The Circus Is In Town

by Kerry Thomas

June 27, 2005

If you haven’t had the chance to see the new circus, you don’t know what you’re missing. Or what you could lose in the process.

This isn’t just your ordinary every day circus. They have one group of contortionists, numbering between 5 and 9 performers, who are acrobats the like of which is seldom seen. The contortions they perform are beyond belief. And what makes them so remarkable is that the youngest member of this troupe is 57 years old. The oldest member is 85.

This circus act is more commonly referred to as the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s 9 members are supposed to be the most learned legal scholars in the land. Yet the legal contortions they have managed lately would make the most flexible gymnast jealous.

In the case of Gonzales v. Raich [click here for previous column on this case] they reasoned that the federal government has the power to control the substances you choose to put into your own body under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This case even overruled the voters of the State of California, who voted to allow the medical use of marijuana in California, despite the provisions of the 10^th Amendment that reserve Powers not granted the federal government to the States and the People.

In the case of Kelo v. New London the Court ruled that a legislative body has the power to seize your private property and transfer it to another private body. The Court reasoned in this case that, because a redevelopment project would result in greater tax revenues to the government, that served the “public” purpose requirement of the Constitution’s takings clause.

In the case of Van Orden v. Perry the Court ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments on a piece of public land does not violate any Constitutional separation of Church and State. Yet in the case of McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky the Court reasoned that the display of the Ten Commandments inside a court building is unconstitutional. The Court did leave itself a lot of wiggle room in this case, saying each case should be considered on it’s own merits. They didn’t want their own displays in the Supreme Court building to have to be removed.

So let’s review. The federal government now has the right to regulate anything you buy, use or grow, even to tell you that you cannot legally possess a plant you grow yourself in your own home. The government now has the right to seize your property and give it to someone else as long as they promise to rehab your property into something that will generate more tax revenue. And your local county courthouse can have religious displays on the lawn, but not in the building itself.

Does any of this make common sense? More important, how does it adhere to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution? I was raised to believe that the Constitution was written so as to place limits on the powers of government, not the People. Powers not specifically granted to government by the Constitution are reserved to the People, to you and me. As long as our actions do not actually cause harm to another, we are free to decide for ourselves how we will live our lives.

During our long history as a nation it has sometimes taken acts of civil disobedience to bring about change. When those charged with protecting our Liberties, those who swear an oath before God to serve and protect our Rights, abuse that sacred trust, it is up to us, the People, to see that that wrong is righted.

From the Supreme Court to the Congress to the Governor’s mansion to even our local police departments, when those entrusted to protect us and safeguard our liberties chose, instead, to violate the very laws they are sworn to uphold, it is our job to see that Justice is served, that Honor is restored to public office. A fish rots from the head down, and if we cannot trust our elected and sworn public officials, society begins to break down. Our great experiment in self-governance is threatened.

James Madison said that knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.