For All Intents and Purposes - SCOTUS

The original and only intent of the Supreme Court is to analyze

precedent as it relates to law and the Constitution. I am going to go
into detail using examples on exactly what I mean and just how
important this is to our republic, and ways in which those who seek
to enslave us or deprive us of our liberties use SCOTUS to do just
that.
It looks at the precedent which the Constitution or law might or
might not have explicitly said, and they are supposed to rule whether
or not it is included.
If it is not included, but required for a legal argument, then that
argument is not valid from a legal perspective.
Let's take for example the issue of marriage rights. Not straight
marriage rights or gay rights, because we already know that from a
Constitutional right argument, nowhere is it going to specify the law
based on sexual orientation.
The ONLY place that it gives a possible Constitutionally mandated
protection for civil marriages for homosexuals arguably would be
the IXth Amendment.
The ninth amendment was a safeguard for both Federalist fears as
well as Anti-Federalists, which is ironic. The Anti-Federalists would
have rejected the Constitution without a Bill of Rights being specific
about key liberties which cannot be infringed upon in peace or in
war, period.
Without them demanding that, the Federalists would never have
demanded the ninth amendment.

It states that United States citizens have an unknown amount of

innumerable rights and that just because it isn't stated does not mean
it is not a right.
Now hold up cowboy! Just because it is possible that homosexual
marriage is a right intrinsically, and it is possibly supported via the
ninth amendment, the Supreme Court has to do its job and rule in
favor of that interpretation.
No laws would need to be passed since it is already apart of the
Constitution, based upon that Constitutional law.
Now for those who say it is a states' issue and not a federal one... if it
is a Constitutional law question, the question goes to the federal
courts. If the Constitution explicitly regulated it to the states, it
absolutely would be. But if they didn't, it might.... be... because of
the glorious tenth amendment. Whatever is not explicitly relegated
to the Feds via the Constitution belongs to the states.
If the Supreme Court did its job, not judicial activism, freedom
would be far more abundant and diverse in the US. Instead,
SCOTUS prefers to create law with its rulings, which is massively
harmful to our republic and to our rights.
In this case, the Constitution did not enumerate regulation of
marriages to the Feds, meaning the Feds do not have the right to
regulate marriage licensing.
HOWEVER, this is not brought forth as an argument of issuance
process. This is an issue of if gays have a Constitutional right to
marry, which states can right now deny.
If SCOTUS voted in favor of a Constitutional right to be married
lawfully, regardless of orientation under the 9th, the states could not

reject marriage licensing on this basis anywhere in the union since

the Bill of Rights was ratified and is included in all states.
Bam, instant legalization.
Here is an example of SCOTUS using the WRONG amendments
which are intended for freed slaves, an example of judicial review
which is used to write new laws essentially.
Obergefell_v._Hodges
If for example, SCOTUS was to say the 2nd amendment only refers
to state militias or hunting, that would be using judicial review not to
see where a new specific case falls within the Constitution. No, these
are two examples of judicial activism and subversion of the
Constitution because the precedent for the law was the English
making gun ownership illegal.
Anyone who stayed awake in English class knows the primary
sentence of the 2nd amendment, without the dependent clause
(which this is an example of), is "The right to bear arms shall not be
infringed." Everything else is fluff. It is explaining the historical
surrounding of why it was important to the framers. The law is
written down with it, but the law itself is the sentence above.
Seriously, ninth grade stuff.
Constitutional laws themselves are not up for interpretation. How
specific cases of precedent fit into the Constitution, now that is up
for interpretation. There are many questions of precedent which need
to be asked. If an Amendment was left wanting, interpretation has
never been the legal way to resolve the issue. The proper and legal
way was to repeal and replace or otherwise amend to the
Constitution.

What is supposed to be interpreted is if a law that was passed is

Constitutional, not if an Amendment of the Constitution means what
it says, because that is not the right of SCOTUS. Leave that
speculation to the masses which cannot subvert our delicate system
with their wanton activism.
See my point? There are many ways to ban all guns, make marijuana
and gay marriage universally legal, etc. Get an amendment, see who
under the Constitution has the authority, is it the Feds by simply
passing a law? Is it the states using a Convention of the States to
bypass Federal Congress? Or is it already legal?
Gay marriage may become a recognize Constitutional right under
the Ninth amendment, but the precedent must be set.
Gun rights are absolutely apart of the Constitution, with zero wiggle
room for making them illegal without repealing the amendment
altogether.
Marijuana? Where does it give the authority to ban a plant? Perhaps
it is strictly a states' right to regulate. I see nowhere in the legislative
or executive branch where it is allowed to pass laws pertaining to
state schools, state or private lands or institutions, state prisons, etc.
If the Feds have no constitutional basis for legislating this plant, it is
not a Constitutional ban, which if I was SCOTUS, I would
immediately recognize.
You have very little clue how many laws the Feds pass which have
nothing to do with federal matters. Nowhere does it allow them to
delegate minting of coins or allowing taxes to be raised with private,
fiat currency, or does it allow for Feds to hold lands outside of post
offices, forts, and the such and yet they do.

Our country has been circling the drain for the better of a century
and a half. And the funny thing is, there is no. way. out. It is
Unconstitutional but hey! Who cares! They made some mumbo
jumbo Reconstruction ruling and now secession is illegal. I cannot
begin to tell you the irony. Maybe in another installment. God bless
the... indivisible... United! States! Of America!
Yours truly,
Scotty Lee Bowden