The UNSupreme Court

In my opinion, in addition to a rather needed housecleaning on Capitol Hill in order to remove many of the 'career' politicians (rather than statesmen, or even the civil servants 'of the people' they were elected to be) , we now have, as is quite evident indeed in recent years, a clearly 'political' rather than independent third branch, our U.S. Supreme Court.

While it has and continues to be argued that the Court has in recent years turned more and more to international law, rather than our U.S. Constitution, for it's political determinations it is evident that in so doing the UN agenda has even reached it's tentacles into the last bastion of our Constitutional Republic, those nine appointed justices whose job it is to be the protector and defender of American civil liberties against the abuses of government. The international agenda, however, has resulted instead in this 'check' in the 'checks and balances' system becoming as politically corrupted as the other two and instead protector of the 'sovereign,' and not the citizens at all.

Recent cases in point:

Kelo vs. City of New London - the eminent domain abusive determination holding with the City of New London in finding that the words 'public use,' in the 5th Amendment can no be so liberally construed as to allow a U.S. citizens property to be 'stolen' from one private citizen to give to another solely for redevelopment and the added federal/state or local tax revenue it would engender. The founders suffered under an abusive 'sovereign' in their home country where land was taken from one person to give to another favored 'sovereign' subject. That decision made a mockery of everything the founding fathers fought and died for, and the greatest abuse of federal/state collusion and power since the 16th Amendment was passed without 'the consent of the governs' knowledge or consent. My question regarding this decision is and has always been since the main stream media broadcast it throughout the country - as a civil dispute between the state and a citizen at the outset and over an amount much greater than $20 as provided in the Constitution - why did the attorneys for Ms. Kelo not demand a trial by jury in this matter, so that a jury of her peers could examine this matter and it's stated 'public use' purposes? And why did Ms. Kelo, according to reports, receive three times the value of her home (more than adequate compensation) with her home than also physically moved? And, since the deciding judge, Judge David Souter, actually got his undergraduate education in England at Oxford, why are we appointing judges whose legal education was not even obtained in this country, but the country which has the form of government our founders sacrificed their lives in order to break free from with their 'sovereign' and monarchical rule? And, since the attorney which represented Ms. Kelo are members of a 501(c)(3) organization which allows for taxpayer funds to be used for legal fees for 'civil rights' cases, and since no jury trials were ever requested, even at the state level when she had voracious community support for her case, how much did Ms. Kelo's attorneys receive in federal funding for their 'representation?' Could this decision actually have been purely brought for a political purpose from the outset in order to set a precedence for, just possibly, the land which might be needed in order for the NAFTA SuperHighway to be built and potentially robbing thousands of U.S. citizens of their homes and property, solely for Wal-Mart and Mexico's benefit? Much has been published about the proposed North American Union and for any of those Americans who have been asleep this past eight years, you just might want to wake up and read the Department of Commerce's website on the Security and Prosperity Partnership and Google 'North American Union.'

State of Texas v. Medellin - Mexico's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to overturning a Texas jury's determination in a murder trial of two Texas teens by an illegal immigrant in 1993, and 49 other Mexican citizens who have been incarcerated in our jails without the 'right' to telephone their local embassies while imprisoned as presumptively accorded in the Vienna Treaty, and as a matter involving a foreigner in our country, a 'World Court' rather than U.S. court matter. Another 'treaty' (in addition to the SPP above) entered into by the President without the consent of Congress, and actually contrary to the Constitution (which actually In this decision, surprise, it was the Conservative judges which held with the State of Texas, and the Liberals with the President.
My problem with the entire matter stems from this question: since the federal courts have 'original jurisdiction with respect to cases involving foreigners to begin with, and since as illegals the crime actually was not a 'crime against the state' at all, but a 'crime against the nation,' why was this trial held in the state, rather than federal courts to begin with? Appears now there are 'other' grounds for appeals now at the state and federal level, since this oversight itself was not brought before the Supreme Court - and it is the citizens of the State of Texas who will be, most likely, paying for a portion of those appeals also and the costs of incarceration of this man for, most likely, another at least 13 years.

Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas - this is the case that in many states throughout the nation has removed the right to 'trial by jury' for even first and second offense criminal misdemeanor DUI cases. Although our Constitution affords the right to trial by jury for ALL criminal matters, once first and second DUIs without loss of property or injury were moved from civil to criminal violations, the Supreme Court made a specific DUI exception to the right to trial by jury in inserting several more words into the absolute language of the Constitution. It has now exempted 'petty' criminal offenses from such provisions if the terms of incarceration are less than six months duration. And also upheld the 'unlawful search and seizure' in mandatory breathalyser testing upon 'reasonable cause' and upheld 'per se' conviction of ANYONE who registers a .08 on a breathalyser (no matter that they are actually calibrated to the 'average' male of 160-180 pounds). In also it's determinations that 'the ends justify the means,' another 'unlawful search and seizure' violation has been upheld in holding with the 'sovereign' in allowing sobriety checkpoints - even without reasonable cause - in subjecting citizens to breath testing on holiday weekends and such so long as there is a public announcement of the checkpoint site (on the educational channels most likely).

Insanity rules on the Hill, that is for sure, and more and more citizens are now waking up to a government which has become more tyrannical and intrusive, and even ignoring the actual Rule of Law in favor of UN and World Governmental and 'sovereign' agendas, than that which the founders fought more than 200 years ago, in EVERY branch.

Bring on the juries!!!!