Posted on 12/17/2003 4:11:12 PM PST by Federalist 78
Andrew Sullivan is right and alas the Alliance for Marriage is wrong about the meaning of President Bush’s remarks on same-sex marriage on ABC's "Primetime" on Tuesday. Here is the transcript of the president’s exchange with Diane Sawyer.
DIANE SAWYER: Massachusetts Supreme Court said that they were not, they did not feel the law was in a position to block gay marriage. When you talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, are you saying you will absolutely support a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage and against gay civil unions?
PRESIDENT BUSH: If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.
DIANE SAWYER: But you and Secretary — why do I get —
PRESIDENT BUSH: It's just a throwback.
DIANE SAWYER: That's right. Some of us are still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: Vice President Cheney.
DIANE SAWYER: Thank you very much. Some of us are still stuck back in the '70s and '80s. Vice President Cheney has spoken out in favor of civil unions. In the 2000 election, you said pretty much it was a state issue.
PRESIDENT BUSH: That's right. Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.
DIANE SAWYER: And do you think that the defense of marriage law is enough then?
PRESIDENT BUSH: It may be undermined at this point. I also think it's very important, on this subject, that the country be tolerant of people and understand people, but tolerance and belief in marriage aren't mutually exclusive points of view.
DIANE SAWYER: Are they sinners? Are gays sinners?
PRESIDENT BUSH: We're all sinners. We're all sinners, and that's important for —
DIANE SAWYER: No distinction.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I think we're all sinners. One of my favorite Bible verses says, "Why would I take a speck out of your eye when I have a log in my own?" ... and having said that, however, I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. ... but I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person. ...
Now note the following:
The President is still speaking in the conditional mode about the amendment. "If necessary, I will support …" and "We may need …." Apparently, the President does not feel we are yet at the point where the amendment is necessary.
Sullivan’s reading – which is that the President continues to hedge on this issue – is more accurate than AFM’s, which proudly trumpets his endorsement on its home page.
You can understand the President’s motives for hedging: Presidents have no role in the constitutional amending process, so why should he speak up about a matter that, technically, is the business of Congress and the state legislatures? But if we are not at the decision point now, when will we arrive at it? When the voters of Massachusetts fail to amend their state’s difficult-to-amend constitution to over-rule the Supreme Judicial Council? When another court follows Massachusetts? Or when a court uses the Full Faith and Credit clause to require acceptance of a Massachusetts marriage inside its own jurisdiction? Or when a Full Faith and Credit issue is appealed to the US Supreme Court?
The longer we wait, however, the more likely it is that the ultimate result will be unfavorable. As for the US Supreme Court, nobody should feel any confidence about what it will do. The current court is highly unlikely to go as far as the Massachusetts court and discover a right of same-sex marriage in the US Constitution. But if offered an opportunity to over-rule the Defense of Marriage Act on highly technical grounds that did not involve same-sex marriage as such – well, I strongly suspect that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Souter would accept, and Justice O’Connor might well follow.
The best argument against the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it might well lose, after which conservatives would be worse off than ever. And so it would be, if the Amendment were to lose badly. But if it were to lose narrowly, the FMA could nonetheless shock some reason into the courts.
PRESIDENT BUSH: If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that, and will — the position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or [?] start at the state level. Let me tell you, the court I thought overreached its bounds as a court. It did the job of the legislature. It was a very activist court in making the decision it made. As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch.
Federalist No. 81 ``The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judicial power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.''
We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''
To avoid all inconveniences, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.
The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable; PUBLIUS.
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.
Article 6, Clause 2 This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Sen. Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, used the exception authority of Article III, 2.2 in order to cut some timber in South Dakota.
Family.org - CitizenLink - House Gets Bill to Fight Judicial ... Among the other laws passed that invoked Article III, Section 2 powers were the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, the Aviation Security Act and even a law to expedite construction of a World War II memorial in Washington, D.C.
Reining In the Court - The New American - July 28, 2003 By simple majority vote, Congress could pass an act denying federal jurisdiction over social issues of any kind, such as abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. This would leave the state legislatures free to enact (or, in most cases, re-enact) laws on those matters reflecting the moral consensus of their constituents. This would leave the well-funded leftist network of legal agitators — the ACLU, et al. — without effective recourse, since they would have no access to their longtime allies in the federal judiciary. Rather than use the judicial system as a detour around representative government, the cultural left would have to contend, on equal terms, in state legislatures.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today joined Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in announcing the formation of the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability. The group will work to encourage responsible federal judiciary, and identify and prevent judicial activism.
"Co-chairs Lamar Smith and Steve Chabot have recruited a core of smart, tough and aggressive members, and based on the early meetings it's clear that when it comes to judicial abuses they're going to take no prisoners," DeLay said.
"We're going to address the problem of judicial activism at its roots and restore the U.S. Constitution as the North Star of the American judiciary," DeLay said.
This House working group will ensure that judges fulfill their duties without bias and without substituting their philosophy for the law. Some of their duties include:
Identify bad laws that invite judicial activism and hopefully recommend legislation that will prevent it in the future; Involve the House in more federal court nominations because we believe America deserves a United States Senate that will seriously consider this President's mainstream and qualified nominees and allow them a vote; Work with the Judiciary Committee on its vigorous oversight of the federal court system. In addition to Co-Chairs Smith and Chabot, working group members include Representative Todd Akin (R - Mo.), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R - Tenn.), Rep. John Carter (R - Texas), Rep. John Culberson (R - Texas), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R - Florida), Rep. Tom DeLay (R - Texas), Rep. Tom Feeney (R - Fla.), Rep. Walter Jones (R - N.C.), Rep. Steve King (R - Iowa), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R - Colo.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.).
Congressman Lamar Smith : 21st District of Texas
Congressman Steve King - Iowa 5th Congressional District - ...
Why not do both?
Unless unanimous, an Amendment allows most states to decide for the rest.
I'd like to see the jurisdiction of the federal courts removed from this issue and other issues as well. Let each state decide. Let Mass create a modern day Sodom and let the folk in OK remain o.k.
Sodomy has become so popular, I'd like to see a couple of states totally embrace it. So the remainder can observe from a safe distance before they give it a try.
And besides, is it only a law that you're talking about? If so, the courts will decide that it's unconstitutional. ...end of effort. What is the method of forcing all to obey what you are proposing? Who will enforce it?
Not if Congress removes jurisdiction. See Barron v. Baltimore - This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause; and it is dismissed. BTW, wouldn't any method of keeping judges out of all social matters leave those social matters to our reprobate, morally bankrupt state judges?
Some states elect (ALA) their judges, while others are appointed (MASS). Regardless, it is a matter that should be left to the individual states. The states would need to consider The Importance of Righteous Judges .
The kind of great statement I fully agree with. I'm glad Bush was neither squishy nor gave any ground for the Libs to tut-tut on 'intolerance'. Good answer to the line about 'sinners'. ... I wish I said that.
There will be no marriage amendment so long as there are 34 democrats in the Senate who are willing to vote against it.
And, democrats hate the family, so if there are ONLY 34 Democrats in the Senate, given the retirement of Zell Miller, there will be 34 votes to uphold a filibuster.
The amendment will never pass congress.
And no one in their right mind wants to call an open-ended convention for amending the constitution.
Apparantly our President does not understand this verse of the Bible. What is he saying? Is he a homosexual? It is obvious to me by this statement that our President needs more growth in his faith. Flame suit on.
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.