The New American Heritage Dictionary describes the word 'activism' as: "The theory, doctrine, or practice of assertive, often militant action, such as mass demonstrations or strikes, used as a means of opposing or supporting a controversial issue, entity, or person." It also defines 'fiat' as "An arbitrary order or decree." With these definitions in mind, I would like to talk with you about terms that are offensive to the U.S. Constitution to such a degree as to be anathema to it! The terms are "Judicial Activism" and "Judicial Fiat", and it is time that all Americans should come to understand just what they are and why they are so dangerous!

Let us back-track for a moment for a brief review, so that we may better understand the danger of judicial fiat as it is currently practiced by American activist jurists today. Please forgive me for being elementary, but I believe it is necessary to promote my argument. With that in mind, let us go back to our foundations!

The founding fathers, flawed as they may have been, put together in our constitution a near perfect system of government to help ensure that we might always be self-governed. It was called "checks and balances", and its purpose was to make sure that each branch of government (executive, judicial, and legislative) balanced or were co-equal to each other, and had the ability to check (reign in or authenticate) another branch if need be to help maintain that balance.

Throughout the course of our history as a nation, we have had many instances where each branch has used its 'checking' ability to authenticate or reign in another branch, when the checking branch believed that the checked branch had over-stepped or miss-applied its constitutional authority.

Judicial activism, I believe, is the judiciaries over-stepping and/or miss-application of its authority! This happens when they use judicial activism, by way of a court order or decision to in effect create law! An unfortunate example of this is Roe v. Wade, in which the court (in this case the US Supreme Court) by way of judicial activism, created a right that is unsupportable constitutionally! They in effect gave an extra-constitutional right to a specific class of people (women by way of the so-called right to choose) while at the same time removing the specifically enumerated rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) from another class; the unborn! (Not to mention the individual states rights they undermined!)

Another recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Keogh (sp) v. New London is also an example of judicial activism. Whereas in the past eminent domain was strictly limited to the government taking land from a private owner for the use in public works type projects, the activist courts have now interpreted it to mean that the government can take a citizen's land for any reason, including to sell it to another citizen for revenue purposes! Preposterous!

Listen folks: Any ruling from a court that has as its basis the jurist's personal feeling about how the law should be, instead of whether it is constitutional or not, is arbitrary, and by definition an example of judicial activism! One does not have to look very hard to see that in every case of judicial activism, some American's rights gets trampled as well as the Constitution itself!

Now the other branches have every right, indeed are constitutionally charged under the checks and balance rules, to reign in the judiciary! Keep in mind that the courts were instituted constitutionally to be the interpreters of law, and not the makers of law! And by using the power of judicial fiat the courts, specifically the more liberal courts have been in the business of making law, a power which is vested constitutionally with and only with the legislative branch!

This ought to be an outrage with the people, because it evidences a usurpation of power and process, negating and undermining the power and authority of the legislature which is the direct voice of the people, whom they represent! I cannot emphasize this point enough! It is the legislature that was designed to reflect the voice and will of the people in the laws (bills) they enact by way of executive approval. It is the judiciary's job to interpret whether or not such laws, once challenged, pass constitutional muster!

The big question is, why don't the other branches reign in the judiciary? Well, liberals, who cannot win in the court of public opinion where legislation should emanate, have no compunction about using the courts to force their ideas upon an unsuspecting electorate! You only have to look at the pending so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' for an example of this! If they are unsuccessful in the legislature I guarantee they will seek an activist judge to attempt to force this issue ala Gore v. Harris (State of Florida)!

Those of us who are suspicious and dare to challenge them, well, we'll have to contend with the ACLU!