Posted on 02/06/2004 2:27:56 PM PST by Federalist 78
There are many movements that are commendable. Who could argue about trying to save marriage? But this marriage amendment is not only a bad idea; it is a scary Trojan horse. Just like our government to create a crisis in the family then use our ignorance against us to pretend to fix it. Most of the policy of the government for the last 50 years has been detrimental to the family, and now they want to be our friend. In 1996 Congress signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with Clinton signing it into law. It states that Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is good, so why a marriage amendment? This seemingly innocuous constitutional amendment appeals to the good, patriotic American, but contains hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic. I would like to know who is behind this and how they have convinced the majority of pro family organizations to back it?
This is so bad I hardly know where to begin.
First major problem about a "marriage amendment" is the lie that needs to be told to convince Christians that the problem with this sodomy attack on marriage is the U.S. Constitution. That the Constitution is not adequate to handle this problem, so it must be changed. This is terrible propaganda and they should not be able to get away with this, and the pro-family organizations should not allow them to.
The problem is not with the Constitution. Hello, the problem is those who put their hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. They either have not read it, or just refuse to go by it. We have 400 years of case law that states that marriage is between a man and a woman. The judges, until just a few years ago, have always used the Bible as a reference to what was right. The case law in most states uses the scriptures to define sodomy and it is still against the law in this state. In 1971 Baker v. Nelson, Minnesota state Supreme court judge said: "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." Dictionary definitions of terms were also used by judges as in 1973 Jones v. Hallan. And the dictionary definition of marriage is between two persons of the opposite sex. In 1975 Adams v. Howerton, the court ruled that the "spouse" means someone not of the same sex, because the dictionary said so. Of course Noah Webster defined all the terms in the first dictionary from the Bible not from his feelings. There have been many lawsuits since the 1970's to allow sodomites to marry and all the judges used case law, Bible, and the dictionary to make their decisions.
So why have judges now deviated from case law? Because congress and the president have allowed them to. Why have they allowed this? Because WE have allowed them to get away with not doing their job. And if they are not going by the Constitution or precedents now, what good is adding to the Constitution?
The second problem with this "Marriage Amendment" is that the U.S. Government has no authority or right to define marriage, only God has. James Madison observed in The Federalist, #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." This amendment would, for the first time ever in history, give the federal government jurisdiction over marriage and the home. The 10th Amendment is our protection from the federal government getting involved where they should not be. Marriage should remain exclusively under state dominion. My state, as many others, already has laws that define marriage. When the Federal government decides that marriage can be anything it wants it to be, what happens to the state laws?
The third problem is that this focuses all the Christian effort in the wrong direction. The pro-family organizations do not understand the real problem or they are being given money designated by someone to push this amendment, basically leading us all in the wrong direction.
Fourth problem with the amendment is that it will not stop "civil unions". The President himself supports civil unions. He has signed legislation that supports it. Most of the Republicans support "civil unions". The Republicans and President Bush both voted for benefits for sodomites who work for the government.
To truly save marriage the way God intended it to be is to attack the root of the problem. The root of the problem is you and me, the Christians who are ignorant of the Constitution, who vote into office pro sodomite Republicans, Republicans who are afraid to take a stand, and Republicans who will not impeach judges or reign in their jurisdiction.
Article III Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution has the remedy for tyrannical unconstitutional judges. Congress is to impeach them or reign in their unlawful rule.
They have not done their job because we have not made them do their job.
I am very concerned with why pro family groups like Focus on the Family and American Family Association who are behind this amendment when they know it will not help. Something strange is going on here. The cure is very simple - make congress do their job. Adding an amendment to the constitution takes 2/3rds of the states voting yes, a great feat and very expensive. It will not stop runaway judges!
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
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 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.
The Marriage Protection Act addresses that possibility by removing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, as well as inferior federal courts’ original and appellate jurisdiction, over DOMA’s full faith and credit provision. It also removes appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts over DOMA’s marriage definition.
This is the sort of legislative check the Founders intended. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution grant Congress the authority to establish inferior federal courts, determine their jurisdiction and make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. By implementing this legislative power we can preserve each state’s traditional right to determine its own marriage policies without federal court interference. (For instance, a state of appeals court in Arizona last week upheld that state’s DOMA law.)
TVC Leader Travels To Massachusetts To Defend Marriage!
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1321
Traditional Marriage Is Worth Protecting!
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1231
Same-Sex Marriages And Domestic Partnerships: Are They Good For Families And Society?
