Coups aren’t just for babies
While many think it’s cute when babies coo, few smile at the thought of a government coup.
Webster gives two definitions for a coup. A coup can be defined as turning something upside down. It can also be defined as a highly successful stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment. Whereas a coup d’état is defined as a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one effecting a change of government illegally or by force. A coup may conjure up images of angry mobs storming capitals, but not all coups require force to effect change. In the United States “change” would qualify as illegal change if it is adverse to our US Constitution.
Recently in New Jersey, a recall was instituted against Senator Robert Menendez. Not surprisingly, Menendez objected to the action, since he arguably launched his career by generating a recall against his one-time protégé, Mayor Rudy Garcia, who resigned as a result. The big surprise in New Jersey was the 4 to 2 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that declared part of the New Jersey Constitution unconstitutional. Stating the obvious is obligatory here, that the very court that took an oath to preserve and protect this Constitution actually invalidated a portion of it. In the process, the Court disenfranchised both the citizens of New Jersey who voted 76.25% to amend the New Jersey Constitution to include recall, as well as the legislatures who placed it on the ballot and subsequently wrote the amendment.
This begs the question: did the New Jersey Supreme Court in a sudden and decisive action politically effect change of government and usurp their judicial jurisdiction? If so, then this action certainly meets the requirements of a coup as well as a coup d’état, since our judges are duty bound to preserve and protect constitutional government and
changing the government does not fall within the purview of the court–that is the sole function of the legislature.
Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. In 2004, in Lance v. McGreevey, a case involving New Jersey’s Debt Limitation Clause, the NJ Supreme Court in a 4-1 decision (with one abstention) allowed two bond acts at issue to go forward even though the court acknowledged that they were constitutionally defective. And in 2002, the NJ Supreme Court allowed Frank Lautenberg to replace the disgraced Robert Torricelli as the Democratic senatorial candidate when the time to make such a monumental change had clearly expired under the New Jersey Constitution. In 2010 a New Jersey judge ruled in favor of a defendant’s right to uphold Sharia law within his household. That decision was ultimately overturned, but the judge who rendered that decision was either clearly confused about which law he took an oath to uphold, or worse. If ignorance about a law is not an excuse for the average citizen, shouldn’t judges be held to a higher standard since they are protectors of the law?
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
The citizens of New Jersey should be asking—do we have a constitutional republic, or a dictatorship where our supposed “servants” in black robes have become a law unto themselves? If you believe New Jersey has a constitutional republic, then you should be asking if New Jersey government has suffered a coup d’état at the hands of those who were entrusted to preserve and protect New Jersey laws but have actually “changed” those laws to be whatever they wish them to be at any given time for any reason they wish.
Oh—if only this coup stopped within the boundaries of New Jersey! Unfortunately, that is not the case. The United States of America currently has a presidential administration that is implementing a HealthCare Bill that has been adjudicated unconstitutional by two federal district courts. If something is unconstitutional and government knowingly implements it, doesn’t that constitute a change of government? If so, then this one instance alone satisfies the definition of a coup d’état.
Of course, these instances represent only a tip of the proverbial iceberg. While the words coup and coup d’état sound like radical words, they are actually quite tame in comparison to the word treason. Perhaps no one can prove that security information has been sent to enemy nations, but a good case can be made for the concept of “plotting to overthrow” the government and the sovereignty of the United States. If this seems like a stretch to you, please visit www.parentalrights.org for the TWENTY THINGS You Need to Know About the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.