Every year the lawyers' Bar Associations "celebrate" the hijacking of the United States Constitution.

In 1803 the Supreme Court led by John Marshall, called by some the "Great Chief Justice" but who would be better termed "Calamity John," issued a decision known as "Marbury v. Madison." Through that case and its baggage, lawyers hijacked the Constitution.

Like a million naked, ignorant emperors - roughly the number of attorneys infesting the U.S. - lawyers march through life actually believing this trivia of judicial stupidity.

The whole thing is a little like Joe Citizen walking into the public eye one day and proclaiming himself King of America, and then when asked who gave him the authority to do so, he simply answers "I did."

In an act of supreme arrogance, the "Marshall Court," as it is known, proclaimed that the Supreme Court was the arbiter, the final word of what was Constitutional in the nation. In one outrageous arrogation their 9 Supreme Majesties declared themselves the ultimate power, the force majeure of all authority, control, and command in the United States of America.

In one brief historical moment the intended balance of governmental power was tilted. The ship of Constitutional balance developed a list. Congress could pass laws, but the Supreme Court could toss them. The acts of Presidents would be dragged beneath the hallowed umbrella of the court's total examinatory power, to be approved or disapproved according to judicial whim.

Yes, even the document which created the monster was taken hostage by the beast - the Supreme Court declared its own elite 9 the final masters of all meaning and application of the Constitution itself.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it even intimate that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the final say over what is the law of the land, let alone that this institution become the ultimate power therein. Yet over time, this nonsense has become an accepted way of thinking to many of the public, who have been brainwashed by legal fools for some two centuries.

A nation in its infancy was mostly too busy to pay attention to such national shenanigans at the time. People struggled to survive, settle new territory, and surmount everyday problems which were not immediately impacted by the great theft of power instituted under the Marshall Court.

The worst effects of these constitutional corruptions did not come to be apparent for some hundred and fifty years and the public at large failed to appreciate the fact that a stake had been driven into the heart of justice, even as they were gradually brainwashed by the legal community and those minority interests who came to find that their best opportunity of overthrowing the will of the people and imposing their politically correct ideas of laws and government was through polluted Supreme Court rulings and "judicial legislation."

Without question there were those who realized the danger of the Marbury v. Madison decision and its trend. Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence - that document trumpeting the principle of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed as a principal virtue of liberty - and third President of the United States, was a champion of governmental restraint and maintenance of the balance of power between the federal branches.

Jefferson decried the thought that the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution. In 1820 he wrote to William Jarvis:

In the same letter President Jefferson wrote:

Those were prophetic words, indeed.

There is one simple concept with associated action that can be applied to counteract this whole deadly trend - open public awareness and accompanying appropriate response by the other branches of government.

As early as 1804, only one year after the fateful Marbury v. Madison travesty, Jefferson pardoned some newspaper editors, freeing them from prison. A woman named Abigail Adams considered this a trespass beyond the bounds of the Presidency. He responded:

Jefferson went on to explain that while the judges might pass sentence based on what they felt was constitutionally acceptable law, he as executive was fully free to decide constitutionality and hence "bound to remit execution of it." Then he added these astute Constitutional observations:

Jefferson's keen insight provided the following remarkable words which may seem foreign, even radical, to the youngsters of the modern age who have grown up in the present atmosphere of judicial tyranny:

Jefferson's understanding of the Constitution was that:

Even Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson's political nemesis, possessed views of restraint where the courts were concerned. It was:

Jefferson and others expressed the intent of the Constitution from its inception: the Supreme Court has no more authority to trump the President than the President has authority to trump the Court. The same principle applies to the Legislative branch.

President Jefferson realized the danger presented by lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and other federal benches, the general tendencies of lawyers and judges for power, and the difficulty of getting a two-thirds vote to remove them, which he regarded as "a scarecrow." He knew well that means were provided to deal with errant presidents and legislators, but was disturbed by the weakness prescribed for dealing with errant federal justices:

Jefferson was alarmed at the lack of adequate provisions for rectifying unconstitutional power-grabs by the Court:

Jefferson could see the ominous direction the court was taking under John Marshall, and raised clear warning cries. His words should serve as an alarm and call for change:

In response to another ruling spearheaded by Chief Justice Marshall, a rumored comment by President Andrew Jackson illustrates what was a more common attitude than the subservient foolishness submitted to by the other branches of government today:

In 1819 President Andrew Jackson, vetoing a proposal to create a national bank even though the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress possessed the constitutional power to create one, said that the:

This not-well-known wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, one of the nation's most famous and popular presidents, is seldom quoted regarding the Court's Constitutional position:

Like Jefferson, Lincoln defied the Court by suspending the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Not even all Justices have favored the Court's perverse, conquering march. Notable exceptions included Oliver Wendell Holmes, who:

There is simply no valid basis for abject bowing by the two other branches of government, to say nothing of the whole nation, to the idea of judicial review, as the Supreme Court's arrogance has been labeled.

