[kitchencabinetforum] ONLY ANGLOSPHERE HAS REAL JUSTICE AND PROPER CONSTITUTIONS

The Center for Judicial Engagement(CJE) points out a proper constitution limits the proper scope and means of government action. The Framers wrote a constitution to constrain government power. A constitution explicitly defines a limited set of powers belonging to the government; government actions outside the scope of those powers are illegitimate and unconstitutional. A constitution also requires that even legitimate powers of government be exercised fairly and without discrimination.

But the stupid Greek constitution enslaves Greeks to government! October-18 Mafia is the most disgusting predator of internet on Earth! Civil society was shocked by the brutality and stupidity of the October-18 2010 terror, initiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the government of Greece. That's why October-18 Mafia is the new name of the government of Greece!

Lese-majeste is the crime of violating majesty, an offense against the dignity
of the president or religion. Lese-majeste is now used only in repressed
countries. The 14th article of the Constitution of Greece makes it lese-majeste
for the media to insult the President of Greece as well as Christianity and any
other religion recognized by the state.

The word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence(1776) or the Constitution of the United States of America(1789). Contrary to what propaganda has led the public to believe, America's Founding Fathers were skeptical and anxious about democracy. They were aware of the evils that accompany a tyranny of the majority. The Framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to ensure that the federal government was not based on the will of the majority and was not, therefore, democratic. http://venitism.blogspot.com

The stupid constitution of Greece gives full immunity to all MPs! The impunity of the 300 Graecokleptocrats of the Grand Brothel on Syntagma Square is the most freakish thing on Earth. Even though Graecokleptocrats looted many billion euros in kickbacks and churning, not a single Graecokleptocrat has ever gone to jail! They are protected by the parliamentary immunity, and nobody can touch them, no matter what. Moreover, they have the nerve to jail dissident bloggers. It's a long way from the 300 Spartans of Leonidas! Allons enfants de la Grece!

CJE notes a proper constitution guarantees a broad array of individual rights. While the powers granted to government by the Constitution are few and limited, the rights guaranteed to individuals are many and broad. Some of those rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution also protects other rights, including those "retained by the people" but not spelled out in the document itself. All of these rights are to be protected by government and may not be infringed, even by majorities acting democratically.

Only Anglosphere has real justice. Greece has the worst justice in Fourth Reich, easily manipulated by the October-18 Mafia. Greek justice is a spider web, catching small prey and swallowing them, while allowing crocodiles to penetrate and dominate it. Visiting Greek prisons, one could see all lesmiserables that fill them up, but he could not find any kleptocrats.

The American Constitution was designed to further the cause of liberty, not democracy. To do that, the Constitution protected individuals' rights from the government, as well as from their fellow citizens. To that end, the Constitution laid down clear, unequivocal and enforceable rules to protect individuals' rights. In consequence, the government's scope and scale were strictly limited. Economic liberty, which is a precondition for growth and prosperity, was enshrined in the Constitution.

Democracy and freedom are not interchangeable words. Only the first century of the American experience represents a standard for freedom. Expanding democracy is a slogan which requires great caution. It can easily result in elected tyranny. Freedom is the concept. Our challenge is to persuade every citizen that benefits flow from freedom's practical applications. Freedom might then flourish in very diverse and unexpected forms in different parts of the world.

CJE asserts the job of judges is to enforce a constitution. In our constitutional system, the courts are where people go when government oversteps its bounds or violates their rights. It is the duty of judges to strike down government actions that assume powers not granted by a constitution or that violate individual rights. It is not judicial activism to strike down unconstitutional laws or government actions; it is judicial engagement, taking a constitution seriously and applying it. Refusing to strike down unconstitutional acts is not laudable judicial restraint, it is judicial abdication, judges quite simply failing to do their jobs. http://venitism.blogspot.com

Although the Founders of USA provided a method to amend the nation's governing document, activists preferred to take a judicial short-cut. Judges liked the idea of making law and began treating the constitutional text as advisory. This turned the Supreme Court into a sort of continuing constitutional convention, with new amendments routinely enacted with just five votes.

Jurist-legislators covered themselves in high-minded rhetoric. Said the high priest of feel-good jurisprudence, Justice William Brennan: It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers on application of principles to specific, contemporary questions.

Advocates of a living constitution prefer lawmaking by zeitgeist. If it feels good, interpret it, was always the unstated approach of Justice Brennan and those who shared his philosophy. One standard bases judicial interpretation on a dynamic sense of history and tradition. Using this argument, the courts should declare a right to public education. Another approach is to base constitutional doctrine on consensuses, that is, when a big majority of people believe something. Judges get to determine the right-sized majority and the exact consensus that results.

