Blueprint for Ideologically Suppressing Left-Wing Thought, Part One: Obstructing Judicial Activism Through Devolution

Man is never biologically born entitled to prosperity, and if we were, we should not like it, for it would eradicate the individual’s humanity, yielding a state of entropy. Because man is innately corrupt, the inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and ownership of property are only assured through the impartial mediation of a legally-legitimate third party, for if happiness entails owning property or shares, liberty must not be tiered legally through a caste system. Men are born free of preconceptions (“tabula rasa”), yet spectacularly possess the natural instinct ubi terra patria est (“where there is bread, there is my country”). Therefore, America — sired by yeoman farmers, poets and sailors — was a New World settled by refugees, the destination to where God’s westerly winds ensured their deliverance to Liberty’s door of opportunity.


The rise of large cities yielded corrupt harvests under socialism’s permafrost, killing the seeds of virtue from which talent naturally germinates. All this transpired through unnatural political coercion — and by taxation, which defined, is legalized theft.

“I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

― Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787, in PTJ, 12:442.

In a June 28, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams credited the elements driving America’s securing independence through a more direct approach than Jefferson’s more famous line (“laws of Nature and nature’s God”) in the Declaration of Independence.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien [“Protestants who believe nothing”].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Three months later on October 28, Thomas Jefferson extolled the virtues behind a natural aristocracy to Adams over that of an artificial nobility as the conscientious body balancing justice with liberty. A virtuous people, armed and educated, would best preserve the rule of law, “For if the coordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they that of the coordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively.”

Jefferson too advocated for a tiered federal instructure under a democratic republican government that cultivates “an aristocracy of virtue”.

It was a Bill… to divide every county into wards of 5 or 6 miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools who might recieve at the public expence a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects to be completed at an University, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life… My proposition had for a further object to impart to these wards those portions of self-government for which they are best qualified, by confiding to them the care of their poor, their roads, police, elections, the nomination of jurors, administration of justice in small cases, elementary exercises of militia… with a Warden at the head of each.

Jefferson and Adams’ correspondence explains why a just social contract must involve devolving America into the smallest possible confederation of culturally-homogenous communities voluntarily sharing common ethnic, religious, economic and political values (e.g. Amish and Mennonite communities) that engender “an equality of condition among [the American people… that] would have raised the mass of the people to the high ground of moral respectability necessary to their own safety, and to orderly government.”

Today, the Left persecutes Christians through its commitment to gradually abolish the Establishment Clause and peaceful assembly inside churches without regulatory oversight. The most notorious example involved the lesbian former Houston Democrat mayor, Annise Parker, who banned any biblical sermons containing “homophobic” lessons or inferences of homosexuals as “sexual immoral” pending her preview of all sermons in writing and the penalty for noncompliance being the arrest and imprisonment of clergymen, whose rights to due process as American citizens would be revoked. Furthermore, the Left breaks with the Constitution over religious liberty through forcing religious medical facilities to perform abortions, requiring businesses to provide insurance coverage for abortions and birth control which contradict the owners’ faiths’ teachings, the full removal of biblical iconography (e.g., the Ten Commandments) off courthouse lawns and inside government buildings, for Christian bake shops to sell cakes to same-sex couples while performing same-sex marriage rites in churches for same-sex couples regardless of religious affiliation or being biblically compliant.

Schools today debar students of their natural right to pray or possess a Bible — a slippery slope of political persecution of an entire religious demographic in all or increasing sums of the parts whole since the heyday of the American Atheist movement of the early 1960’s. These controversies were settled through federal civil rights litigation — the source where the most radical alterations to constitutional law must begin to end or radically obstruct judicial activism through ideological subversion.


Commonplace at state and local governments is the practice of electing judges to their respective post. At the federal level however, the president nominates and should the Senate confirm, his choice of federal and High Court candidates. There are several categories that classify such elections, not to mention opinions. (Source: Ballotpedia):

  • Partisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
  • Nonpartisan elections: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
  • Legislative elections: Judges are selected by the state legislature.
  • Gubernatorial appointment: Judges are appointed by the governor. In some cases, approval from the legislative body is required.
  • Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list. After serving an initial term, the judge must be confirmed by the people in a yes-no retention election to continue serving.

Of these, only “legislative elections” appear entirely undemocratic on a directly popular scale. But today, the matter federal judges and United States Supreme Court justices create laws where they do not exist (these will be referred to henceforth as “judicial fiat”) has become the greatest threat to the legislative mandate of Congress to make law for the president to either sign or veto that violate the American people’s civil rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Mindful of both the independence and accountability envisioned by America’s Founders, a system was established whereby the President would appoint federal judges with U.S. Senate consent. Until the mid-1800s, nearly all states admitted to the Union employed this method for selecting judges by legislative confirmation as well, though some opted to select by legislative vote alone. In 1832, Mississippi became the first state to implement judicial elections, with New York following suit in 1846, and afterward, when a rapid shift occurred as state after state adopted the new method. By the time of the Civil War in 1861, 24 of the 34 states had an elected judiciary, and every state that has entered since provided for the election of some — if not all — its judges.

Ballotpedia also notes that for “as long as the judiciary has existed, advocates of these methods have disagreed about the best way to select judges that are both independent and accountable.” Multiple debating points illuminate the matter that, in remaining true to the cultural imperative of each region, state and locality, some form of democratic process to elect judges in each state and federal court district is present, though the expansion of some popular mandate over the U.S. Supreme Court is far more complex because as the highest court in the land, it is indispensibly tied to the president and Senate in accordance with Article III. Under the federal court system’s present format, 13 courts of appeal sit immediately beneath the High Court. 

In general, the U.S. Court of Appeal geographic maps demonstrate a general cultural consensus, albeit not entirely perfected. There is enough intermarrying of political demographics particularly in the regions 9 (AK, HI, CA, NV, AZ, ID, MT, OR, WA), 8 (AR, MO, NE, IA, ND, SD, MN), 7 (IL, IN, WI), 6 (MI, OH, KY, TN) and 4 (NC, SC, VA, WV, MD, DE) to ensure competitiveness among the two political parties and to avoid partisan dynasties from overpowering others. Thus the ability, it is hoped, to stifle the tide of judicial activism through the democratic processes weakening the partisan monopolies in regions governed by political machines is greatly mitigated. It may also provide a general blueprint for dissolving the current states into smaller ones based on cultural values and a more efficient bureaucracy in each state based on the 94 federal judicial districts, as marked below.

U.S. Court of Appeals Geographic Boundaries.png

Secondly, federal courts should never be permitted to overrule state and local courts on matters of more localized laws which do not immediately impede federal constitutional statutes. This should be reinforced by the Tenth Amendment in order to conserve the cultural imperatives of each region representing the courts of appeal as a beginning of devolving federal power to these regions, then the state and lastly, the local and county municipalities. Reorganizing the federal judiciary in such a fashion as to provide a climate for political discourse democratically between prospective justices of both parties is worth exploring. Thus, any radical alteration to the federal Constitution will only be possible through an Article V. Convention of States assembly.

The next section of the series on Ideologically Suppressing Left-Wing Thought in conservatism’s restoration of America’s culture will examine how mastering the art of public debate through the manipulation and counteraction of over a half century of left-wing disinformation indoctrinating America’s schoolchildren must attack its sirens at its foundation: public education, and its domination of mass communications.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s