Even as recently as 1986, Attorney-General Edwin Meese stated that the Court's decisions:

Lawyer and constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet further rationally questioned why certain parties who felt Meese's position could lead to a constitutional crisis:

Federal judge Robert Bork, one-time candidate for the Supreme Court, observed that:

The legislative branch holds the true ultimate power, as it should, through the power of impeachment - in spite of the unlikelihood of such action. While impeachment is a secondary protection in the case of the executive (inasmuch as the President must stand for election to begin with) there is no original or recurring public vote in the case of the federal judiciary, and their lifetime appointment vastly compounds errant trends and actions. Through arrogance the courts have succeeded in circumventing intended Constitutional balance and in parading themselves as the ultimate power.

This whole judicial review doctrine, more accurately termed judicial supremacy, is potentially fatal to the very document it pretends to protect. Over one hundred years ago James Bradley Thayer, a legal scholar, observed that judicial review tends:

Slowly, then gradually accelerating, and finally expanding exponentially (particularly under the Earl Warren Supreme Court), the judiciary:

The situation has gone so far that legislative and executive branches of government, from the federal level down:

Government is not alone. Broad vistas of human pursuit have become paralyzed. Social and technical progress, growth, discovery, innovation, business, manufacturing, economic opportunity, family independence, privacy - all these and more have become stifled by the heavy hand of "consolidated" legal power.

And the courts have gone totally overboard, far beyond crying "stop" or calling a halt to what their whims may disfavor. Led by the high court, unbridled judicial activism has overruled or even totally commandeered school districts, corporate boards, county, state, and federal departments to instigate detailed, lengthy, physical, monetary, and otherwise judicially prescribed, comprehensive plans and directions, manipulations, and control the likes of which only kings and despots previously commanded. They have even ordered tax raises in such direct usurpation of legislative power as to incite members of Congress to arms with threats of amendatory action.

If a modern President were to refuse to execute a Supreme Court ruling which he felt exceeded the guidelines of the Constitution, an uproar would likely ensue among a misguided and misinformed public - probably led by howling, self-righteous lawyers. And yet that is just what the nation's executive - and legislature as well - should do in response to Supreme Court power abuses.

The Founding Fathers sought freedom, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. They could never have envisioned, much less intended, the courts becoming the ultimate power to restrict, regulate, and entangle those pursuits in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The Constitution, that great document which they authored, nowhere provides for the usurpation of complete and final authority by the courts.

The loudest, most oppressive repercussions of these early acts of legal usurpation would become manifest in the latter half of the 20th century, especially during the 50's, 60's, and 70's when law would be consistently rewritten by judicial fiat, arrogation, political agenda, arrogance, and even whim on benches high and low. But the ominous foundations for the travesties of justice which resulted were laid by misguided thinking and tilted Supreme Court rulings in the first century of the nation's existence.

The lawyer campaign to keep the public unaware and dumbed-down is a slick campaign. In Utah the state bar association (the lawyers' central group) placed beauteous, full-page, colored ads slickly designed to make this whole ABA (American Bar Association, the national parent organization) "celebration" appear as some wonderful public service. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that this campaign is presented by lawyers alone should make the complete issue suspect; attorneys are the greatest group of professional liars we have - experts at making things appear other than how they really are and keeping a straight face at the same time.

"The fascinating story," a case which "firmly established the judiciary as a co-equal branch of the federal government," "balance of power," and "the rule of law keeps order in our democratic society," are all phrases from this propaganda campaign which are intended to mislead the public and preserve this nauseous usurpation.

Yet there is no balance or equality if one branch, the weakest and least representative at that, trumps all others. And the phrase "the rule of law" has been heard so often that most have forgotten that we adopted law in the first place to achieve justice. Without justice what good is law?

Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham has been called into play to help auto-suggest continued public acceptance of the charade.

And the lawyers are working hard to continue to brainwash not only the public at large, but especially the rising generation. "Resources" were listed for educators and teachers in order to preserve the perverse thinking of the bar association. And Federal Judge Dee Benson was shown in one of Utah's largest newspapers hosting high school students in his courtroom, touting the "judicial supremacy" doctrine. He was quoted as explaining that the decision ensured "the courts and only the courts have final say on what the Constitutions says." What idiotic drivel. But if you get 'em while they're young they'll grow up accepting this nonsense, right?

