Op-Ed: The Supreme Lie, Sponsored by the Supreme Court


The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the equal power of all three branches, under the
Constitution, way back in 1803 in the case known as Marbury v. Madison.
However, since this simple case, the Supreme Court has tried to make itself the
final arbitrator or the sultan of America. Over the past 218 years, they have done everything in their power to enable the perversion of Marbury v. Madison so they can govern our country through judicial supremacy.

Why you ask, our congress can write any law and the President can sign them into law,
but if a judicial creature has the power above two branches of government to review and
change that law, that creature is in control of America. However, the judicial supremacy myth(i) has been taught as gospel to several generations of law school students. Therefore, awaking our political culture from this Supreme Court-sponsored judicial fraud of the misinterpretation of Marbury and subsequent decisions are not a mere day’s work,(ii) but the Constitution enables us to get it done.

The Supreme Court’s claim to judicial supremacy is based upon the misrepresentation
of Article VI, which reads:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and …under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land;

The Supreme Court’s assertion of judicial supremacy begins with a perversion of
Justice Marshall’s words in Marbury v. Madison. Here is Marshall’s critical passage
describing the “the supreme law of the land” as set forth in the Constitution:

… in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself
is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only
which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms
and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written
constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts,
as well as other departments [branches](iii), are bound by that instrument. (iv)

In Marbury v. Madison, unsurprisingly, Justice Marshall quotes the language in the
Constitution when he is referring to “the supreme law of the land.” He most emphatically does not claim that the Supreme Court itself, nor its opinions, are the supreme law of the land. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void.

Article VI, quoted above in part, requires that the President, every United States senator, representative, and judicial officer, and every governor and state representative and judicial officer “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” The purpose of this oath is to ensure that every one of our elected officials is bound to follow the Constitution. Further, Marshall specifically quotes the Constitution where “departments” or branches are also bound by the Constitution. This means our elected officials have not sworn to be ruled by the Supreme Court.

Article VI was written as a check to ensure none of the departments of government can
have supreme power by requiring each department to look only to the Constitution.
“Departments,” here refers not only to the United States executive, legislature, and judicial officers but also to the States themselves and the executive, legislature, and judicial officers of each State. Article VI provides EQUAL power to ALL departments to protect the U.S. Constitution from being illegally used or misinterpreted and from all threats, both foreign and domestic, by requiring each department to follow the Constitution.
Justice Marshal, in Marbury v. Madison, referenced the Blackstone Commentaries, the
paramount authority on the common-law, in the eyes of the American Founders, and
unsurprisingly not taught in law schools today. Blackstone Commentaries at 1:149-51
describes the need for the separation of the branches of government and the check of one upon the other:

Were it [the judicial function] joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and
property, of the subject, would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose
decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any
fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may depart from, yet
judges are bound to observe. Were it [the judicial function] joined with the
executive, this union might soon be an over balance for the legislative.

Blackstone labeled this result, the merging of the judicial power with the power to
create laws, despotic. Despotism is the result of courts rewriting laws to meet their views. How prescient!

Justice Marshall also referenced the Federalist Papers in Marbury v. Madison. The
Federalist Papers is a collection of papers written to promote the ratification of our
constitution. James Madison in the Federalist No. 47 warned, “The accumulation of all
powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The James Madison who authored Federalist 47, also wrote the Constitution of
The United States of America. In his prior capacity as the United States Secretary of State, James Madison was the named defendant in Marbury v. Madison. Later when the case was issued, James Madison was the President of the United States. The remedy sought by Marbury was a writ or order directed to the United States Secretary of State who, as a member of the executive branch, was under the direct control of then-President Madison. President Madison was in a position to prevent the Secretary of State from following a writ issued by the Supreme Court.

Given that James Madison was President, the plain language in the Constitution of the
United States, Article VI, the plain language in Marbury v. Madison, references in Marbury to the Blackstone Commentaries and to the Federalist Papers, it is beyond absurd to propose that Justice Marshall created the monster of judicial supremacy or even a foundation upon which it could be honestly constructed.

The Blackstone Commentaries and the Federalist Papers, which Marshall referenced,
establishes when the legislative function was combined with the judicial function that
despotism, known as judicial tyranny, would result.

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958)(v) the Supreme Court announced it was the domestic threat to America! The Supreme Court justices anointed themselves ‘the supreme law of the land’ as they wrote, “Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” … It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court …is the supreme law of the land and Article VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States.” In this case, the Supreme Court, magically, substitutes its interpretation of the Constitution for the Constitution itself, as the supreme law of the land.

