When Mexico’s Foreign Secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez made his threats against Arizona on behalf of the illegal aliens invading that state, it was no coincidence that his first plan of attack would involve America’s courts.

Derbez thoroughly understands that Arizona’s new law resulted from a ballot initiative, Proposition 200, roundly supported by the voters. Thus it would be difficult to motivate the Arizona Legislature to act in a manner so blatantly in opposition to the will of the people.

So Derbez is focusing on the latest and greatest method of thwarting that popular will, and if successful he will have at his disposal an edict, or a series of edicts, from which American citizens have in recent years been denied any recourse. “Judicial Activism,” a concept abhorrently opposed to the founding principles of the country, has been established as the trump card of those who, in service to their own agenda, seek to countermand the Constitution and the American way of life.

It has been successfully used by this nation’s counterculture for decades. So it should come as no surprise that foreign entities are likewise now jumping on the bandwagon to further their own interests.

Moreover, Derbez is in a prime position to benefit from a new low to which the American judiciary has sunk in recent years. In the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which all of America’s sodomy laws were struck down by the United States Supreme Court, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and O’Connor rationalized their abominable judgment based on the laws of other nations.

Justice Breyer has, in recent weeks, reiterated this absurd notion, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is a direct violation of his oath of office, in which he vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Breyer and his like-minded cohorts on the nation’s high court have now essentially validated any and every regime on the planet, from the most orderly to the most corrupt and repressive. Who can doubt that the founders intended something entirely different when they endeavored to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” as stated in the Constitution?

Yet by their wholly inappropriate deference to “international law,” the justices also left the door wide open to a second line of attack by Derbez. In the event that he is unable to find an activist judge within America’s borders who will grant him the dominion over the people of Arizona that he seeks, he intends to move next to “international tribunals.” Had the Justices of the Supreme Court not endorsed the supposed legitimacy of such entities, Derbez would not be so well armed to pursue this course.

Another dark milestone on this road to the obliteration of the American way occurred recently in the state of New York. There, State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage,” not on the basis of current law and constitutional principle, or even of the “emanations and umbras” tortured out of them by past activist judges to justify their often perverse ideologies.

Instead, Ling-Cohan essentially asserted that the Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” though mentioned nowhere in that document, is nonetheless “beyond question,” and proceeded to establish “law” on that basis alone.

The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers believe, like people across America, that marriage can only be defined as being between one man and one woman. But despite this, a liberal judge has simply taken it upon herself to declare otherwise, and to institute her beliefs in place of former laws that had been firmly established on time-honored truths.

It is often asserted that morality cannot be legislated. But clearly a society’s government can either encourage or undermine morality by those causes that it embraces. Increasingly, an alternative “morality” that undermines the traditional fabric of American society is indeed being implemented from the nation’s courts.

America faces hostile encroachments on many fronts. Its borders no longer protect it from incursion by outsiders, whether they be immigrants from the south, or BSE infected cattle from the north. And the “Law Of the Sea Treaty,” which would subjugate America’s maritime industry to international tribunals on the order of the United Nations, verges on ratification by the Congress.

But these burgeoning threats, regardless of their origin, can only become fully malignant once they are given legal standing within the nation. Far too many members of America’s judiciary seem eager to make that happen.

Copyright by Chris Adamo