Posted on 12/27/2003 3:08:49 PM PST by Federalist 78
In Massachusetts, historic cradle of American liberties, the state Supreme Court has become the contemporary incubator of libertines, decreeing that the Legislature, like it or not, must draft a law to legitimize homosexual coupling.
In Washington, DC, just a few weeks before, the U.S. Supreme Court had set the predicate for the Bay State's perversion of marriage when it decreed that states may not criminalize private and consensual adult homosexual acts.
Such radical departure from the norms of society has provoked an overriding majority of Americans to demand a constitutional amendment or something to undo what the people see as unwarranted and dangerous mischief by a willful gang of sanctimonious judges Hell bent to turn the culture upside down and inside out.
The President and most Republicans in Congress, being ardent heterosexuals and astute politicians, have threatened to push for Constitutional change and affirm unequivocally that marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. That course of action, however, is no snap to accomplish.
Two-thirds of the House and Senate must agree on the proposed amendment before submitting it to the 50 states, 38 of which must approve the change before it becomes the supreme law of the land.
There is a faster way to neutralize the black-robed troublemakers: Articulate and use a quaint concept called "Popular Sovereignty," serially postulated by philosophers Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and, most importantly, John Locke, and adopted enthusiastically by American colonists.
Popular Sovereignty is the notion, in Thomas Jefferson's words, that the mass of mankind was not born "with saddles on their back, nor a favored few [born] booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." (The grace-of-God phrase is a swat at the supreme arrogance of monarchy, a boast still found on British coins [Dei gratia, rex, or, if the ruler is a queen, regina.].)
To the contrary, colonial Americans demanded that any government (whether a republic or a monarchy or any other concoction) must recognize that it may rule only with the authority and at the pleasure of the people.
Even residents of tiny, unsophisticated Pittsfield, Massachusetts, expressed that simple idea powerfully in a resolution they passed in May 1776. "The people are the fountain of power," they proclaimed.
"But precisely because men are not so foolish as to risk being devoured by lions, they will not delegate, and the government therefore will not receive [in Locke's words] an 'absolute arbitrary power,' " wrote Georgetown Professor Walter Berns (Taking The Constitution Seriously, Simon and Schuster, 1987).
"The people will want to put bounds or limits to the powers they hand over." That is, the people will establish a constitution that determines, defines and delineates the specific powers and trust they will extend to the lions.
How would the people know if the trust they had given their rulers had been broken, thus allowing the people to rebel within the framework of a constitution?
Locke's words on that subject were quite readily understood and endorsed by the colonists: When rulers ignore settled law in favor of "inconstant, incertain, unknown, and arbitrary government," then the point of rebellion is reached.
Clearly, when it comes to society's understanding of what constitutes marriage today, settled law is severely being ignored in favor of the uncertain, the unknown and the arbitrary. Even devotees of the homosexual agenda would be hard pressed to disagree with this matter-of-fact assessment.
The people's right to rebel within the framework of the U.S. Constitution is tacitly recognized by every member of Congress, for it is the legislative branch, not the judicial and executive, which directly feels the biennial exercise of Popular Sovereignty (called "elections"). If Congress does not act swiftly and decisively on a major issue, Popular Sovereignty will remove unpopular incumbents and replace them appropriately.
Because of John Locke's influence on the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (although he had died 80 years earlier), Congress is "first among equals."
The document's very drafting sequence indicates this priority, for Article I deals with the legislative branch (Articles II and III, with the executive and judicial branches, respectively).
--While the judiciary cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the judiciary. In Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power to create (thus, the implicit power to eliminate) any federal court beneath the Supreme Court. That power is reiterated in Article 3, Section 1. Congress, it would seem, also may remove lower federal judges who subvert Popular Sovereignty by abolishing the judge's court. The Constitution says a judge may hold office during "good behavior" and that his compensation shall not be diminished during "continuance in office." If there's no office to hold, a judge will be back in private practice or teaching at Harvard Law.
--While the Supreme Court cannot control Congress, Congress certainly can control the Supreme Court by denying it the right to hear certain appeals. (Article III, Section 2: ". . . the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make" [emphasis added].)
If it wishes to expedite and underscore its commitment to Popular Sovereignty and fire a massive shot across the bow of unjust and unjustifiable judges, Congress as soon as possible should convene, draft a bill (not a constitutional amendment), pass it, and submit the legislation at once to the President for what likely would be an immediate signature.
Legislation must contain unmistakable language that 1) marriage and any other permanent, two-person sexual union throughout the United States shall be recognized at all levels of government only if the marriage or union is between a biological, natural-born man and a biological, natural-born woman, and 2) the Supreme Court and, arguably, the entire congressionally constituted judiciary may not review the law.
Meantime, in anticipation of the predictable howls by Laurence Tribe, The New York Times, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Michael Jackson, Rosie O'Donnell, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, et alia, White House speechwriters should be ready with an appropriate soundbite or two for President Bush's news conference.
Perhaps he could say something like, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" and, "I am referring all questions to my favorite lawyer, John Locke, who is out of town and not expected back anytime soon."
Mike Thompson is author of Preying In School: How Homosexuals Recruit Your Kids, available from Xulon Press, 1-866-909-2665.
