Thursday, March 10, 2016

Supreme Discord

The Mad king
(by R.P.Edwards)

What do you do
When the king is mad
His decisions, vile
His demeanor, bad
His tenure, forever
His rulings, steel
What do you do
To stop, repeal?
The people must rise
And force their hand
Remind the god
His name is man
Remove the scepter
Remove the throne
Remove the palace
Reveal the stone

I almost cringe when I hear the more "conservative" candidates in this political season remind us that the next president will appoint not only one Supreme Court Justice, but possibly many. And, these deciders will then determine the molding and message of the near-sacred document, the U.S. Constitution.

So, why my dismay? Because, dear reader, I find the notion offensive and appalling that WE the People are subject to the whims of these mere mortals even when they render heretical decisions (as they have recently, and in the past) and that our only remedy and recourse is to cross our fingers and hope the NEW demigod we appoint is benevolent in nature.

It's absurd! It's offensive! It grinds and grates against our Republican bones! And the solution (long overdue) is found in Article Five of the Constitution. In particular, the Convention of States; the method whereby the States themselves (after the appropriate number of legislators respond and coalesce) propose Amendments. One of these, no doubt, would put restrictions on the Supreme Court. 

To drive this point home: Recently, in neighboring Missouri, a filibuster by Senate Democrats was procedurally ended and Senate Joint Resolution No. 39, which puts before the voters a provision that will offer people of Religious conscience some protection from Government oppression, was passed. Why was such a provision created? Because the "answers to no one" Supreme Court decreed and demanded that the definition of marriage be expanded. AND, since they make law now; EVERY Christian institution (which cares to be devout) is at risk. 

  Although this subject is far from funny; following is a song on the subject of Judicial overreach.


No comments: