Kevin P. Ryan
6402 Ridge Rd.
Zionsville, PA 18092
02 January 2010
Chief Justice John Roberts
United State Supreme Court
Washington DC 20543
Dear Justice Roberts,
Unfortunately I find myself corresponding with you about distressing matters concerning the current state of the Supreme Court. I look to the Supreme Court to protect my individual powers, that I retain for myself and my family, against the tyranny of an over-reaching Congress. I look to the Supreme Court to protect my individual sovereignty from a Majority of the Electorate, when they vote for Representatives who take my individual power from me, contrary to limits set in the Constitution . I ask you to consider any reference to tyranny contained in this correspondence toward the Supreme Court, not as an insult, but as an invitation to re-examine the Court’s and your role in protecting my rights as a Sovereign Individual, an individual free from oppression of, not just the Government, but also from that of the Majority of the Electorate.
I recently visited the Supreme Court while I was in Washington D.C for a protest against the Health Care Bill. This protest was called for by Representative Bachman. Despite the large protest against the bill our actions were in vain as Congress passed the bill anyway. During my visit to the Supreme Court I listened to a nice presentation by an intern on the Architecture of the Court Room along with a general outline on the operation of the Court. She mentioned how Justice Ginsburg, when she used to argue before the Court, would start with two powerful points and then save her best point for last. Here is my attempt of appealing to you to return my Individual Sovereignty.
The Constitution is not a Living Breathing Document. It is a piece of paper. The people who manipulate the rules of governance contained on that piece of paper for their own purposes and ambitions are Living Breathing Tyrants. The words on that piece of paper can not protect me if the words contained on it can be redefined by the very government and tyrants that benefit from its fluid state. Only when that piece of paper and the words contained on it are rigid as stone does the concept of the rule of law protect the common man. In a living state only the Elite and the Majority have a large degree of protection under an ever changing rule of man. A living document will wilt away as it ages. A rigid document will endure, protecting the freedoms of our Posterity.
Freedom must be passed from generation to generation. Each person is born with the yearning for freedom, but just as we must learn a trade to succeed, we all need enlightenment in our quest for freedom. The best path toward liberty and freedom is a Republic Form of Government where the government is strong so it can protect our individual sovereignty, while at the same time, it is limited so as not to impose itself upon the freedom that each of us desires. We have failed to pass this lesson on completely through the last century.
Our government used to respect the Constitution. This can be seen in the eighteenth and twenty first amendments to the Constitution. The eighteenth amendment banned alcoholic beverages and the twenty first repealed the eighteenth amendment. Three lessons can be learned from this. The first is that our government used to respect the limits placed on it by the Constitution as it understood the need for an amendment to allow the government to take a power from the states and the people.
The second lesson is that when the majority imposes its will on the minority concerning an issue of personal choice, great conflict and stress can occur in society, and thus was the need to repeal the eighteenth amendment.
However the timing of the twenty first amendment gives us clues to when we lost our way as a nation. Today the government regulates all manor of activities without enumeration in the constitution through an amendment. The twenty first amendment was adopted in 1933 during the Great Depression. Since that time Congress has taken virtually Unlimited Powers without amending the Constitution. During those trying times people were willing to give up their personal freedom in exchange for physical support and protection. The lesson of Liberty and Freedom were not taught forward after that point. A majority of today’s voters no longer understand the concept of limited government as designed by our founders, and politicians have seized on this lapse in knowledge.
I have included three passages below from the founding documents that illustrate the original design of our government and the intent of our founding fathers. Our Constitution was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government. Our Constitution was designed to protect Liberty.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
Thomas Paine - Common Sense
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Thomas Jefferson - Declaration of Independence
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.
Alexander Hamilton - Federalist Paper #32
From interviews by your fellow justices on C-Span I learned that it is easier being a justice than arguing before the court because the lawyers don’t get to ask the questions. Well I would like to turn that around, to see if you are up to the challenge. We know why the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Some of the framers were afraid that the federal government was going to overreach in its powers and the states wanted protections against that possibility.
Under Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is Empowered to act through 18 paragraphs listing specific enumerated powers. The first paragraph and the last paragraph include general clauses while the middle 16 paragraphs enumerate specific powers of the Federal Government. WHY are the middle 16 paragraphs required??? Under your current Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution the “General Welfare and Common Defense” clause along with the “Necessary and Proper” clause would cover any power listed in paragraphs two through seventeen.
The ninth and tenth amendments of the constitution references rights retained by the people. What are these rights of the people that we retain other than those specifically listed in the Constitution? What right not listed specifically can not be taken by Congress through the “General Welfare” clause? If the framers wanted the people to have only those rights specifically listed in the Constitution, why would they add the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution?
You and your predecessors have set up Supreme Court traditions and precedent where you don’t have to answer the questions of Sovereign Individuals. You get to ask all the questions and you get to avoid being asked the hard questions all behind the cloak of Supreme Court Tradition while behind the Grand Walls of Alabaster Marble. This is your shield and as such you are a shield for Congress in their unwavering quest for power taken at the expense of Sovereign Individuals. As such the Traditions and Institution of The Supreme Court protect you and your fellow justices along with your elite position in society.
As you have no army at your command it would take the will and courage of a patriot to challenge the current tyranny under which I find myself. This act of Patriotism might possible cost you your high position in society. I am asking you to be Patriot. I am asking you to break through Supreme Court Tradition. I am asking you to strip the Federal Legislature of all powers that they have taken from me as an individual. I am asking you to start new Supreme Court Traditions that requires Congress to limit itself to Powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. I am asking you to start new Supreme Court Traditions that gives the benefit of doubt to the people, as individuals, for any rights and powers retained.
I humbly submit this letter as an official request for action from the Supreme Court. I do not have friends or relatives on the Supreme Court Bar. I do not have the money or resources to bring this case before you in any other form. I have included a white paper on previous court precedent that you could use to dismiss my claims. I expect you to, at best, send me back a short letter explaining that any requests must go through normal Supreme Court protocol. I am hoping that you will take my challenge to break Supreme Court tradition and protocol as these traditions act as a shield to my Individual Sovereignty and Liberty.
As a Patriot I ask you for your consideration.
Very Truly Yours
Kevin P. Ryan
Chief Justice John Roberts
Justice John Paul Stevens
Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Go to Supreme Tyranny Page 2