To protect the Constitution in the long term and to vouchsafe our democratic form of government, there are additional remedies which should be put into place.

While the justices of necessity must interpret conflicting matters of law against the Constitution as such may be called into question, it was never intended that 9 unelected justices steeped in the voodoo of "legality" should arrogantly rewrite the Constitution through circumvential rulings, individual radicalism, political whims, and decisions usurping the powers of other branches of government. Regarding such aberrations, Robert Bork has commented:

The U.S. Supreme Court should never be considered or allowed to function as the supreme, final power over what happens in the nation. The executive and legislative branches have equal right to say and do according to their interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson clearly pointed out the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and it was not the Supreme Court:

During Franklin D. Roosevelt's time, Senator Burton Wheeler proposed a constitutional amendment specifying that Congress could override the Supreme Court by a two-thirds majority. While this would not be truly necessary should the other branches of government stand forth and exercise their equal rights to constitutional interpretation, such a change - made official by amendment - is probably the primary method for assuring necessary changes. As Tushnet pointedly observes:

If they won't give in willingly then we must, by constitutional amendment as necessary, make it clear and firmly act: no court has as its business the declaration of "constitutionality." One might ask, "Then what are the courts to do?" Simply put, courts are to interpret (interpret, not legislate) and apply law in given situations and cases brought before them. If in fact a judge or judges find a conflict with what they interpret in the Constitution they are free to rule accordingly. One might say "Then what is the difference?" There is a significant difference between a court ruling a law not to be a law - invalidating it - and ruling that legislation or an action of another branch of government or other third party conflicts with a higher, constitutional law, and thus a ruling in the case under consideration must be made in favor of the higher law. Such a course clarifies that the courts are not empowered to rule on constitutionality and may allow the application of the same law under different circumstances as compared to tossing it altogether. The distinction is noteworthy and valid and in fact the constitutions of certain other countries do spell out specific prohibition against judicial review of constitutionality to assure clarity on this point. Tushnet even suggests the ("lawyerly") wording:

In our times Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, who withdrew his nomination in the midst of liberal shenanigans and special interest and partisan political wrangling, proposed an amendment similar to that of Senator Wheeler's - that Congress override any Supreme Court ruling by a majority vote. Either measure would offer significant relief from the corruption of judicial review or false arrogance of "judicial supremacy" begun under John Marshall.

The judicial powers that be, as well as those groups who have used them to accomplish what they could not otherwise constitutionally accomplish, can be expected to strenuously resist.

To accomplish effective change the Constitution should be amended to stipulate that Supreme Court justices and all other federal judges stand for confirmation re-election every 6 years (as do senators), and clarifying the court's overall power.

Judges and certain others will cry that such measures will result in rulings favoring the popular will. But no stipulations are here suggested that the justices cease judgment according to the Constitution. Within its scope, the wishes of the citizenry should have meaning. What will happen is that the citizens of the nation will have the opportunity to remove from office those justices who rule contrary to the Constitution or who misuse their office. Aged, mentally impaired, politically motivated hangers-on can be dislodged. Accountability, something to which no institution in a republic - especially of such lofty position - should be easily immune, can be established for federal courts.

As Bork points out, even the argument that legislators may not be skilled interpreters of the Constitution holds no water:

Unconstitutional court decisions and continuous legal abuses fostered by special interest groups are obviously the driving forces behind the proposed amendments, but such apparently escapes the wisdom of lawyers and their judiciary.

There are those who believe:

Some cite concerns over stability and political ramifications as applied to Congress versus the Supreme Court. Political philosopher Jeremy Waldron buries the former concern by pointing out the ill-placed logic of assuming that the judgments of five people (a Supreme Court majority) who are replaced at random intervals would produce more stability than the will of a majority of the House, Senate, and a concurring President (see Tushnet, p. 29). Tushnet cures valid worries over the latter concern:

Referring to a statement by Abraham Lincoln, Tushnet points out that:

The changes specified here will root out most of the causes for those recently increased amendment proposals. The underlying problem has been the unaccountability of the Supreme Court, and the insistence of its justices in imposing their own whims and political desires upon the nation - usually mislabeled as "constitutional." Once accountability is established, the citizenry will no longer be held hostage by 9 tyrants who regularly ignore the will of the people, Congress, and the Constitution.

The Constitution is deserving of reverence - but it is neither perfect nor above change. Thomas Jefferson wrote, as quoted by Tushnet:

We should consider amendments carefully. But the Founding Fathers established the means by which the document could be revised expressly because they foresaw that as a necessity. The proposals herein will correct flaws which, for over 200 years, have resulted in decreased justice and increased legal despotism. We have seen the travesties of Constitutionality and equity that have resulted from two centuries of judicial operations sans accountability.