This was unbelievable but is a true usurpation of constitutional power by a lawless
Supreme Court in 1958. This is when the Supreme Court self-created themselves supreme through the façade of judicial supremacy. “WE THE PEOPLE,” the real supreme power of America, the Supreme Court relegated to no consequence. James Madison described this as tyranny

Then worse, Congress and the Executive branches of America, and the States and the
officers of the states, for the past many years did little or nothing. The people being
uninformed were subjected to this criminal subterfuge. The press then picked up the façade in 1973 when Walter Cronkite advised, “…the Supreme Court today legalized abortions… Thus, the anti-abortion laws of forty-six states were rendered unconstitutional,”(vi) which is false.

The Supreme Court has pushed this fraud by altering the Constitution for years by refusing to act or changing laws to restrict results. One example is the Affordable Care Act, when Justice Roberts changed the fine written in the law, to a tax. This was an unconstitutional act by the Supreme Court and they knew they were violating their oath of office. Thus, Justice Roberts and four other Justices changed the law and made a new law. Other clearly extreme examples of the Supreme Court changing the Constitution without the consent of the people, or Congress are abortion and homosexual marriage, to name a few. There are hundreds of examples today where the Supreme Court and other justices have made themselves the Supreme Law of the land usurping both federal and state Constitutions created by, “We the People.”

If you question this, ask this simple question? Can the Supreme Court unilaterally bind
the people of the United States to its view, rather than to the Constitution? Also, if only
Congress can make law, how did abortion and homosexual marriage become law, when
Congress never created a law? Judicial Supremacy is the Supreme Lie, sponsored by the
Supreme Court!

To show how federal judges have become self-appointed dictators, look to the recent
decision where a federal judge ordered the Oklahoma State Governor to restore weekly
unemployment benefits. Where does this federal judge get this power over a State Governor, legislature, and judicial officers? Such power is not to be found in the Constitution!

The Supreme Court after Marbury v. Madison in 1803 has been successful through
subterfuge in making themselves the final arbitrator of not only the Constitution but
fraudulently expanding their power to directing policy in the 50 states. Many Federal and State Judges are today’s domestic threat to the “Republic for Which We Stand.” (vii)

This judicial fraud upon the American people has to stop and the President, Congress,
Governors, Legislators, and especially “We the People” across this great Nation, have the
responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to stop obeying judicial decisions that are outside of their constitutional authority!

When “We the People” reassert our Constitutional authority, we will take back our
Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Republic. “We the People” must reaffirm our unalienable rights which, as the Declaration of Independence says, come from God and not from judges.

Congress and state legislatures will have to act constitutionally when making laws, and
the president or governors would sign them into law, only if they are Constitutional.

Federal and State judges will not be able to circumvent the will of the people by
claiming they are anything but judges. Hundreds of Supreme Court-created laws will be null and void because they are unconstitutional. The radical elements in our country will not be able to sue to obtain a change of law by judicial fiat. Prior to Congress adopting any law which is presently beyond the scope of our Constitution, Congress must propose an authorizing Constitutional amendment, which “We the People” must ratify.

Best of all the rule of law will be again be honored, and America will again become a
Republic Form of Government, as our Founders created, instead of an oligarchy run by nine judges.

By Senator David Howard and James Rigby Attorney at Law, with additional
Constitutional expertise by Patrick G. Gould, Professor of Law at Handong International Law School, in South Korea.

i https://jmp.princeton.edu/events/pernicious-myth-judicial-supremacy – Michigan Law Review, Aug. 2003, Vol. 101, No.
8, Symposium: Judging Judicial Review: Marbury in the Modern Era (Aug. 2003), pp. 2706-2743
ii Same as above Law Review.
iii Federalist No. 48- Departments are used to describe the different branches of government.
iv James Madison wrote that the “legitimate meaning” of the Constitution must be “derived from the Instrument itself.”
v https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/
vi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv1bmY4Wd34
vii Pledge Allegiance


Bringing you conservative news and commentary means it is tough out there on social media. We’re constantly getting kneecapped and constrained by tech companies who find the truth intolerable, resulting in our reach being severely throttled.

For this reason, please consider supporting us directly. If you like what you are reading and desire to to see more, please support our work here.

Stay informed. Subscribe today.
Enter your email address below.

[yikes-mailchimp form="1"]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here