Stephen A Emery
Non-Partisan | Minnesota
Candidate Profile
Originalist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Stephen A Emery
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court, Chief Justice
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
OTHER INFORMATION
Emery's campaign for U.S. Senate "focused on enforcing the Constitution as originally intended." He said, "Minnesotans can have confidence in how I would represent them because it would not be based on the ‘shifting sands’ of a loud or violent minority or political expediency. The Founders correctly understood human nature and implemented a system that provides the most effective way to prevent abuse and have peace and order. Unfortunately, politicians and judges have largely abandoned the Constitution, but when properly understood, it effectively addresses every issue that our country faces. The first official act by a federal elected official is to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. If elected, I would be faithful to that oath.”
The following ideas are drawn from Stephen Emery's piece “Private Corporations”:
- Emery argued that extreme wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals which highlights the issue of economic inequality. He argued this could not occur but for private corporations, citing the example of the East India Company and its role in the American Revolutionary War. He argued that the Founders of the United States sought to prevent such economic domination through the Title of Nobility Clauses in the Constitution.
- He argued that concentrated wealth undermines individual liberty and proper government function and suggests that corporations, shielded from liability, contribute to environmental damage and other societal harms.
- He criticizes the media for being controlled by a few corporations and argued that this undermines a free press. Specifically Emery wrote, "Currently there is no such thing as a 'free press' as referenced in the Constitution—at least not as the Founders understood that term. Just six companies control more than 90 percent of the news media."
- To address these problems, the Emery argued for stricter enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the anti-nobility clauses in the Constitution to counteract corporate power and promote economic opportunities for individuals and small businesses. Emery wrote, "[t]he courts enforce other Acts of Congress as written; in fact, judges openly state that they must enforce statutes as written unless it would be illogical to do so. Judges do not claim that enforcing the Sherman Act as written would be illogical. Judges say only that they don’t want the Act to have the expansive affect that it would have if they did so. Congress has the prerogative to determine the affect of legislation, not judges. History has repeated. The Judiciary and the Executive must be compelled to enforce the Sherman Act as written to address the modern day 'robber barons.'"
- He further argued for voting out officials who have contributed to the problematic policies, specifically mentioning Karl Procaccini. Emery wrote, "[Procaccini] must be held accountable by voting him out of office. Vote for his opponent."
The following ideas are drawn from Stephen Emery's piece “Federal Courts":
- Emery wrote that Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de Tocqueville both foresaw the dangers of an unchecked federal judiciary. He suggests that historical events like the Dred Scott decision validated these concerns.
- He advocates for repudiating Marbury v. Madison. He wrote, "[e]]ven though the Constitution itself provides a mechanism for amendment, and it has been amended many times, federal judges are so pompous that they say they can change it as they wish. To take this ultimate power is tyrannical and despotic[.]"
- Emery further argues that the Marbury v. Madison was lacked support from the Constitution, the Executive, or Congress. He argues that the Constitution designates Congress as superior to the courts because Congress, being elected, is more representative of the people.
- Suggests that, " Congress can, and maybe should, repeal the Judiciary Act of 1789 and terminate the existence of the lower federal courts unless they can be put into their proper role under the Constitution."
- He argues that, "Governmental power must be returned to the people. One way is to limit the federal government as understood by the Founders. This would include empowering the people by requiring the courts to have the jury determine the facts and the law before the coercive power of the government can be applied to any person or situation. As it is now, the jury is rarely used, and then only to determine a few facts. I will advocate and vote along these lines Alexis-de-Tocqueville-Democracy-in-America.pdf page 310."
- He argued that judges have made it difficult for individuals to defend themselves. Specifically he wrote, " They have created doctrines that punish the victim if a firearm is used in the slightest way against their criminal-friendly rules." He further argued that, "...judges’ role in society must be completely revamped to limit them to administrative functions only and the jury reestablished to make all decisions on the application of the law."
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
The government should protect innocent life. It is unconstitutional for the government to fund abortion.
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Strongly Disagree
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Strongly Agree
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Strongly Agree
The original intent of the Founders was for every elected government official to be a Christian. It was required by State constitution or statute. So, "religion," as stated in the Constitution, refers only to Christianity. The Founders knew the difference between "religion" and idolatry. Every other belief system claiming to be "religion" other than Christianity, including atheism and evolution, is idolatry and is not protected by the Constitution.
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Strongly Agree
The Second Amendment was established to protect the First Amendment. Without the Second Amendment, the First Amendment is useless, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution generally. Look around the world, everyone is in chains because they can't enforce their rights against tyrants, and we are nearly there and we would be already without private citizens' ownership of 300 million guns.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
They should be co-equal and be a check on each other. Gridlock is good. It prevents tyranny. Actually, I throw in my lot with Thomas Jefferson who said the jury, which is another check on the abuse of governmental power, should decide the facts and the law in every case. The jury teaches the people how to rule.
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
Only 25 characters.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Clarence Thomas and/or Samuel Alito
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
That philosophy is not found in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson completely rejected it by what he did and said, although that philosophy is attributed to him.
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
Judges have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They should be deadly serious in being faithful to that oath. As John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
It must be overruled. There is nothing in the Constitution to support it. It is pure evil and demonstrates the evil spiritual influences on Justices who consider themselves to be Christians.
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
The Constitution is properly understood as establishing limited government--especially on the federal level. There is no basis whatsoever even for civil rights legislation--let alone using the coercive nature of government to promote immoral behavior.
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Strongly Agree
We homeschool and bring our children up in the fear and admonish of the Lord and guard and tend to their hearts. After doing this for 20 years, I can say there are few children as prepared for life as they are-spiritually, emotionally, morally, socially, physically and intellectually. They are/will be great citizens and anybody would consider themselves fortunate to have them as a friend/employee/employer/service provider. Homeschooling is one of the best decisions I ever made.
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
Precedent must bow. Precedent can be useful, but it isn't the highest good.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
When they are wrong.
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Only 25 characters here.
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
No
As I stated before, the Founders established enduring principles. They can be found in the provisions that were unanimously adopted. Enduring principles do not have to be amended--and certainly not by the predilection of a few judges.
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
A redeemed soul.
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
I will take my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with deadly seriousness.
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No.
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
Original intent is the only way to interpret the Constitution. The Founders implemented enduring principles in the Constitution that are applicable today as they were then. The Constitution provides for amendment and it has been amended many times, and so there is no basis whatsoever to treat it as "organic" or modifiable by judicial fiat. The Constitution was implemented to establish and limit government to deal the fallen nature of Adam in human beings. That nature has not changed and will not change and the principles to address it have not changed and will not change.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The Bible is the final authority on every issue it addresses.
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
I believe parents should guard and tend to their children's hearts. Homeschooling is the only way to do that. Males and females have unique characteristics and therefore children should be raised according to their gender at birth and their unique God-given giftings should be recognized and developed.
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Strongly Disagree
The Founders recognized a spiritual component to life. There is such as thing as good and evil. The "gender identity" movement is actuated by evil spiritual forces and is abhorrent and extremely destructive. The violence being perpetrated against children under this ideology are crimes against humanity.
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
Every human being is born with Adam's fallen nature and is incapable of any good apart from the Creator and is in need of redemption.
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Strongly Disagree
CRT is nothing more than communism, which is an extremely destructive ideology.
