By Frank Conner

This week the Supreme Court ruled that your local politicians may seize your property and turn it over to private developers (with whom those politicians are all too often in collusion). There are three reasons why this decision is a bombshell. First, one of the three or four key principles upon which this country was founded is the sanctity of private property. Second, nowhere does the US Constitution say that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in what is essentially a local matter such as this. Third, this is a giant step toward socialism in America.

This situation hammers home a point that we’ve all known for a long time: the Supreme Court is completely out of control. What can the American public do about that? Should we just continue to elect Republican presidents and hope for the best? The most destructive judicial-activist ever to serve on the Supreme Court was Chief Justice Earl Warren, and he was named to the Court by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. Besides, the basic problem is not with any particular individual named to the Court; the problem is that over the years the Court has unconstitutionally seized so much power for itself that now it has become an unelected second federal-government, competing with the constitutional government by arbitrarily enacting laws and enforcing them upon the nation, while answering to no one. That is absolute power. And as Lord Acton said, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see the results all around us.

Article III of the U. S. Constitution spells out a small handful of duties for the federal courts, and then gives Congress the power to regulate those courts as it sees fit. Why has the Congress permitted those courts to usurp so many of the powers of both Congress and the executive branch, and allowed the Supreme Court to become a tyranny of nine old men and women? Two reasons–both deriving from the fact that the Supreme Court has regularly attracted into its ranks some of the most-active practicing politicians in the country.

First, right off the bat (in 1800), President John Adams named his secretary of state, John Marshall–a power in the Federalist party–to be the chief justice of the then-obscure Supreme Court. Previously, the head of the Federalist party, Alexander Hamilton, had–while serving as the secretary of the treasury–invented a concept called "implied powers in the Constitution" to justify the creation of a national bank when the Constitution did not permit the federal government to do such a thing. But the Congress let Hamilton get away with that anyway–even though the Tenth Amendment plainly says, "The powers not delegated to the United States (i. e., to the federal government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Hamilton’s move was the thin edge of the wedge to undermine and emasculate the Constitution.

As the chief justice, John Marshall (being Federalist) expanded the powers of the Supreme Court until it routinely ruled upon the constitutionality of the activities of all the state legislatures, the state judiciaries, the Congress, and the presidency. How did Marshall get away with that? He did it by bribing the Congress and the executive branch. While he was using the "implied powers" concept to justify inventing out of whole cloth the right to do whatever he felt like doing, he was also using that concept to expand the powers of the Congress and the presidency too, so that entire the federal government gained far more power. By so doing, he laid the groundwork for an all-powerful federal government–which is just what the Federalists sought. Thus did the Supreme Court become the pearl beyond price in the eyes of the rest of the federal government.

To understand the second reason why the president and the Congress will not of their own volition rein in the powers of the Supreme Court and the other federal courts, you have to understand how the federal government actually works, as opposed to the fairytales about it that we are taught in school and by the news media every day. If you read the history of America in the 19th and 20th centuries carefully, without swallowing the conclusions forced upon you by the mainstream historians, it’s in there. For example, on page 373 of F. D. R.: His Personal Papers, a letter in 1933 from President Roosevelt to Col. Edward M. House (the man behind President Wilson’s throne), lays down the foundation of the second reason, as follows: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson…." And President Roosevelt certainly was in a position to know whereof he spoke.

So the job of the federal government is a little bit more complex than it would seem to be at first glance: the government must appear to be carrying out the will of the people (the voters), while actually doing the bidding of the small number of power players who control most of the money and influence in the US. Throughout most of the 19th century, that was a relatively-straightforward matter: the power players were the men who controlled the huge fortunes and the mega-corporations.

Then a strange thing happened. In the late 1880s, many of the most-articulate intellectuals in the US fell in love with a book written by Edward M. Bellamy which promoted socialism. This, in turn, made those intellectuals amenable to the totalitarian-socialist preachments of Jean Jacques Rousseau, and then Karl Marx, and–much, much later–Antonio Gramsci. These intellectuals included some of the leading educators of their day (men such as John Dewey); and soon their disciples were taking control of academia, and the news-and-entertainment media. By the 1920s they were becoming a real power in the land. (If you want a real shock, read the campaign platform of Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive

[Bull Moose] party for the 1912 presidential election.)

So as the 20th century got well underway, the gods to be propitiated by the federal government were the conservative money-men and (increasingly) the socialist communicators who were becoming influential–and those groups had opposing agendas. But during the Great Depression, then the men who controlled the very-largest corporations in the US came to exactly the same conclusion as their counterparts in Italy and Germany: at that stage, the mega-corporations would actually benefit more from a totalitarian-socialist government than from limited government in a democratic republic. The reason: the mega-corporations had endless numbers of factories in being, churning out oceans of products. They were gigantic money-machines. But those mega-corporations had experienced hardening of the arteries; they were now mature bureaucracies which had lost the ability to innovate. They were completely vulnerable to any hungry medium-size corporation which might come along with a superior new technology.Such a company could wipe out one of the mega-corporations completely in ten years. But in a tightly-regulated socialist society, the mega-corporations could use their vast amounts of cash to buy up the legislators and government administrators, and have them legislate and regulate any threatening new technologies right out of existence.

