How Far Will Liberal Federal Judges Go If Not Challenged?

A panel of Federal judges in California ruled last week that the United States pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and all America went ballistic. Then one of the judges that had made the decision hearing the outcry of opposition from the people .. ruled the decision would not go into effect while it is being appealed. The fact the decision was made in the first place, and the fact the judges modified their decision because of political pressure, tells us just how far the American judiciary has gone in trying to take over the legislative functions of our government.

It is pretty clear, especially if one goes back to read the Federalist papers written by Hamilton, Madison and Jay, that our original form of government was meant to include three equal branches. To quote Northwestern University's law professor Stephen B. Presser: "The idea was the legislature would pass laws, the executive would carry them out, and the judges would test them against the original intent of the Constitution.' The courts began to expand their power in the 1930's, insisting the Constitution should be revised to care for new social issues. It expanded further in the 1950's, and then (in Texas vs. Johnson) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected flag burning and flag desecration as free speech. As the judges have taken on new power, there has been a steady drift to the left, toward a more liberal stance.

How far will these judges go if not challenged? It seems to me their decision to throw out the Pledge of Allegiance - on the eve of July 4, Independence Day - should give us a clue.

This is Gordon Sawyer, and may the wind always be at your back.

http://accesswdun.com/article/2002/8/190865