OPC

Multi-culturalbooks.com
                                     
  [email protected]









BLOG:THE SUPREME COURT & OLIGARCHY


 

Suppressing Voting Rights, Giving Corporations Civil Rights, Imposing Racial Restrictions On Immigration Rights, Denying Women Their Productive Rights___The Supreme Court Continues Its Oligarchic Tradition

 

Eugene Stovall

Oakland, California August 2021

 

An oligarchy [Greek olígos meaning "few," and arkhos meaning “rule”] is a government controlled by the few whether royals, nobles, aristocrats or wealthy, religious, military elites operating through secret societies.

 

From the republic’s beginning, the Supreme Court has defended oligarchs against the people enshrouding its decisions in legalisms. American jurisprudence based upon defending the few and no decision exemplifies the Supreme Court oligarchic tradition more than its Dred Scott v. Sandford decision.

 

The negro has for more than a century been regarded as beings of an inferior order; and so far, inferior, that they had no rights which the white man is bound to respect ...

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney

 

Though nowhere in the constitution are the concepts of negro and white man mentioned, Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Supreme Court’s first Catholic justice, ignored the law and called upon his Catholic tradition to impose the Vatican’s political bias on the American constitution. Following in the footsteps of Bishop Bartholomew Las Casas who captured Africans to slave in South American mines, Bishop Diego de Landa Calderón who tortured and murdered Mayans in Mexico and St. Junipero Serra, recently canonized by the current Catholic pope, Francis, who enslaved, tortured and murdered California Indians, Roger Taney imposed Catholic racism rather than constitutional law. Today the Supreme Court has a supra-Catholic majority which defends secret government surveillance, break-ins, abductions, interrogations, detentions, torture murder and the international terrorism required by America’s oligarchs.

 

When the laws allow evil men to triumph, the justice system is used to compel good men to submit

 

The War Of Independence And Whig Oligarchy

 

Even before the last cannon roared and the last musket barked and the last colonist shed his blood, George Washington, Samuel Adams and a network of highly placed lawyers, merchants and bankers formed themselves, into the Masonic cabal known as the Whig party and seized power over the newly formed government. Shrugging off the democratic pretensions that justified the War of Independence, the Whigs grabbed land, controlled banking and resumed the lucrative transatlantic trade. No longer answerable to the British Parliament, the Whig congress passed unfair laws, levied burdensome taxes and drove small farmers, local businessmen and woodsmen back into the peonage they had fled Europe and fought the War Of Independence to escape. The taxes that congress passed were all the more onerous not only because they were ex post facto but also required payment in gold or silver. Since few Americans had gold or silver, Whig merchants and bankers, intent on war profiteering, confiscated farms, homesteads, livestock and personal property, making them the lords of the land while enriching their European and English business partners.

 

The Whigs selected George Washington, the Worshipful Master of Virginia’s Masonic Lodge No. 4, as the President of the United States. Washington used slave labor to grow hemp, brew beer and distill liquor on his 8000-acre Mount Vernon plantation, making him America’s largest and wealthiest plantation owner. Under Washington’s presidency, Samuel Adams and the Boston Brahmins grew wealthy by supplying England and Europe raw materials from America’s bounty. But the common people and revolutionary war veterans suffered under Whig tyranny.

 

In 1787, angered by the seizure of his farm, Daniel Shays, led Revolutionary War veterans in a rebellion. The Whigs. raised a militia, subdued the rebels and ordered the ringleaders hung. Three years later George Washington called upon Congress to put down his competitors in the liquor business prompting another rebellion. Distilling alcohol, brewing beer and growing hemp had become profitable and small farmers began cutting into George Washington’s liquor distilling empire and the president directed his fellow Whigs to impose exorbitant taxes on his competitors. The small farmers who could not pay the liquor taxes in gold or silver received long jail sentences. In 1791, the Whiskey Rebellion erupted and, this time, President George Washington took personal command of the campaign to crush the rebels and hang the insurrectionists. One small farmer, John Fries, who was tried in federal court also received a death sentence. After smashing the Whiskey Rebellion and eliminating his competitors, Washington’s liquor business flourished and the Whigs had no more challenges to their power until the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. And the Whigs held onto power because the Supreme Court spewed out legalisms rather than dispensing justice.

 

Whig Power And The Supreme Court

 

The Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has discretionary jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases involving federal law. In deciding a case, the Supreme Court can strike down presidential directives and executive orders deemed to violate the constitution or the law. But the Supreme Court did not use its authority to dispense justice. Beginning in 1791, with its decision in West v. Barnes, the Supreme Court only defended the interests of oligarchs.

William West, a former Revolutionary War general and a small Rhode Island farmer, vocally opposed the Whig takeover. But, the Jenckes family who were prominent Rhode Island bankers, held the mortgage on West’s farm. Though West had been making mortgage payments for twenty years to the Jenckes, even before fighting in the revolution, in 1785. the Whig bankers abruptly demanded that West fully pay the mortgage or lose his farm.

