Interview of Law Professor Gould by Senator David Howard


“[T]he people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived .... The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” James Madison, The Federalist, No. 49, 339, J. Cooke ed., 1961.

Madison’s comment above dovetails into what I have termed Inter-Branch Constitutional Review, which means that all branches of government are charged with interpreting the Constitution and with defending their branch from Constitutional trespass by other branches.


The Supreme Court endeavored to put their own personal interpretations in front of the Constitution in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

“Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." … It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court …is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States.” 

Professor Gould explained; In Cooper, the Supreme Court stated that Article VI, otherwise known as the Supremacy Clause, makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land. This is true. However, they then went quickly asserted that their own personal INTERPRETATION of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, which is a Direct Falsity. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is NOT the supreme law of the land, it is merely one of many perspectives on the Constitution. By virtue of the federal court structure, the Supreme Court’s momentary perspective might have a bearing on the litigants, but the analysis of one or many cases cannot expand the authority of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were able to unilaterally expand their own power, there would be a real danger of creating an oligarchy within America, whereby unelected officials operated within impunity to set agendas in violation of the Constitution. In reality, it is a truism which cannot be denied by reasonable people, that Article VI of the Constitution itself established that the Constitution and Laws are the supreme law of the land, and NOT any viewpoints of the men and women sitting in robes on the Supreme Court.

However, after asserting falsely in Cooper that their interpretation of the Constitution was the supreme law of the law, the Supreme Court in Baker v Carr, 1962 expanded their false authority by calling itself the ‘ultimate interpreter’ of the Constitution. However, the Constitution itself, is silent on this issue, partly because All Branches of Government are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution for each of the branches of government.

In Baker, the Supreme Court stated:

“Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

Professor Gould added, in Baker v. Carr 1962 the Supreme Court asserted that they alone were the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” While they may be one of the interpreters of the Constitution, all government officials must interpret and obey the Constitution through their own personal consciences. Thus, every elected government official is their own ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

Then, in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992,(written by O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter) a case in which the Supreme Court tried their disdain for the young people of America by supporting abortion through Roe v. Wade, 1973, the court, justified their solidification of Roe in destroying over 60 million unborn in America since 1973, by stating that America’s “belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court's legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court's concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court, but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible.”

Professor Gould revealed that what we see in the Casey comments from the Supreme Court that their lofty language hides constitutional subterfuge.

First, the Supreme Court deigns to speak for the people of America, thereby usurping the role of Congress, which is the only body of the federal government with the Power to speak for the people of America.

Second, the Supreme Court asserts that they ‘speak before all others,’ when there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court speaks for anyone.

Third, they use a phrase called ‘constitutional ideals,’ which, effectively dilutes solid and immutable Constitutional Principles into mere ideals to reach for. The Constitution is not an ideal, rather, it is the Law of the Land.

Fourth, they speak about protecting the legitimacy of the court, when the legitimacy of the court is not an issue for them. Whether or not the Supreme Court is believable is up for the people of the United States to ascertain, not the court itself.

Fifth, they assert that they ‘speak before all others’ related to the Constitution, when they have no authority to speak about the Constitution to any degree higher than any other any other elected government official.

Sixth, they gaudily assert that the entire nation sees the Constitution as they do and that real harm would come to the ‘country…in its very ability to see itself.’ This statement is mightily full of hubris, and deliberately untrue, because the Supreme Court unilaterally asserts that they can take on the mantle of conscious certitude for all Americans, when, in fact, the First Amendment invests each of us with personal use of our own moral compasses.

Seventh, the Supreme Court is disingenuous when they assert that their concern is for the Nation, because they do not represent America. They are not America’s elected officials and therefore, they are not responsible to Americans. Their only job is to hear the evidence and decide cases.