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=22
Domestic Battering: Homosexual couples experience high rates of physical violence and emotional abuse.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/DomesticBattering.pdf
Homosexuals Attack The Institution Of Marriage
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/HomoMarriage.PDF
Do Homosexuals Really Want The Right To Marry?
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1150
They Want Marriage To Mean Nothing
http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0028405.cfm
The Marriage Amendment
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0310/editorial.html
Christian Institute Statement On Marriage
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/gaymarriage.htm
Protecting The Traditional Definition Of Marriage In Canada
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0041.html
The Many Benefits Of Traditional Marriage
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/december_2000_4.html
Gay Marriage And Defense Of Traditional Marriage: A Breakpoint Compendium
http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/colson-gaymarr-compendium.html
Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions From The Social Sciences
http://www.americanvalues.org/html/a-wmm_introduction.html
The Marriage Movement: A Statement Of Principles
http://www.marriagemovement.org/html/report.html
Vatican Statement On Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfhomun.htm
Is DOMA unconstitutional?
If not, then why has any state to recognize Massachussetts definition of marriage?
Is there any loophole in the "full faith and credit" clause?
Article IVSection 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Apparently there must be - because someone with a concealed carry license cannot hope to obtain protection from this part of the Constitution (nor the 2nd Amendment) if they are caught carrying in NYC, DC, Chicago, etc.
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 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.
Would this even apply to issues involving homosexual marriage? The issue is the State's definition of marriage, and it doesn't look like Congress has the authority to limit jurisdiction in cases involving a State.
Is DOMA unconstitutional?
The federal courts are no longer tethered to the Consitution.
AEI - Publications (written before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act decision of Dec 03, where even J.Kennedy was correct) Campaign Finance Excerpts
Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility. Federalist Outlook, The Term the Constitution Died, Michael S. Greve,Friday, July 25, 2003
I think it is unfortunate that we must amend the constitution to protect ourselves from activist judges. And if the activist judges remain, who is to say that they will not continue to twist clear language into obscure meanings. I'd love to impeach some judges, but let's be realistic. We have 50 states plus federal benches and liberal activists with the means to forum shop. Sad as it is, we must go federal. Don't even give me this federalism crap. We all know that concept has been dead a long time. May it rise again, but until then, if we refuse to get in the fight that is being fought -- a judicial one -- we are going to keep losing until there is nothing left.
Additionally, if we do succeed at impeachment, what guarantee do we have that the next one will be better? (And we are losing big issues big time while we fight with each other. We need unity even more than we need perfection.) There are many liberal judges just waiting in the wings. Is Bush going to recess appoint all those we need replaced? Can we rely on each appointment/election process in each state to go our way? Nope. First things first. We need the marriage amendment. Then we can take on the time consuming judge issue. They must not succeed on this issue.
Would this even apply to issues involving homosexual marriage? The issue is the State's definition of marriage, and it doesn't look like Congress has the authority to limit jurisdiction in cases involving a State.
It' leaves the matter with each state. MASS may allow sodomites to marry and OK may forbid. The federal courts would force OK to permit sodomite marriage based on MASS decision.
These particular judges might not be impeached by leftist Massachusets. But somewhere, somehow, some judges who break their oath to the Constitution must be impeached.
It's foolish to expect people in positions of power to self-regulate their actions. Politicians must stand for re-election. Others are subject to arrest for breaking laws. Judges must come to fear some form of retribution if they don't do their jobs correctly.
It's time to start impeaching out-of-control judges.
judges who break their oath to the Constitution must be impeached.
JUDICIAL TYRANTS SHOULD BE IMPEACHED(Bill Graves is a lawyer and a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives.)
The Justices are fully engaged in social and cultural engineering. George Washington said those who labor to subvert religion and morality may not be called patriots. Yet subverting religion and morality is exactly what the Court is doing. It is in the business of changing America from the Christian nation the Court said America was in 1892, to an anti-Christian secular state whose religion is secular humanism.
The Court, in its nihilistic quest to alter the culture, has, among other things, banned prayer to God and Bible study in public schools because, it said, such practices violate the 'wall of separation' between church and state even though no such wall is found in the Constitution. Posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools was also banned because it might induce the children to (God forbid) "obey" them. Conversely, the Court prohibited a public school from banning from its library books that were vulgar, obscene, "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy." It created the right of privacy and then found in it a right to abortion even though the Constitution makes no mention of such a right. Now sodomy is included. The Court has rewritten the law as to free speech and created protections for pornography and obscenity.
The Supreme Court, in its contempt for representative government, has in the last 14 years overridden direct elections by the people in ten different cases, including Romer. Also among these was Missouri v. Jenkins, in which the Court revived the concept of taxation without representation, by overruling a vote of the people, and affirmed an order for a massive tax for public education.
