TREASON HAS FOUND A REFUGE
Earl Warren, the Chief Justice who had earlier lobbied the Roosevelt Administration to lock up tens-of-thousands of innocent American citizens without trials, had a change of heart when he got on the Supreme Court. He needed a new act to get respect from liberal eastern newspapers, so he got a new act. He led a Supreme Court assault on America's security. In 1956, the Warren Court struck down all state laws against promoting the violent overthrow of our government. The Court said we had a federal law to handle that problem. Congress had passed the Smith Act in 1940. Therefore we didn't need any state laws to cover the same crimes [1].
Then, in 1957, the Warren Court dropped the other shoe. It handed down four decisions that gutted the Smith Act. Newspapers called that day "Red Monday." Effective federal laws to deal with communist subversion were now "unconstitutional" too. All of this upset a lot of loyal Americans [2].
It's recently been documented that communist governments, over the years, murdered somewhere between 85 million and 100 million people. Most of those millions were already dead on Red Monday. At that time, communists ruled about a third of the world's population. People back then didn't have a good handle on the numbers. But they were aware that communists had killed or enslaved many millions. They knew that communists had momentum and had threatened to kill or enslave Americans too. Millions of Americans were aware that communist spies in America had made that threat more real. The Soviet Union had acquired modern nuclear arms partly by stealing our defense secrets [3].
A few months earlier, in November 1956, the Soviet Army had invaded Hungary to keep its people subjugated. Twenty thousand Hungarians were killed. Americans knew that communist governments had recently killed 54,000 of our troops in Korea. The Korean war wasn't over either, it was just suspended by an armistice. Americans also knew that the Soviet Union had a (temporary) lead in long range missile technology and had threatened to use it to obliterate America [4].
The Warren Court undermined our security by making it tougher to cope with those threats. It ruled against the government in twenty-two out of thirty-one cases involving communist agents. In 1967, it even ruled that communists had a "constitutional" right to work in defense plants. Lots of people were aware that the Chief Justice, in an earlier career, had lobbied the Roosevelt Administration to lock up thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans. So they didn't think he should be quite so picky about the rights of guilty communists [5].
They were also aware that our Constitution named the President as Commander-in-Chief and assigned him broad powers to defend our security in a dangerous world. It assigned to Congress the power to "raise and support armies," and to "declare war." It said not a word about a role, much less a supervisory role, for the Supreme Court in these critical areas. In fact, our founders had gone out of their way to make it clear that the justices were to have no control over either "the sword" or "the purse" [6].
It appeared to many Americans that a renegade Court had gone off the deep end. So conservatives in Congress tried to fix the problem. In 1958, the Senate debated the Jenner Bill, a bill to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction in five areas relating to national security. In the debates, the sponsors of the bill criticized the Warren Court for days.
Liberal Democrats
opposed the Jenner Bill because they shared the Warren Court's 'blame
America first' bias. Some conservatives and centrists were
paralyzed by respect for the Court as an institution. So, in the
end, the Senate failed to pass the bill, and the Warren Court escaped
with only its ears burning [7].
Warren opposed the proposal. He didn't think he would like the political results [9].
BUTTERFLY BALLOTS, DIMPLED CHADS, AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Never mind what the Constitution says; that doesn't matter. The only Constitution that matters evolves under the infallible guidance of our secular papacy. That evolution has produced the one-person-one-vote rule for the U. S. House of Representatives and for state legislatures. It has not yet produced the same rule for the U. S. Senate and the presidency. We must be patient with evolution.Meanwhile, in December 2000, five conservatives on the U. S. Supreme Court, following precedents the Warren Court had fabricated out of thin air in order to damage conservatives, awarded the presidency to Republican George W. Bush, a conservative who had lost the popular vote. The humor in this result seems to have escaped the notice of both critics and defenders of judicial usurpation [14].
1. See Cray, pages 320-1. See also the online essay Viking Jurisprudence.
2. See Cray, pages 329-35.
3. The fact that communist governments murdered 85-100 million people was the main point of the 1997 study, Le Livre Noir du Communism (The Black Book on Communism) by French historians Stephane Courtois and others. An English translation was published by Harvard University Press in 1999. The fact that communist spies sold Russia America's defense secrets in well documented in the book by Weinstein and Vassiliev and in other works cited by Ann Coulter. See her 2002 work, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
4. See Gaddis, page 210 and 228. See also "Twenty-Four Lies About the Cold War," by Gabriel Schoenfeld, Commentary Magazine, Vol. 107, No. 3, March 1999, page 28 ff.
5. See Cray, page 338; see also Levinson 1994, page 188. The communists-in-defense-plant case was Robel v. United States, 1967. A transcript can be found online at a FindLaw web site. Earl Warren's shameful behavior during World War II is described in the online essay Viking Jurisprudence.
6. See Hamilton's Federalist Number 78.
7. See Cray, page 352. The support of many liberal Democrats for communist spies in the post World War II era is well documented in Ann Coulter's book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
8. See The Prince, Chapter IV, page 30. The observation that the Supreme Court follows the teachings of Machiavelli is a recurring theme in The Temple of Karnak.
9. See Cray or Huston.
10. See Berger 1977, Chapter 5 and Berger 1987, Chapter VIII. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment leaves control of voting rights to the states. But it gives the states a cost-benefit problem to solve if they choose not to allow all of their "male" citizens to vote. Of course the "male" citizens whose right to vote was still in question were all African Americans, although the Amendment does not spell that out. The 14th Amendment's framers' distrust of the Supreme court is described in the online essay Unnatural Selection.
11. The text of the two statutes can be found on the Internet at http://ttokarnak.home.att.net/2ReconVRActs.html. The two Acts assigned many new responsibilities to the federal courts, responsibilities that had long resided in state courts and that federal judges considered beneath their dignity. Using various pretexts, the Supreme Court effectively nullified both Acts. As a result, Negroes suffered three-quarters of a century of disenfranchisement in much of the South.
Notwithstanding the refusal of our judicial employees to accept them, these statutes spelled out everything Congress intended the 14th (and 15th) Amendment(s) to contain about voting rights.
12. I estimated the populations of New York and Nevada, in 1913, from data on page 199 of Flatt, 1983.
13. The legal fiction that our Constitution evolves to incorporate fraudulent Supreme Court rulings is discussed in the online essay Our Evolving Constitution.
14. See, for example, "Court May Have Mapped New Territory," by Charles Lane, Washington Post, Page A24, December 14, 2000, and "A Muddled Ruling," by Michael McConnell, Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2000. The case is also discussed in the online essay Bush v. Gore.