More on Preying in School: The world's first referendum on homosexuality was barely 25 years ago, in sunny Miami-Dade County, where in 1977 Florida's official orange-juice saleswoman (and popular country/gospel singer) Anita Bryant led the voters in a thumping repeal of "gay rights" legislation.
At Anita's side as chief political strategist, debater and advertising man was Mike Thompson, a powerful figure in Republican and conservative politics since the mid-1960s.
Now Thompson has packaged a blockbuster and highly readable book on how homosexual activists have opened a new front in their war to demand society's full approval.
"In the midst of a gay-embracing frenzy by bipartisan politicians, the news media, the entertainment world, academia and the other usual suspects," writes Thompson, "there are nevertheless tens of millions of Americans (the familiar Silent Majority) who don't embrace homosexuality. Indeed, they consider homosexuality to be perverse and adverse personal behavior.
"What most of these parents don't realize is that in addition to naïve educators, there are powerful forces inside their children's public schools who skillfully scheme to intimidate heterosexual students into silence or, worse, recruit them into homosexuality itself."
Thompson then lays out factually the strategies and gross propaganda materials employed nationwide by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, to penetrate classrooms, amazingly, from kindergarten to college level. (GLSEN also organizes after-school sex clubs [Gay-Straight Alliances] that meet on campus to facilitate "safe dating.")
Quoting extensively from the GLSEN-approved study list of special "children's" literature, the author reveals that much of the group's material, if depicted in a movie, would be considered X-rated, obscene and actually constitute child pornography.
Thompson also cites various medical, scientific and criminal-justice sources to debunk a litany of homosexual claims regarding their lives and alleged danger from heterosexuals.
Particularly compelling is a chapter dealing with the need for full disclosure, in which Thompson masterfully compiles chilling numbers on the longevity of homosexuals and the heavy burden of disease, illness and substance abuse inherent in their choosing "a deathstyle, not a lifestyle."
Thompson's multifaceted solution to driving homosexual propaganda out of public schools is both solid and creative, and boils down to this: Parents must demand that schools fight homosexual behavior just as vigorously as they fight alcohol, drugs, reckless driving and other life-threats to our children.
You're correct - it was Burke:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Homeschooled kids should make a difference. I was reading something a few weeks ago about how much more likely homeschooled kids are to vote, and to vote informed on the issues.
It will just take time. And in the mean time, this generation needs to spread the facts on homosexuality, that there is hope for homosexuals and they can leave the lifestyle if they want to.
Hellooooooo??!!?!
1) Child is molested by adult homosexual.
2) Child feels sexual pleasure during that molestation, which he (a) did not consent to and (b) is hardwired to feel (just because sexual pleasure is perverted doesn't mean it's less pleasurable).
3) Child masturbates to memory over course of several years.
4) Continue over several years, with other sexual encounters thrown in for reinforcement, and voila. Homosexual 'orientation.'
This is why I protect my sons from the likes of the aforementioned Larry and Curly.
Homosexuality is maintained through RECRUITMENT, jack. Just like any voluntary activity.
You original post did not include anything about recruitment, only masturbatory fantasies. No one would ever masturbate over something that did not bring them sexual pleasure in some form.
In the case of my cousin, I am certain that he was not "recruited". He and I have had extensive discussions concerning his homosexuality and its possible causes. We both began to develop sexual desires at the same age but our polarities were exactly opposite. Because of our unusual genetic/family relationship it has always been an interesting topic for both of us.
What I wonder about is the demand by the court that a State legislature write law.
I thought a court could over turn a law, make all pertinent laws null and void, but I didn't know that a court could force a legislature to pass a certain law.
"The Father of the Constitution," James Madison,(FEDERALIST No. 51)
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 48 "It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny…. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu. If he be not the author of this invaluable precept in the science of politics, he has the merit at least of displaying and recommending it most effectually to the attention of mankind.
….The judges, again, are so far connected with the legislative department as often to attend and participate in its deliberations, though not admitted to a legislative vote. From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying ``There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,'' or, ``if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,'' he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted….The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. ``When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,'' says he, ``there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. '' Again: ``Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
FindLaw: US Constitution: Article IVSection 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….
FindLaw: US Constitution: Article IV: Annotations pg. 18 of 18Section 4. Obligations of United States to States
GUARANTEE OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
In Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that ''it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.''
Republican Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 250-- ...
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican? It is evident that no other form would be reconcileable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination, which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.
If we resort for a criterion, to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour….According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.
….And in Delaware and Virginia, he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complextion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the Federal and the State Governments; and in its express guarantee of the republican form to each of the latter.
Republican Government: Introduction
The republicanism of the Founders' Constitution might seem to be a matter of course. According to Article 4, section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government….
At the core of the notion of republican government appears to be the principle that the many should rule, and that the body politic "should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority" (Locke, no. 1). Which way that greater force moved was for the people to determine, consulting their interests and their better second thoughts. In that sense a variety of forms of institutional arrangements might all deserve the name "republican," with the greater fitness of one or the other form turning on the particular, even peculiar, circumstances of people, time, and place. What was critical, John Adams insisted (Novanglus, no. 7, 6 Mar. 1775), was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend."
To restore some semblance of republican government, the legislatures of Mass and the U.S. need to begin throttling back on the runaway judiciary. The SJC of Mass ignored the Massachusetts Constitution.
That's because they aren't having sex with bisexual men.
SHOULD be reversed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.