Such rulings and others equally outrageous have not been made because they are required by the Constitution as written, but because the Court no longer sees itself as bound by the words of the Constitution (as they swear to be) as Chief Justice John Marshall said it should be. Rather, the Court views the Constitution as a living, evolving document that means anything a majority on the Court says. Thomas Jefferson warned of such a lawless Court when he said, "The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
As a result, majority rule, which George Washington called "(t)he fundamental principle of our Constitution," is being destroyed. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, said under our government the legislative branch necessarily "predominates." Alexander Hamilton said the judiciary was the "weakest" branch of government by which "the general liberty of the people can never be endangered..." This has changed. We now have minority rule. What radical liberals cannot accomplish through majority vote by their elected representatives, they now obtain through majority vote of unelected judges. As a result, we in effect no longer have a Constitution or republic, but government by judiciary.
What is worse, the People and their elected representatives continually, by their inaction, concede without a whimper that our imperial judiciary virtually has carte blanche to say the Constitution means anything it wants it to mean. This brings to mind an anecdote related by Robert Bork. A new State Supreme Court Justice upon meeting a U.S. Supreme Court Justice said, "I'm delighted to meet you in person because I have just taken an oath to support and defend whatever comes into your head." Congressional leaders seem to think that the only thing that can be done is to urge appointment of conservative constitutionalists to the Court, or urge passage of constitutional amendments to correct judicial excess. However, there is a better solution.
Prof. James McClellan, referring to liberal Justices, said, "We call them Justices; the Founders would have called them tyrants." The real problem is not a defective Constitution, but tyrannical judges. Proposing constitutional amendments to correct judicial imperialism implicitly concedes that the Court’s despotic constitutional interpretations are correct. They legitimize the abuse of power and do not address the fundamental problem of judicial despotism. "Tyranny" is of course the arbitrary and unlawful exercise of authority. The Court is usurping power that belongs to the people and their elected representatives. Chief Justice John Marshall called such usurpation "treason to the Constitution." It is, George Washington said, "the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
The People of America and their elected representatives must draw the line and reclaim their Constitution and republic. Congress has the power, under Article II, Section 4(l) to remove judges from office, by impeachment and conviction of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Article III, Section 2(l), allows Supreme Court and other federal judges to hold office "during good behavior."
It is now generally believed that grounds for removal under impeachment must be only for treason, bribery or for violation of a criminal statute. However, David Barton, in his book "Impeachment: Restraining An Overactive Judiciary," has documented that the Framers of the Constitution had a much broader view. Barton states that "impeachments of federal judges in the century-and-a-half following the ratification of the Constitution usually revolved around non-statutory and non-criminal charges rather than today’s standard of a direct violation of statutory law."
Justice Joseph Story, the U.S. Supreme Court’s greatest scholar, believed such a restriction was preposterous and said, "No one has as yet been bold enough to assert that the power of impeachment is limited to offenses positively defined in the statute book of the Union as impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors." Justice Story said impeachment was for protecting the rights of the people "and to rescue their liberties from violation," and a remedy for "political offenses, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of public interests," as well as a check upon "arbitrary power." So were "unconstitutional opinions" and "attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power."
Founding Father and later Supreme Court Justice James Wilson said "(i)mpeachments are confined to political characters, (and) to political crimes and misdemeanors.." George Mason, who is called "the Father of the Bill of Rights," saw impeachment as a remedy for "attempts to subvert the Constitution." Hamilton said the subjects of impeachment are those which may "be denominated political." Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for his judicial high-handedness and arbitrary uses of the judicial power. Barton also points out that one federal judge was impeached for supporting the secession movement. Federal judges were removed from office in 1904, 1912 and 1926 for judicial high-handedness.
Judge Robert Bork warned that lawless Courts are "engaged in civil disobedience, a disobedience arguably more dangerous, because more insidious and hence more damaging to democratic institutions, than the civil disobedience of the streets." The Battle of Bunker Hill was not fought and the Founders did not pledge their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to empower federal judges to twist, as Jefferson said, the Constitution into any form they please. If constitutional liberties are to be restored and republican government preserved, Congress must utilize its constitutional impeachment power.
The author is correct about this; but how does she propose to stop the Leftist judges who are already on the bench from continuing their evil?
She knows that impeachment is near impossible. And just what does she mean by "reign in their unlawful rule"? Shout "STOP IT" at them, like an irritated nanny? (And p.s., Ms. McGinley, that's rein, not reign.)
I'd like to know your opinion, not a quote that has been interpreted to possess myriad of meanings.
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.