William West petitioned and received from the State of Rhode Island permission to conduct a lottery to pay off the mortgage. His lottery successfully raised the money required to pay the mortgage in paper currency recognized by Rhode Island as legal tender for the payment of debts. West deposited the funds with a state judge and notified the Jenckes family that they could collect their funds.

David L. Barnes, a member of the Jenckes family, a well-known Whig attorney and a federal judge, refused West’s payment in paper currency and sued West in federal court demanding payment either in gold or in silver. The Whig federal court directed West to pay the Jenckes family either gold or silver or forfeit his farm. West appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected West’s appeal, not on its merits, but because West’s petition was signed by court clerk in Rhode Island instead by the Supreme Court clerk. By allowing a Whig banker to seize West’s farm, the Supreme Court began its long tradition of issuing legalisms and ignoring justice.

***

In 1792, Alexander Chisholm sued the State of Georgia for payments due him for goods that he supplied during the Revolutionary War. The State of Georgia, refused to appear in court, claiming that, as a sovereign state, it could not be sued without its consent. In a 4-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for the State of Georgia. Nevertheless, Chisholm v. Georgia had unintended consequences. Claiming the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court found that Georgia did not have sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had the power to hear disputes between private citizens and states.

The Chisholm v. Georgia decision alarmed the Whig-controlled Congress. Congress passed its tyrannical acts with impunity. Even though the Whigs controlled the courts, Congress now fear a rash of lawsuits. The Whigs rushed the Eleventh Amendment to the constitution through Congress. The Eleventh Amendment barred any citizen from suing a state government in a federal court and eliminated an important democratic check on the arbitrary power of the government. But even prior to the Eleventh Amendment, no private citizen could expect justice from federal courts controlled by the Whigs.

****

On February 24, 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Supreme Court’s unanimous Marbury v. Madison decision proclaiming the seldom used legalism that invested the federal courts with the power to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. No matter, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its tradition of denying justice to the plaintiff who, in this case, was a Whig.

In the weeks prior to Thomas Jefferson’s March. 1801 presidential inauguration, the lame-duck Whig Congress sought to preserve its control over the judiciary. Congress created 16 specific and a number of non-specific new judgeships that outgoing president, John Adams, could use to reward Whig party loyalists. However, one of Adams’ appointees. William Marbury, a trusted tax collector and a Whig Party leader from Maryland, did not receive the parchment upon which his commission was written and stamped before Presidential Adams left office. When the new president, Thomas Jefferson, took office, he ordered his secretary of state, James Madison, to withhold the judgeship documents from all Adams’ appointees. William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel James Madison, to deliver his commission. Marbury argued that he had been appointed a federal judge when Adams signed and sealed the commission and the delivery of the document was a mere formality. Nevertheless. formality or not, without the written document, Marbury could not carry out the duties pf a federal judge.

Chief Justice Marshall used Marbury v. Madison to establish the principle of judicial review and secure the Supreme Court’s role as the interpreter of the constitution. But, once again. the court avoided dispensing justice by denying William Marbury his judgeship. Marshall declared Marbury’s appointment to the federal bench valid and chastised Jefferson for failing to obey the law. Marshall said that Jefferson’s refusal to deliver Marbury’s documents was a violation of Marbury’s rights and that the law owed Marbury a remedy. However, in order to pacify Jefferson, Marshall resorted to another legalism. He claimed that the court would not provide Marbury his judgeship because the remedy was unconstitutional. So, Marshall used the Supreme Court’s power to declare a presidential order unconstitutional as a political expedient, but would not use the Supreme Court’s power to dispense justice.  Marbury v Madison, the bedrock of constitutional law, like Tosca’s kiss, was Whiggish justice.

****

If Marbury v Madison established the Supreme Court as a political activist, McCulloch v. Maryland established the court as a participant in political corruption. Creating another legalism with an unusually broad interpretation of the constitutional concept of implied powers, the Supreme Court to legalized the worse act of political corruption in the history of the United States. McCulloch v. Maryland permitted Congress to transfer the absolute and total power to issue paper currency backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States government to a private bank operated by the Whigs. Sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Congress relinquished control cover the entire economic system of the United to the Whigs. Only Franklin Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods treaty, that authorized the Nazi’s Bank of International Settlements to set the exchange rate for international banking transactions after WWII, was more corrupt and had worse consequences. Just as Bretton Woods sanctioned the State Department and Vatican smuggling Nazi war criminals into the US and secreting them into top government positions, McCulloch v. Maryland turned control over the US to the oligarchs responsible for continual economic catastrophes and endless wars.

 

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States as a private non-governmental organization, subject to no government control. In essence, Congress gave the ruling oligarchs a monopoly over the nation’s economic system and the authority to print as much paper money as they desired Since the Second Bank of the United States was chartered as a private corporation, in 1818, the State of Maryland passed a law to tax the bank. However, when James W. McCulloch, the president of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the Maryland tax, Maryland’s state appeals court ruled the Second Bank’s banking monopoly was unconstitutional and that the federal government had no power to give a private bank a monopoly over the issuance money. However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court issued another legalism ruling that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Chief Justice Marshall conspired with Congress to delegate the government’s most important function, the creation of a currency for the payment of the national debt, to a greedy cabal of oligarchs. As a result, the masonic banking cabal created the deep state. funneling the nation’s wealth into private accounts controlled by hand-picked politicians, greedy oligarchs and corrupt judges. Today over three trillion dollars of American tax payers money is secreted away in offshore slush funds. By approving the oligarchic takeover of the economic life of the republic, the Supreme Court bears the responsibility for America’s descent into barbarism.  

