Sobran writes, "Judicial review was originally proposed (most notably in Federalist No. 78) as a method of making sure legislatures didn’t pass unconstitutional laws. Today it has become a method of changing the very meaning of constitutions under the guise of interpreting them."

The role and regulation of the judicial branch has been a point of conflict since our country's founding. Thomas Jefferson was a vocal opponent of judicial review and to "life" appointments of any government officer. In an 1819 letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Jefferson wrote, "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

In 1821, Jefferson wrote to Judge Roane again, "The great object of my fear is the Federal Judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."

Unfortunately, Jefferson's wisdom was ignored then and the Jeffersonian view of government decentralization was defeated by the force of Lincoln's armies, and the march to centralized empire has proceeded ever since.

Schlafly emphasizes the judicial activist problem in the context of the more recent court attacks on the institution or marriage, the Ten Commandments and religious heritage in general. Sobran, as usual, gives us a thoughtful look at the historical context of "judicial review" and points to Abraham Lincoln as the start of the problem. Lincoln abused his powers as President and crushed the rights of the States. The Federal courts began to abuse their powers more visibly soon thereafter.

Sobran suggests that the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 was a general call for impeachment. Once again, the South rose in general protest because once again, the power of the federal government was aimed at imposing its will on the States. Once again, the issue of States Rights was thrown on the trash heap and equated to racism. No one in the 21st century is going to argue that segregation was just or that racism didn't exist. The questionable validity of the 14th Amendment aside, the point remains that the States should do the domestic governing and the federal government should not meddle in it.

It was a big deal in the 1950s. Despite the general feeling of reconciliation and unity following the American victory in World War II, the Southern states had resumed a place of power within the federal republic. Americans were generally conservative and leftist ideologies were generally taking a low profile in light of the "Communist menace." Nevertheless, the federal judiciary flexed its muscle in the 1950s and 1960s to impose more "Reconstruction" on the South.

Roe v. Wade was another federal assault on the states (1972) in that it struck down the abortion laws in all fifty states. Whether you call it "murder" or "choice," it's clearly an issue each state should decide for itself and its people.

The core of the problem is that judicial activists give us what Judge Robert H. Bork calls "politics disguised as law." Socialists, liberals and all manner of big government social planners rejoice in their power exercised via the federal judiciary. They cannot convince voters or elected representatives with logic, but they can still get their way by having the courts implement their policies. It provides convenient "cover" for those legislators who support bigger government but who know that openly voting for bigger government would end their political careers.

Georgia Heritage Council sees that many of the problems with our current public education system and the general attacks on our American Heritage all stem from judicial activism. Although "conservative" politicians pay lip service to returning control of schools to local governments, they keep passing new laws and mandates to ensure that all public schools follow the empire's dictates.

In addition to schools, states are given all manner of federal mandates. If the states don't comply, they are clubbed with court orders and withheld federal funding. Follow the money. Our money, taken by force, is used as both a carrot and a stick to ensure our compliance with the empire's decrees.

Our U.S. Constitution and the Georgia Constitution provide a means to counter the judiciary's "coup d'etat" and restore some sanity to our government.

I'm talking about impeachment.

Schalfly writes, "Bush called on Americans to defend the sanctity of marriage against activist judges who force 'their arbitrary will' by court order 'without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives.' It is clear that it is not enough to press forward with the task of confirming nominees who will respect the Constitution; we must also deal with the problem of activist judges who continue their mischief under the shield of life tenure."