Time for the counterrevolution: Pat Buchanan decries end run around democracy by homosexuals, judges

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, February 25, 2004 | Pat Buchanan

[JohnHuang2]

Time for the counterrevolution

---

Posted: February 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has given America an object lesson in how the Left imposes its radical social revolution on a confused majority that knows not how to fight it.

Out on Sodom by the Bay, Newsom, in defiance of a law enacted by California voters two-to-one in a referendum, ordered city officials to hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Newsom says that the law violates the state constitution. For his civil disobedience, he has become a hero to militant homosexuals all the way to Provincetown. His defiance has spread to New Mexico and Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley has declared his solidarity.

Where did Newsom get his idea? Perhaps from Massachusetts, where the Supreme Judicial Court has ordered Gov. Romney and the legislature to start handing out marriage licenses to homosexuals by May.

Civil unions do not meet our demand, the court told Bay State elected leaders. You must vote homosexuals absolute and equal rights to marry. Now stop dithering and get on with it.

What is happening here in America is an end run around democracy by an elite that believes its superior morality places it above the law. First, the Left engages in defiance and disobedience of a law it detests, then it goes judge-shopping to find some jurist-ideologue who will agree and overturn the law. And thus does the minority rule America.

Yet, seeing the smug certitude of Newsom, and the befuddlement of the authorities, there is no doubt who is winning the culture war and who will prevail if Middle America does not find leaders of greater fiber. We live in an age, wrote the poet Yeats, when "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Now, no state in the Union has ever provided for homosexual marriages, and most states have enacted statutes prohibiting such nonsense. However, the people may now have lost their right to decide. For the judges have stepped in and seized the issue.

In Massachusetts, it was the state's highest court that ordered the governor and legislature to license same-sex marriages. In California, the state supreme court will decide whether Newsom's licenses are valid. In this capital, the Supreme Court will tell us whether denying homosexuals a right to marry violates our Constitution, though no one ever imagined such an absurdity until last year.

While the idiocy underway at San Francisco city hall exposes the moral rot in America, it also reveals how we are losing the republic that was our patrimony. Our forefathers overthrew a rule of kings. But we have meekly submitted to a rule of judges.

The majority no longer rules, and America needs either a counterrevolution or a second revolution to reclaim the republic born of the first. And there are weapons within the Constitution we can employ to carry off that revolution.

President Bush has taken a bold first step with the recess appointments of David Pryor and Charles Pickering to the U.S. appellate court. Both men were denied a vote by Senate obstructionists. Should Daschle, Kennedy and Co. deny Bush a vote on his first Supreme Court nominee, he should not hesitate to make history's first recess appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can become as great a hero to Middle America as Newsom is on Castro Street.

It is time presidents began using their constitutional power to uphold and defend the Constitution against justices perverting it to impose their cultural Marxism on a once-Christian republic. We need the spirit of Jefferson, who refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts, of Jackson, who roared: "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"

Yet, the real power to rein in and corral a renegade court lies with our Congress. Under Article III, as South Carolina law professor William Quirk has long argued, Congress "determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts."

"Congress has the power to establish or abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court and ... the power to abolish includes the power to limit their jurisdiction."

Congress, writes Quirk, "could re-enact the Defense Of Marriage Act restricting marriage to men and women with one sentence, 'This law is not subject to review by the lower federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.' Then the issue would return to the states, where President Bush and the Democratic candidates say it should be."

In Boston and Sacramento, Govs. Romney and Schwarzenegger and the legislatures could reject the Newsom licenses and defy any court order that overturns validly enacted law, or tells legislators what laws they must enact. What would the state supreme courts do? Order Schwarzenegger and Romney arrested? Declare the legislators in contempt?

Let them. Then the legislators can impeach the judges, throw them out, and get new judges who can read and understand constitutions.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Quote of the Day by LadyX

[NYer]

While the idiocy underway at San Francisco city hall exposes the moral rot in America, it also reveals how we are losing the republic that was our patrimony. Our forefathers overthrew a rule of kings. But we have meekly submitted to a rule of judges.

It's an election year. Vote these people out of office, before they take that freedom away from us too.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[MEG33]

I'm no fan of a a Buchanan but I agree,it is time for our congress to rein in these law making judges and take back their rightful duty.Of course they must first grow a spine.