So in the early days of FDR’s New Deal, the mega-corporations quietly decided to go for socialism. (To check it out, study the proposal made by Gerard Swope, CEO of General Electric, to the other key players in the electrical industry in 1932, for the extraordinary regulation of industry by government, which was then promoted by the US Chamber of Commerce, and –according to Herbert Hoover’s memoirs–agreed to by FDR while campaigning for the presidency. Swope’s proposal essentially became the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1833.)

In effect, the big-money power players made a deal with the socialist communicators back in the 1930s; and that deal is reflected perfectly by the editorial policy of every major newspaper in the US today (except possibly that of the Washington Times): in matters involving big business, the slant will be conservative; in matters involving social issues, the slant will be liberal; but the pitch will always be for an ever-bigger and more-powerful federal government, leading inexorably to total socialism.

So. The US is run today by the heads of the mega-corporations (and a few others) who control the flow of money, and by the brightest lights in the communications industries, who wield the influence; and both groups in that alliance seek a socialist national-government. Since politicians can’t get elected without money and the media, socialism is what the federal government attempts to deliver–while the Republican politicians are preaching to the voters about how they are going to shrink the government, and the Democratic politicians are preaching about how they are going to expand it. In other words, what we actually have in the US is a single political party (I call it the Demopublican party) with two wings which pretend to compete with one another ideologically. If you view politics in that light, then what is happening these days is completely understandable, although of course it is horrifying to any real conservative–including me.

Now comes the big fly in the ointment for the politicians who run the federal government. In order for the federal government to turn the US into a socialist nation incrementally, it has to destroy gradually all of the major social-institutions upon which the current society is based: Christianity, marriage, family, community standards, individual freedom of action. If the president and the Congress continually attack these institutions head-on, many of the voters will figure out what’s happening, and get angry and vote those politicians out of office. So the destruction of those institutions is the job of where the Supreme Court comes in; and in fact, it has obviously been working to destroy them ever since the late 1930s. Of course, the Supreme Court has to observe the forms, and hand down decisions favoring the conservatives from time to time, so as to avoid making obvious to everyone what its real game is; but it has already gone a long way toward reaching its goal: the destruction of the existing society.

By taking the heat off the administration and Congress, while at the same time enabling the federal government to do the bidding of the socialist alliance of the heads of the mega-corporations and the communications industries, the Supreme Court plays an absolutely-essential role in the eyes of the other two branches of government. And that is why it is extremely unlikely that the Congress will ever really rein in the power of the Supreme Court or the other federal courts.

And whether you vote in Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, John McCain, or Ted Kennedy as the next president in 2008, none of those people can or will change the way the system really works. And the same is true of whoever you select as your congressmen and your senators. We cannot change the system while playing by its rules; the system has been rigged to defeat all such efforts.

The only way I can see to change the system lawfully would be for someone to start up an evangelical grassroots-movement in the South, and then spread across the rest of the nation. It would have to be a single-issue movement. Its goal would be to halter the federal courts, and thereby remove the chains of the unelected tyrannical second-government which currently bind us and render us politically incapacitated. The only practical way to do that would be by ; ; & nbsp; forcing the Congress and the president to acknowledge the tremendous power wielded today by the federal judges, and consequently turn every federal judgeship into an elective office–the judge to be elected by the voters within his specific jurisdiction (the Supreme Court justices would be elected by nine different regions of the country). This approach would certainly contain its own can of worms, but it would at least make all of the federal judges accountable to the people whose lives they are now regulating, and that would be a giant step forward.

Naturally the president and the Congress would refuse to go along with such a program; so the grassroots movement would have to refuse to reelect any incumbents in the White House or Congress, until the politicians finally got the message that it’s our way or the highway re the federal judges.

If the federal judges had to stand for election every four years, then as a practical matter they would have to stop destroying the key institutions of our present society (Christianity, marriage, etc.) or get voted out of office.

Also as a practical matter, both the White House and Congress would be reluctant to step up their activities to destroy our key institutions, for the same reason. That would make it a lot harder for the ruling coalition of mega-corporation and communications-industries heads to install a totalitarian-socialist government in the US.

The point I want to make here is that the political system in our country is broken. For a long time we have believed in myths and played Let’s Pretend when dealing with politics. Let’s stop fooling ourselves. We are not going to fix the system by electing this politician or that political party. Our only hope of fixing it is by undertaking a nationwide grassroots-movement to systematically turn the politicians out of office until they get the message that it is in their self-interest to do our bidding. That would be a massive undertaking. The alternative is to sit on our hands and watch the US gradually turn into an atheistic consumerist-oriented totalitarian-socialist nation.

It will likely take longer to establish such a government here than it did in Russia or China, but the end result will probably be about the same.