Broken Arrow

Council for Constitutional Principles

Below are the writings of Andrew Joppa, one of our Directors and our in house speaker. Professor Joppa has created for the Council a blog called Broken Arrow. This is an introduction to the Blog and his writings.

About Us

This blog is a function of The Council For Constitutional Principles located in Naples, FL. Our board members are drawn from around the U.S.A and are committed to working toward the reestablishing of the Constitutionally driven strength of our great nation. We believe that if this goal is not reached then any other “adjustment” will fall far short of restoring the power we once had; a power that was a factor of individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

“AMERICAN BROKEN ARROW”/ PREMISES AND AGENDA
Andrew R. Joppa; The Council for Constitutional Principles
ayndy123@aol.com 239 348-1073

If the dominance of The Constitution is not reestablished America cannot retain her vigor and Americans cannot retain their quality of life.

It has been deviations from the Constitution that has been the source of most of America’s problems.

The voting booth per se will not solve our problems.

Most of our problems, directly or indirectly, are failures of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court fails by not engaging the other branches to consistently determine the Constitutionality of their actions. Here they inappropriately practice restraint. This is a failure to perform required function.

The Supreme Court fails also by becoming a legislative body and, as Judicial Legislators, function as activists outside the Constitution. This is illegal.

The Supreme Court should serve but one, ten year term, with subsequent 10 year terms being possible with a 2/3rd vote of approval from the Senate.

The acid test for new appointments to the Supreme Court must be knowledge of the Constitution and commitment to its advocacy of individual and property rights.

New appointees must answer the question, “What can the Federal Government not do?”
 Supreme Court justices should be subject to impeachment when their rulings are clearly outside of the Constitution. 2/3rds of the House could impeach with 2/3rds of the Senate convicting.

Precedent, within the Supreme Court, can only be used for clarification but1q must be explained by reference to the Constitution itself.

Stare Decisis can never be invoked at the Supreme Court level
 To support the above purposes we advocate Amendments where necessary and the repeal of the 16th and 17 Amendments.

You can go to the Blog for more information. http://www.americanbrokenarrow.com/

  • Print

Comments » 2

sassy2 writes:

I hope someone in the rest of the "council" is a bit more literate than this.

sally1860 writes:

This is utterly nonsense. Whenever you have a non-unanimous decision, you have some justices who think an issue is consistent with the Constitution, and others who don't. They can't both be right. And whether you think one side or the other has made the correct decision depends more on how your political beliefs line up with the winning side than it does on whether you're a Constitutional scholar or not. It's been said many times before, and will be said many more times, but simply disagreeing with a political party, a law, a court decision or a President or whatever doesn't mean it (or he, or they...) is invalid.

The only thing that makes sense is some kind of term limit for Supreme Court justices. The thought of having somebody on the court for possibly 40 years, no matter whether conservative or liberal, is nuts. And possibly having a whole block of justices who will form a united front for such a long time, with no new blood, is even more nuts.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features