[Kerberos]

"I agree,it is time for our congress to rein in these law making judges and take back their rightful duty"

You're right that's what we need, a more centralized government where only a few make the decisions.

[Cowboy Bob]

Yet, seeing the smug certitude of Newsom, and the befuddlement of the authorities, there is no doubt who is winning the culture war and who will prevail if Middle America does not find leaders of greater fiber.

Smug is right! I feel like smacking the B*stard every time I see him.

I hope the rest of America feels the same way I do. Maybe Mayor Newsom will do more to help re-elect Bush then anything the Republicans can do!

[MEG33]

Judges are not supposed to make laws,legislators are to make laws.Judges are to interpret the law.Activist judges have reinterpreted the laws,thereby making new law.

One mayor has taken it upon himself to overturn the law in California that the people voted on.

Judges will decides if it is constitutional to define marriage as between one man one woman.

Who do you think make laws?

[longtermmemmory]

Who watches the watchmen?

[Kerberos]

"Who do you think make laws?"

Like you said, Congress makes law, judges interprets law. Then the people refer to it as either, following the rule of law, those that agree with the decision, or, being activist judges, those who don't agree with the ruling.

[longtermmemmory]

Newsom is locking in his own re-election. He lives in a town with at least 50% homosexual. His "civil disobedience" will garner him homosexual man of the year awards and certain re-election.

My question is whether Mewsome is a homosexual? If he is, then he just UNelected every homosexual elected official.

[MEG33]

You see nothing wrong with overriding the traditional,long held Western civilization belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[dsc]

"those who don't agree with the ruling"

The question of judicial activism is one of empirical reality, not one of agreement or disagreement with the ruling.

If a court were to annouce something I agreed with but which was neither constitutionally mandated nor enected by a legislative body--say, for instance, rounding up every Clinton/Gore voter, branding them on the forehead with the words "moral leper," taking away their right to vote and restricting them from certain jobs--that would be judicial activism as a matter of objective fact, regardless of who agreed or disagreed.

[Jimmy Valentine]

"My question is whether Mewsome is a homosexual?"

I don't know the answer, but I know which way to bet.

Regards,

[not-an-ostrich]

Historically, taking to the streets seems to work much better than voting because the masses embrace what they see and hear. If Americans care enough about the issue they will publically rally in view of Congress. Thus invalidating what the media is showing and condoning. I'm sick of ABC, etc showing gay and lesbians kissing, holding hands, and marrying right before I eat my dinner.

[longtermmemmory]

Your objection is why SF is now setting license by appointment only. They don't want the freakshow lines. CNN however is still grossing out with video of homosexuals kissing evry time they run this story.

Look for more homosexual anecdotal sensitive stories in the news. Poooor Babies, Good-ol President Bush hurt the fluffy homosexual's feeeeeelings. Its about loooooove, he is mean. We just want to llooooooooove and share, with your children.

[jpl]

Honestly, there's simply no way to reign in most of these judges and rogue local officials unless governors are willing to start arresting them, and none of them have the spine to do that.

[wgeorge2001]

"What is happening here in America is an end run around democracy by an elite that believes its superior morality places it above the law. First, the Left engages in defiance and disobedience of a law it detests, then it goes judge-shopping to find some jurist-ideologue who will agree and overturn the law. And thus does the minority rule America."

This is the heart of the matter. My question is, will American's and conservative Christians stand against this inrush of evil against us and our children or will we sit and watch as the butchers of America destroy our constitutional privileges using renegade justices and foolish children (politician's) to bring in anarchy and even civil war to America?

[Kerberos]

"You see nothing wrong with overriding the traditional,long held Western civilization belief that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Oh personally I don't like the idea but by the same token I can read the writing on the wall. If there is an issue that I am concerned about in this whole mess it is why do any of us, gay, straight, or whatever, have to seek the governments permission to get married in the first place. Marriage is the only kind of contract that I am aware of in, which the government must be a third party to.

Does sound like much of a free country to me.

[Kerberos]

"that would be judicial activism as a matter of objective fact, regardless of who agreed or disagreed."

Empirically speaking that would be true, but most people don't apply that kind of critical analysis to the issues. What one mainly hears is simply opinion with no foundation in fact.

[MEG33]

I am sure you will find your ideal free country someday.

[buridan]

Buchanan's wrong about "history's first recess appointment" to the Supreme Court. There have been several -- including Earl Warren and William Brennan.