Possessing even less meaning is the time-is-right philosophy, which posits that judges should change a constitution when, yes, the time is right. Obviously legislators have no sense of right timing and little things like the political process shouldn't get in the way. So leave it to judges. Moreover, a constitutional moment may arise with the passage of landmark legislation. In this case there is no reason to bother amending a constitution when you merely have to pass a bill. http://venitism.blogspot.com

CJE points out a proper constitution does not mean whatever judges say it means. Just as the words in a constitution do not change over time, neither does their meaning. Though some parts of a constitution may speak more precisely than others, for a constitution to mean anything at all, judges must strive to understand the entire document and apply its restrictions and values to all situations, including new ones. Judges' interpretations and applications of a constitution must not be influenced by their personal preferences, including preferences for things like majoritarianism or judicial minimalism, in the face of contrary provisions in a constitution.

Focusing on the intended meaning of constitutional provisions faces obvious obstacles, but compare that to allowing judges to amend the nation's fundamental law in the name of the right social movement pushing the right bill at the right time. The mind boggles at the latter as a standard for anything, let alone for protecting people's fundamental liberties.

CJE asserts that a proper constitution trumps precedent. Mistaken prior court rulings do not provide a valid justification for continued violations of individual rights or exercises of unauthorized government power. Where a conflict exists between court precedent and a proper interpretation of a constitution, the constitution should always win.

Omerta is a heroic attitude of honor and silence against the omnipotent government. It is common in Sicily, Crete, and certain Italian neighborhoods. Omerta implies the categorical prohibition of cooperation with state authorities, even when one has been victim of a crime. It's based on the premise that government is the #1 enemy of the people and cannot be trusted at all.

Originalists of varying stripes have tended to criticize judicial activism, but activism is not the problem. Lack of fidelity to the Constitution is the problem. The Founders, as well as those involved in the ratification and amendment struggles, wanted to limit the powers of government. To be true to that objective judges have an obligation to act to enforce the Constitution.

The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the several states, and no court has ever held that merely living in one of those states is itself a form of commerce among the several states. If the federal government can force Americans to engage in commerce by buying health insurance, it can insist that they purchase automobiles from bankrupt manufacturers, acquire securities from failing Wall Street concerns, become farmers by growing food in their yards, and exercise three times a week. That is, upholding this power would obliterate the constitutional scheme of limited government. There would be no need for Article 1, Section 8, other than one clause allowing Congress to regulate commerce.

If the people want a national government of unlimited power, they can have one. But to do so they should amend the constitution, rather than rely on an ephemeral majority of high court justices. And if they don't want one, it should not be imposed on them by judges acting on personal whim. If a constitution is still relevant to governance, jurists have an obligation to act to invalidate socialization.

The laws that are passed reflect the preferences and personal agendas of those in charge. For too long those agendas have expanded government at the expense of personal liberty, regardless of which political party was in charge. This expansion of government clearly violated the Constitution, yet it was always argued that this or that program somehow conformed to a living document.

CJE points out the government should not have a leg up on citizens challenging government actions. Under a reasonable constitution, government actions are not entitled to deference from the courts simply because government officials were democratically elected or because the challenged law or program might be popular at a given moment in time.

The concept of deference has it exactly backwards: The Framers were wary of the dangers that both government power and majority sentiment pose to individual rights, and it is the courts' job to check those threats, not give them extra weight. Deference forces judges to be biased against citizens asserting their rights. Judges should instead put citizens and government on equal footing when considering constitutional claims.

Too many people grew up being taught that a constitution is a modern living document. A constitution should be viewed as law, and MPs should be expected to follow, respect, understand, and uphold the law. But a document is just a piece of paper if those who represent us and promise to obey it ignore it instead. Celebrating a constitution without this understanding will do nothing to restore liberty.

Simply praising a constitution distracts from the need for MPs to resist special interests, political self-interests, emergency needs in times of crisis, fear-based economic myths, and the persistent temptation to seek security over liberty while ignoring personal responsibility and self-reliance.

CJE points out facts matter. Like other areas of the law, constitutional cases are sometimes complicated, but it is a judge's job to carefully weigh relevant real-world facts and evaluate genuine, not hypothetical, justifications when deciding whether a challenged regulation is constitutional.

Ignoring evidence, construing facts in a light most favorable to the government, or even inventing facts that might justify a government action (as some legal precedents demand) represent judicial abdication, not modesty. This kind of failure to properly engage constitutional claims leads to rulings that are wholly divorced from the reality of how illegitimate government actions impact people's lives.