To which could be added: "...or to satisfy judicial whims and preferences."

Misled citizens who have grown up under the tilted legal thinking of past years tend to accept out-of-bounds actions of the Supreme Court with a certain resignation. Were the situation not a tragedy of significant degree, it would be comical observing the plethora of television commentaries and panels regarding the Supreme Court and its actions - punctuated by "the Court this" and "the Court that" as various "experts" comment on what "the Court" has decided Congress and the President and the rest of us can or cannot do - with nary a word about what the Court itself can or cannot do.

We simply must put away the notion that the Supreme Court has the power to override the decisions, interpretations, actions, and powers of the other branches of government, that it is the supreme power in the nation. Such thinking is inimical to the Constitution, the thinking of the Founding Fathers, the sensibility of freedom-loving citizens, and - is perilous.

As for other federal judges, they too must be held accountable through the election process. In a republic, a free nation, no branch of government should have dictatorial powers or be free from practical accountability. Furthermore, lawyers, the courts, and their supporters who readily cry out over "independence" when it comes to the judicial branch forget that independence is a two-way street. The presidential and congressional branches are no less independent than the judiciary, nor are they required to bow to the decrees or rulings of the court any more than to each other.

Whenever the total arrogance or complete and tyrannical power of the courts are challenged, the immediate hue and cry of the lawyers is "Judicial Independence!" They love this little catch-phrase whereby they hope to maintain legal despotism.

Just remember to make one simple word substitution in order to understand what it is that the lawyers and judges really want: whenever you hear their clamoring for "independence" simply insert "unaccountable" in its place. Thereby you will comprehend the true meaning of the tyranny being protected.

What lawyers and judges actually want is continued unaccountability to rule over all others in spite of our democratic republic's founding principles, the efforts of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution. They have total power and harbor no intentions of giving any of it up. Under the guise of so-called "independence" they rebut any challenges to lawyer supremacy.

The thought that in a democracy no branch of government should be unaccountable to the people, including judges, gives lawyers a supreme case of apoplexy. Their idea of balance and independence is slavery of all to lawyer judges.

• Supreme Court rulings, decrees, and interpretations shall be of no greater weight than those of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, in matters submitted for their consideration. In performing their Constitutionally assigned duties, no branch of the government can be overruled by another except through the impeachment process. No court, including the highest in the land, has the power to declare "constitutionality" of any law passed by Congress.
• Congress may override any ruling or decision of the Supreme Court by a two-thirds majority.
• Supreme Court justices and all other federal judges should stand for confirmation re-election every 6 years following initial appointment. Those not confirmed by a majority of voters shall be removed from the bench and replaced by new appointees.

Surely no rational person would suspect there lurked in the thinking of the Founding Fathers that the court so established would one day usurp power over the two houses of the Legislature, the Executive, any and all other organizations, and every citizen within the United States of America. But then, lawyers (and judges - who are almost 100% lawyers) are known mostly for their supposed expertise in legality rather than in rationality.

America should never consent to being held hostage by 9 unelected lawyers in Washington, DC. "Judicial independence" supporters always seem to ignore the obvious fact that the other two branches of the federal government, the President and Congress, are no less independent even though they have always faced regular elections. So the constant whining that the Supreme Court will suddenly lose "independence" through elections is utter nonsense.

Judge Bork offers this astute reflection:

Few in Marshall's day would have believed that the courts of this nation, led by 9 supreme lawyers, would eventually thrust their menacing legal tentacles deep into the lives of every citizen, affecting like some ultimate power the freedom, independence, and economic well-being of every life, every organization, every business, every public body, all government, even every unborn soul.

It would be difficult to imagine a doctrine more of a threat to or subversive of our freedoms than so-called "judicial review" promulgated by Marbury v. Madison. Americans should rightfully and totally reject any such notion. Judicial Anarchy is the only possible result of such flawed and dangerous thinking. The citizens of the nation need to awaken to the menace and invoke appropriate remedies with certitude, without the least hesitation.

Lawyers and judges have corrupted the legal system into a sickened, tangled nightmare. Incessant arguing over words - their complete and only stock in trade - has led to a situation not unlike that described by Jesus when he issued these mildly paraphrased, scorching words to the lawyers of his time:

Our legal system fails even to focus on the sole reason for its existence - the weightiest matter of all - justice itself.

Unless general corruption eventually makes all else moot, Americans will inevitably rue the loss of freedoms which continually follows the arrogant hijacking of all power and authority by the lawyer-led, lawyer-controlled Supreme Court.