted justices and judges have committed impeachable offenses. They have twisted the First Amendment to their own prejudices rather than adhering to the law of the land, and as such, are guilty of creating case law that is repugnant to the Constitution.

Such violators of our foundational laws and the supreme law of the land should be held guilty of impeachable offenses against the Constitution in keeping with the judicial finding in Marbury v. Madison.

Rightly did the late Barry Goldwater, in his book Conscience of a Conservative state:

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests, ” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Today the agenda of the politicized federal courts, including SCOTUS, is to drive all expressions of the Christian faith out of the United States, first out of federal buildings, then in violation of the Tenth Amendment out of all state buildings, and further, out of all public displays.

To try to justify such actions based on “separation of church and state” – a phrase not even in the Constitution or its amendments – is to belabor a point and mangle it beyond recognition. James Madison should have known whereof he spoke, because Madison was the chief author of the Constitution just as Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence. These founders knew exactly what they said and what they meant.

It is today’s courts that are attempting not only to deny the religious foundation upon which this nation was founded, but to obliterate it. Such rulings are repugnant to the Constitution. They are null and void if Congress would call for an impeachment of the justices and federal judges who make such rulings. The only reason the judiciary can override the Constitution is that the people do not care – and won’t care until these rulings begin to tangibly infringe on what the public has assumed are its “constitutional rights.”

When one group of appointed people sit in a court and rewrite the law of the land by their opinions, then that body is the ruling junta of the country and the nation is no longer under the rule of law, it is under the rule of an arbitrary and capricious set of judges who are not adhering to the law but remaking the law.

That is not the assignment of the judiciary nor has it ever been. Congress makes legislation. The judiciary decides cases based on the law of the land. Had this practice been challenged when it began in the 1940’s we would still have constitutional rule of law rather than judicial fiat.

The Constitution sets forth the law of the land, but if the people allow the judiciary to reinterpret it to mean what it does not say and does not mean, then by what laws are we ruled? By the laws established in the court, not in the legislatures. New laws created by the federal government are not subject to constitutional review and testing by an honest and objective judiciary but by politicized judges who follow the whole agenda of tearing down the system under which our individual liberties were guaranteed.

It’s time to impeach the justices and judges who refuse to follow the Constitution and who pervert rather than administer justice.

If the courts of this land will fine, imprison or otherwise punish an individual for following what is clearly the law of the land as contemplated and written by our founders, then who has any rights left?

Only those making the rules, in this case, a perverse and evil generation of judges.

September 8, 2003

~ The Author ~
Dorothy Anne Seese was a child actress in Hollywood, most well known for her role as ‘Phronsie Pepper‘ in the Five Little Peppers series of films. Later in life, she became a freelance political writer for Patch Work papers and a regular contributor for the first generation Federal Observer. At the time of the above post, Miss Seese had been retired after 25 years as a legal secretary/assistant and, prior to that, over 15 years as a business systems and procedures analyst. Her hobby was freelance writing. A native of Southern California, Dorothy A. Seese resided in Sun City, Arizona until her death in December of 2015 of cancer.