Why all political revolutions fail

[A_C_Slater]

www.rawilson.com/hell.shtml

[Broken Glass Can]

The first paragraph of the article:

[ QUOTE ]
As every schoolchild once knew -- back in the reactionary days when schoolchildren were expected to know something -- the U.S. Constitution ordains that there shall be "no laws" abridging freedom of speech or of the press. There is considerable internal evidence in the Constitution, and external evidence in the other writings of the authors of the Constitution, to support the contention that the creators of the Republic were versatile in their handling of language and very precise in their usage. One would assume that when they wrote "no laws" they meant "no laws." Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court sits every year and determines, in various cases, if certain laws abridging freedom of speech and of the press are or are not in violation of the Constitution. As the late justice Hugo Black said sardonically on one occasion, the majority opinion of the Court appears to be that "no laws" means "some laws."



[/ QUOTE ]

I came to the conclusion several years ago that we do not live in a Constituional Law system. We live in a Supreme Court Law system. Whatever they say is the constituional law and constitutional rights is by definition: The Law of the Land.

They can create constitutional law where there is nothing in the constitution (the right to privacy, the separation of church/state).

They can invalidate law actually in the constitution as well or weaken it to insignificance.

They can manipulate constitutional law to mean whatever they want it to mean.

The Supreme Court IS the law.

The Supreme Court trumps the Constitution.

The redeeming factor to counter the Supreme Court Oligarchy is that the people, through their selection of the President and Congress can slowly change the composition of the court.

[A_C_Slater]

Did you read the play? That is the real meat of the link. Greatest rhetoric. Ever.

[jokerswild]

.

[mmbt0ne]

As did the French.