Posted on 02/24/2004 11:59:52 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Time for the counterrevolution
© 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.
Thanks for pinging me. If you take out the references to homosexual marriages, this article can apply to many things going on in this country.
It's not like God isn't sending us prophets. He sent us Alan Keyes, and we rejected him.
Absolutely. Let the Courts try to enforce their idiotic pronouncements.
Quite a few people will NEVER understand this.
License is legally defined as 'governmental permission'.
The equal protection clause means government MUST give it's permission EQUALLY - since sexual orientation was thrown into the mix, government cannot differentiate on that basis. Therefore, marriage licenses must be given to homosexual 'couples' unless a Constitutional amendment is passed.
(Most people don't realize that if it's not in the U.S. or State Constitution, it's not a LAW, since codes, acts, ordinances and statutes are just governmental policy)
I've posted it as well, but most folks won't listen to what I'm actually saying-they just flame me and call me an anarchist. :(
Federal, State and local governments are described in the statutes as 'political subdivisions', and counties are 'legal subdivisions'.
Both of these are artificial creations constructed by man.
we haven't been governed by the Constitution for years
True, but is a choice of our own making.
Everyone screams bloody murder when:
1. a politician, lawyer or a rich and powerful person gets away with whatever they damn well want too
2. an 'illegal' gets preferential treatment over a 'citizen'
What isn't common knowledge is that our Founders NEVER intended for us to be 'legal entities', only a free and sovereign people.
Our current government, however, has created, within each one of us, a legal entity. (Look at government forms - almost always they say 'legal name')
This entity IS subject to statutory law because it is ARTIFICIAL.
The human part of us just gets drug along for the ride.
Most lawyers and politicians KNOW this,so they just take a plea, get minor slap on the wrist, and go on.
They cannot afford for the people to discover how they have been robbed of their birthrights.
The illegals are still persons under the law simply because they ARE illegal. That's why they are untouchable.
This will only happen if Bush allows it to happen. If he really, really wants his Supreme Court nomination voted on and confirmed, he can make it happen.
Because people die and get divorced. Legally the government must have the ability to recognize when someone is married and when they are not, how the possessions are to be divied up, enforcement of child visitation and support etc. The government has to enforce these things, thus the government must know who is married and who isn't.
Just in case you were wondering what that might mean, there are two posters right on this thread to demonstrate it for you!
This was badly phrased on my part.
What I should have said was that the only 'crimes' that people can commit are ones that involve another person. Ammendments are actually just governmental restrictions.
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.