What you really see in Casey is the Supreme Court taking on the role of a National Super-Parent, supposedly paternally concerned about its children (the people of the United States), and thereby asserting their (the Supreme Court’s) primacy as the self-appointed directors of Constitutional propriety. The diabolical truth here is that Casey was used as a justification for murdering the unborn children of America through abortion.  Roe and Casey have now justified the brutal destruction of the lives of millions of Americans for over forty-eight years!


The press has been complicit with the Supreme Court in hugely exaggerating the reach and power of Supreme Court decisions.

For example, Walter Cronkite, CBS news anchor, opened the CBS Evening News on January 22, 1973 with the following statement: “In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court today legalized abortions... Thus, the anti-abortion laws of forty-six states were rendered unconstitutional.” CBS News correspondent Mr. George Herman also stated on the same broadcast, that: “The nine justices made abortion largely a private matter, and ordered the states to make no laws forbidding it… New York State, among others, already has liberalized abortion. Now the rest of the country must follow suit.”

Walter Cronkite was known as the ‘most trusted man in America’ in the 1960’s and 1970’s. People hung on his every word for verity and strength. Yet, analysis of this one broadcast, colors Mr. Cronkite, Mr. Herman, and CBS News, as deceivers.

First, Mr. Cronkite stated that the Supreme Court ‘legalized abortions.’ It did not. Only duly elected legislatures can make or amend laws.

Second, Mr. Cronkite stated that the ‘anti-abortion laws of forty-six states were rendered unconstitutional by Roe. They were not. The other states were not involved in the litigation, and thus were not a party to the action. Therefore, the ruling in Roe had no direct effect on those states.

Third, Mr. Herman stated that the Supreme Court ‘ordered the states to make no laws forbidding (abortion).’ This is false. The Supreme Court has no ability to order anyone to do anything unless they are involved in an active court case before the Supreme Court.

Fourth, Mr. Herman stated that “Now the rest of the country must follow suit,” indicating that all of the states must do exactly what the Supreme Court advised. This is also simply not true.

All of the 50 States have independent Legislatures, which act pursuant to Constitutional authority under the 10th Amendment, to run their respective States as Constitutional Republics pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution. Any Supreme Court decision is just a minor factor in how each Legislature decides to speak for the Supreme Will of the People of each State!


The question arises, why did Mr. Cronkite deceive the people of the United States of America into thinking that the people effectively had no voice in preventing the spread of abortion, because of the false power of the Supreme Court?

The following scenario helps give us some clarity in this regard:

In accepting an award from the World Federalist Association in 1999, Walter Cronkite gave a speech in which he stated: “The Christian Coalition and the rest of the Religious Right Wing, …(asserting) that we should have a world government, but only when the Messiah arrives, (and asserting that) any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil.” Mr. Cronkite then made a statement defining who he would side with when the Messiah arrived, when he stated, “Well, join me. I'm glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.” To which he received laughter from those in attendance. You may find Cronkite’s comments at:

Thus, the most trusted man in America, the same man who stated falsely that ‘the anti-abortion laws of forty-six states were rendered unconstitutional’ by Roe, admitted in public in 1999 that he was a Satanist. Could it be that organized evil is driving the agenda to arm the courts with false power and to falsity validate abortion?

The truth of this matter is that Article VI, Clause 3 OF the Constitution itself REQUIRES every single member of Congress, every federal Executive official, every federal judicial official, every member of every State Legislature, every State Executive official, and every State judicial official, to express and exhibit their own individual personal devotion to the Principles and Dictates of the Constitution of the United States of America.

I call this clause the Constitutional Fidelity Clause, because it requires that each government official employ use of their own mind and conscious in protecting and defending the Constitutional Principles which undergird the principled integrity of America. All government officials have a high duty to protect and defend the Constitution, and not the skewed and faulty interpretations by the judiciary which distort and weaken the Constitution.

Patrick G. Gould is a Professor of Law at Handong International Law School, in South Korea. He was formerly a Law Professor in Virginia. Professor Gould writes on the correct analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He may be reached via email at: