Despite all the wrongs endured, and King George's tyranny, many colonists were fearful of inviting King George's wrath and still others believed that English rule was safer and more palatable than a revolt.

Between June 11 and June 26, 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, a monumental document that details the grievances under English rule. Smarting from the British arrogance of establishing arbitrary laws that were unjustly formulated and unjustly applied, the men that signed this document envisioned a supreme law, to be equally applied, to be just and to be acceptable. Although the mechanics of implementation of that had not been set down on paper, this was to be the basis for what would later be called the Supreme Court.

A brief examination of the Declaration of Independence establishes that man was "governed by Laws of Nature and Nature's God"; and that "truths are self evident...endowed by the Creator"; and man should be free to seek "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

It is interesting, and prophetic, to examine in detail some of the grievances listed in this document, to wit:

"He (King Gorge) has Obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing to assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary power." (The monetary fine and impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton is a perfect example as he was cited for obstruction of justice).

"He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their office...." (Many federal judges appointed by Clinton have been, and are, beholden). [As will be seen later, this is one of the most important aspects of selecting and appointing Supreme Court justices].

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people." (Witness the overwhelming laws, bureaucracies and orders that hamper business, national forests, tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, education, etc, etc. created during Clinton's administration).

Scholars are constantly amazed that these great men could create and draft all those documents that foresaw even today's problems. No changes have been required to the Constitution and original Bill of Rights and additional amendments, for the most part, address circumstances that could not be envisioned back then.

How can that be?

A careful study of the Constitution shows the framework of separation of power within the three branches of government: Executive (President), Legislative (House and Senate) and Judiciary (the Supreme Court).

The third branch, the Supreme Court, is absolutely crucial to prevent power-driven men from destroying the American dream. It has worked well until quite recently.

The requirement that the President selects a judge and the Legislative branch either confirms, or denies, has fine tuned the selection. The objectivity that should exist because of lifetime tenure, no political pressure, no standing for re-election and only impeachment as a deterrent, was the basis for having an impartial Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, we can view decisions that are completely without merit, and to name just two; the tobacco lawsuits and the gun manufacturer lawsuits, invites criticism of our judicial system.

We note with dismay that the current White House Administration, the U.S. Attorney General and the Justice Department, et al, have taken the position that the United States believes "that it could 'take guns away from the public', and 'restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people', " in direct violation of the Second Amendment, (Refer to U.S. Department of Justice, August 22, 2000 letter in the Constitutional Times), despite Supreme Court decisions.

Gun ownership is a guaranteed right within the Bill of Rights but superseding that, it is a God-given right as the basis for freedom and Nature's right under self-defense/self-preservation.

There are several Supreme Court rulings that are very controversial because the original intent of the Supreme Court is being affected by external forces.

Originally, the Supreme Court's function was to interpret law, but today all courts are making law and that is strictly unconstitutional. Somehow, the justices seem to believe that their jurisdiction extends beyond what was granted them. A change must take place or it will lead to one of two avenues; eg, impeachment or jury nullification, where the jury simply declares a law to be invalid and so bases their verdict.

Before that happens, we are faced with a very serious dilemma -- the next President will be in a position to request appointment of 2 - 4 Supreme Court justices.