Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

Description

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America [Mark R. Levin, Rush Limbaugh] on desertcart.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America Review: More Greatness from the Great One - What's the most pressing problem facing our nation? Well, there are a ton to choose from. You could say external forces looking to exterminate us. That would certainly be valid, but I'm always been more of an implosion versus explosion guy in terms threats. Frankly, I think our own seditionists are the biggest threat to our liberty. They'll bring down this country far earlier than any terrorists ever will. Over the last forty years the radicals have marched through our organizations, universities, and government and allowed what was once the counter-culture to become the culture. Nowhere is this more true than in our judiciary wherein the laws crafted by our representatives in the legislature have been struck down by judges who think it is their role to teach us what we should really want. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall: You do what you think is right and let the law catch up. Only, it's not the judiciary's role to make laws and that's why Mark Levin penned his masterpiece Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. The book came out in 2005 so, as always, I got to its pages a little late. Unfortunately, nothing is going to change in the immediate future so it remains pertinent. Some of you may know Mark Levin's name, but, honestly, before this year I never listened to his talk radio show. After a month I discovered he's the best host out of them all. He also excels at writing. Essentially, Men in Black mirrors his approach to verbal conservatism: it's insightful, concise, and ruthlessly on topic. There's not a wasted word here. What I found most attractive about its narrative is that he makes extensive use of primary source documents. He lets the justices, in their opinions, tell their own tale. The book is a compilation of history and cogent analysis. He discusses specifically several of the 100 justices who have been members of the Supreme Court, and their flaws were readily apparent. They were men, not gods. Levin offers readers an outstanding discussion of the most important court cases in our nation's history. Many of them I had read about before but have long since forgotten. His discussion of religion in Chapter 3 and the establishment clause was thoroughly enlightening. Specifically, we see how cases like Everson v. Board of Education created the fallacious doctrine of there being a "wall of separation" between church and state. Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Wallace v. Jeffree illustrates the method by which this notion was created. "Justices in the Bedroom" in Chapter Five was a standout as well, but most topical was Chapter Ten, "Silencing Political Debate." To what extent does McCain-Feingold erode our liberties? Right now it's hard to say. I agree with the author that advertising is speech, and the recent letter Obama sent to the Justice Department concerning the William Ayers ad put out by a 527 organization is an example of how the left will take advantage of any loophole as a means to silence their critics. Overall, we are not as free as we used to be and Mark Levin's Men in Black illustrates why this is the case. Review: Killing the Constitution, and How to Save It. - The U.S. Supreme Court has morphed from an institution designed to maintain the intent of the constitution's framers, into an institution bent on enforcing the statist, progressive ideology on Americans. This book by Mark Levin, written several years ago, is more relevant than ever now, as a result of the recent horrendous decision in the Obamacare case. Men In Black disects the Court, and its decisions, demonstrating to the reader just how much it has strayed from its original purpose. U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has done permanent damage to the Constitution in his opinion on the Obamacare case. So why are RINO's and others defending Roberts? These misguided people are engaging in a fantasy that Roberts had some sort of secret motive in making this horrendous decision, that he had a plan, a secret plan to help conservatives, and that there is therefore an upside to this mistake. This is absurd. Various versions of this "plan" of Roberts' have him upholding Obamacare to rally the opposition, or get even with Obama by creating a tax debacle issue for future political use. Well, the tax issue was already there before Roberts' betrayal, and is not going away. This fantasizing by RINO's and other deluded Roberts' supporters is at best naive, and at worst, intellectually dishonest. Defending Roberts' betrayal and the damage that he and his four left wing accomplices on the Court have done to the Constitution in his ruling in "National Federation of Independent Businessmen, et. al. vs. Sebelius", the infamous Obamacare decision, is exacerbating the damage that Roberts has already done to the Constitution, because it reveals a deep misunderstanding of Constitutional law, and the limited powers of the federal government on the part of the Roberts defenders. Roberts could have just as easily thrown the entire "Affordable health Care Act" out by saying it WASN'T a tax, and is simply an unconstitutional mandate, which is the plain and simple truth. The transmutation by Roberts and his four left-wing accomplices on the Court of what is in fact an unconstitutional mandate, into a supposedly constitutional tax is astounding and shocking. Instead of deciding the case based on the actual Constitution and the truth, Roberts has endorsed the modern liberal concept of a "living Constitution" and has opened the door to the passing of more such federal mandates by sending this message to congress and the president that they can do an end-run around the constitutional prohibition of mandates by simply lying and calling them taxes. By the way, the Obama Administration insisted that this was not a tax while they were forcing it through congress, then turned around and argued that it was a tax before the Supreme Court. Did Roberts really fall for this scam, or is there some other more sinister reason for this Chief Justice to turn his back on the Constitution? The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, and Roberts has failed miserably here. He has joined the leftist activist justices in further eroding our liberty, and has helped to further the destruction of the Founding Fathers' concept of limited government, which is written into the Constitution, and which was duly ignored by Roberts and the majority. Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin's excellent book on the topic on the excesses of the Supreme Court is a guide to all constitutional conservatives as to what the problem in the Court and in society is, and how we must address it to resore our liberty. The Obamacare decision demonstrates Levin's accuracy in the book regarding the continuing left movement of the Court, to the detriment of liberty. The problem with this horrendous opinion by Roberts isn't the fact that it upheld Obamacare; I am confident that it will be repealed. The problem with this decision is that it fails to interpret the Constitution in its original meaning as a document designed to LIMIT government. By this failure, Roberts has permanently damaged the Constitution with his nonsense that Obamacare is a tax and not a mandate. The constitutional damage inflicted by Chief Justice Roberts unfortunately will long survive the Obamacare law, and will be much more difficult to remedy. Shame on John Roberts, and bravo Mark Levin!