Liberty Legal Foundation is devoted to restoring our Constitution, protecting our basic rights against government intrusion, and reforming our courts.
America’s Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution designed to prevent the exact tyranny our Federal government has become. The Founding Fathers did not fail, the Constitution did not fail, our courts failed. Today our Constitution is ignored by the government because our courts have failed to enforce the Constitution.
Liberty Legal Foundation will restore our Constitution by strategically challenging flawed court precedent. A small number of historical cases destroyed the purpose of our Constitution and our courts. Reversing those cases will restore our Constitutional Republic and our individual liberties.
Strategic Challenge #1
Misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause
Wickard v. Filburn, (1942) – Unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision that changed the interpretation of the “Commerce Clause”. This precedent removed the Constitutional limitations placed upon Congress’ scope of authority, essentially leaving Article one to read “Congress shall have power.” The Obamacare Class Action seeks to restore the original meaning of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
“It is time to focus not on justices but on the body of precedent they work from. Overturning Wickard is possible: the Supreme Court can do it.” Amity Shlaes, Your Health-Care Fine Relies on Flawed Ruling, July 19, 2010, Bloomberg Businessweek
Strategic Challenge #2
Modern Standing Doctrine
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, (1923) – Unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision that changed the interpretation of Article 3’s “case or controversy” requirement for judicial subject matter jurisdiction. Prior to 1923, when the federal government broke the law, any American citizen had the right to sue the government in order to enforce the law. After the Mellon decision, citizens have to prove that they are being “directly injured” by the government’s illegal action. How “direct” the injury must be is, of course, up to the courts and has proven to be a moving target. This new requirement is known as modern “Standing” doctrine. Mellon allowed the courts to refuse involvement in issues that are too controversial, leaving Americans with no method to force the government to follow its own laws. Since the federal government currently refuses to follow its own immigration law, one goal of the Immigration Class Action is to restore the original meaning of Article 3, of the U.S. Constitution.
Strategic Challenge #3
Ames v. State of Kansas ex rel. Johnston, (1884) – Unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision that grants original jurisdiction to courts below the Supreme Court for cases where a State is sued, such as U.S. v. Arizona. The Constitution intended to protect state sovereignty by requiring the Supreme Court to have exclusive jurisdiction when a State is sued. The Richard Mack petition for writ of mandamus, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeks to restore the original meaning of Article 3, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Strategic Challenge #4
Separation of Powers
U.S. v. Arizona, (2010) – Unconstitutional District Court decision that allows a sitting President to ignore established federal law simply because it “redirects resources away from other priorities that [he] has established.” The President cannot ignore a law passed by Congress and signed by a previous President simply because he doesn’t like the law.
The legislative branch makes law, the executive branch is supposed to execute the law. Currently our executive branch is making law and ignoring law enacted by the legislature. In U.S. v. Arizona the judicial branch justified the executive branches illegal behavior, thereby destroying the separation of powers created in the Constitution. U.S. v. Arizona essentially gave judicial-branch endorsement to a sitting American dictator.
While this Strategic Challenge is not directed to a Supreme Court decision, it is directed to a lower federal court decision that represents the ultimate effect of several erroneous Supreme Court decisions. U.S. v. Arizona ties together other Strategic Challenge targets by revealing what happens when the government refuses to follow its own law, what happens when the federal government can sue a state in lower federal courts, and what happens when Americans are denied a mechanism to challenge governmental lawlessness. The Richard Mack motion to intervene in U.S. v. Arizona, seeks to restore the separation of powers established in the U.S. Constitution by re-establishing that all branches of government are subject to the law.
This Strategic Challenge is also raised by the Immigration Class Action lawsuit.