****

In the 1824 Gibbons v Ogden case, the Supreme Court gave Congress complete power in regulate interstate commerce according to the needs of the private banking and merchant interests. Ironically, this case provided 1960s civil rights activists the tool they used to desegregate public transportation and undermine America’s entire system of racial segregation.

In 1798, the New York state legislature granted an exclusive twenty-year monopoly to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton to operate riverboats on all the waters within the state. In 1815, former New Jersey governor, Aaron Ogden, purchased a license from the Livingston/Fulton monopoly and, with Thomas Gibbon of Georgia, began operating riverboats between New York and New Jersey. But when Gibbons began operating steamboats on Ogden's route under a separate license issued by Congress, Ogden dissolved the partnership and, sued Gibbons in a New York state court.  Though Ogden prevailed in state court, Gibbons' lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued before the Supreme Court that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed.

 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase’s Impeachment

 

In 1804, the House of Representatives roused the Supreme Court from its hubris by voting to impeach Samuel Chase, a radical Whig Justice. Chase’s impeachment reminded the oligarchs that they needed to pay lip service to the republic’s democratic pretensions.

In 1776, Samuel Chase helped draft Maryland’s state constitution and, serving in the Maryland House of Delegates, represented Maryland at the constitutional convention., Chase opposed the Whigs, arguing that a constitution that concentrated power in the hands of a Whiggish central government was not a democracy. The Whigs decided to punish Chase for his criticism. In 1778 the Whigs dismissed Chase from the Continental Congress for allegedly speculating on price fluctuations in flour. Later the Whigs ousted Chase from the state legislature and forced him into bankruptcy by claiming that Chase used his political office to promote his business. But in desperation, Chase appealed to a local Whig who helped him obtain a judgeship in Baltimore County. The same Whig secured Chase a federal judgeship. When Chase refused to resign from his state post after accepting the federal judgeship, the state assembly tried, unsuccessfully, to remove Chase from both positions. But Chase proved to be very useful to the Whig cause.

As a federal court judge, Chase imposed harsh sentences on opponents of Whig politicians and Whig policies. Chase even kept opponents of Whiggery off his juries. When John Fries, an ardent Whig opponent charged with resisting payment of federal taxes during the Whiskey rebellion, appeared in federal court, Chase sentenced Fries to death. Samuel Chase had learned his lesson and willingly assisted the Whigs’ imposition of oligarchical rule. For his loyalty, President George Washington put Samuel Chase on the Supreme Court where he immediately proved his value.

Following the Revolutionary War Congress agreed to pay reparations to Great Britain in gold and silver. Many states, however, passed laws enabling U.S. citizens to forgo repaying the debts to the British, altogether. These debts were said to be ex post facto. In the Supreme Court case of Ware v. Hylton, John Marshall, the future chief justice, argued the government’s case that some ex post facto laws were legal. Chase wrote the court’s opinion that decided the constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws applied only to criminal, not to civil statutes. Ex post facto laws, violating the constitution, allowed the Whigs to impose taxes for periods of time prior to the American Revolution.

 Justice Chase actively promoted the Whig cause outside of the court. In 1796, Chase made partisan speeches for Whig presidential candidate, John Adams. Chase also lobbied Congress for the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act, a law outlawing "false, scandalous, and malicious" attacks on the government, the president or Congress. The Alien and Sedition Act, was intended to prevent Jeffersonians from criticizing the Whigs, in general, and President Adams in particular. In 1803, Chase, himself, violated the Alien and Sedition Act by criticizing the Jefferson administration in front of a Baltimore Grand Jury. Objecting to changes in Maryland law that extended voting privilege to persons whose property had been confiscated by the Whigs, Chase claimed that extending the vote would destroy the protections afforded to the owners of property and jeopardize the security and personal liberty of property owners. Chase claimed that unpropertied voters would sink the republic into a ‘mobocracy.’ Furthermore, Chase said that Jefferson’s claim, that all men in a society are entitled to enjoy equal liberty and equal rights, brought a ‘mighty mischief’ upon the republic. According to Chase, such a belief destroyed orderly progress and harmed the freedom and prosperity to which the better classes of property owners were entitled.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase’s statements so enraged the Jeffersonian Congress that in 1804 the House of Representatives impeached the Supreme Court Justice on charges of violating the Alien and Sedition law that Chase, himself, had advocated. When the Senate failed to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to convict Chase and he remained on the court until his death, Chief Justice Marshall proclaimed the Senate maneuvering a victory for the principle of an independent judiciary. Yet. Chase’s impeachment served as a warning both to him and to the other Supreme Court justices that, even though oligarchical. they were not all powerful.