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

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

[Kerberos]

"Doesn't government have to be available to enforce a contract if need be?"

Yes, and that's what we have courts for, for redress of grievances.

"When the courts rule on something, government exists in the debate."

In as far as the congress makes law, but you don't have to have the governments permission to exercise your rights under the law.

"Besides, our government must never be allowed to propagate homosexual relationships as normal, moral or healthy."

And if we didn't have to go to the government in the first place, for permission to marry, they never would be able to set the standard for what is normal, moral, or healthy, the people would set that standard.

It's called freedom.

[Federalist 78]

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."

Marriage Protection Act of 2003 H. R. 3313

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.

Federalism

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.)

DOMA - Protecting Federalism in Family Law

Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.

THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT - ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE

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?

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!

[Zack Nguyen]

And if we didn't have to go to the government in the first place, for permission to marry, they never would be able to set the standard for what is normal, moral, or healthy, the people would set that standard.

Government doesn't set the standard. God sets the standard, and hopefully government will recognize it. Too often they don't. I don't need government "permission" to be married before God. Some may need government help to enforce divorce circumstances, custody arrangements, etc. Therefore government has to have the ability to recognize when someone is married and divorced.

In any case, your position just isn't reasonable. Government is involved in marriage whether we like it or not, and that isn't going to change. What may change soon is the government's perception of what is real marriage and what is not, and the cultural ramifications of that stand.

So because of present circumstances, I'm fully on board with an amendment. It's the only way.

[Federalist 78]

The Destruction Of Marriage Precedes The Death Of A Culture
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1340

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

[dsc]

"He sent us Alan Keyes, and we rejected him."

We?

I contributed to his presidential campaign.

[Zack Nguyen]

Wow, thank you.

[Tailgunner Joe]

And those contracts can be amended, modified, and or terminated through a court of law, like all our other contracts when there is a dispute. We don't need the government as a party to the contract to get that done.

You are right about this. We don't need to define marriage in order to solve property disputes. People don't have to be married in order to jointly own property.

Marriage is a cultural institution which was usurped by the anti-Christian socialist state. We should have complete separation of marriage and state. That way people could have their atheist weddings or gay weddings or cross-species weddings or whatever. No one would have a problem with any of it as long as the government wasn't involved.

Unfortunately this will not happen, so we are forced to support a federal amendment.

[DMZFrank]

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.