Hijackers in Black Robes

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | [March 8, 2004] | John Armor (Congressman Billybob

[hosepipe]

My experience with these issues, I say, issues because I believe there are several issues that are related.. from (homo)sexual freedom to pregnant mother freedom(abortion)...

The bill of rights are guaranteed by God according to our Contitution not our government. Thats what is being attacked and thereby an attack on our society.. Guaranteed by WHAT GOD ? is the question.. The Judeo-Christian God or some other kind of God or Psuedo-God.. It appears this attack is being successful, so far.. Defeat the attackers on this (what God ?)issue and you will defeat them on all the others. Loose to them this (what God?)issue and the other issues will fall too.. The world has a zillion gods and america takeing in immigrants take in their Gods too.. In that sense little wonder america is confused. We only have one word for God but many of the suckers.

It appears to me that the God of the majority is a pagan God that likes homosexuality and murdering babies.. and other nasty things.. Am I a defeatist, no, a realist.. and thats what seems real to me..

[Fedora]

I am richly aware of, and thoroughly disgusted by, the literary/judicial philosophy that you refer to. A fringe benefit of this amendment clause would be to tell the Larry Tribes of this world to seek another form of employment since they are no longer needed as molders of the Constitution in their positions as Professors of Constitutional Law (tenured and in a named chair, or otherwise).

That would be a nice fringe benefit :) IMO these liberal judges are going to keep on breeding until we clean out their nests in the law schools, so if this amendment would hit them there as well, it's right on target.

[Cboldt]

I'm not keen on a marriage amendment, but your "judical inerpretation amendment" suits me okay. Not that the hijackers in black robes would respect it.

With regard to the links between Tide Foundation and the 9/11 widows, it's my impression that the NYT and other media HAVE been presented with the allegations, but have not reported the connection yet. Your article says certain media outlets do not even have the information (and if they don't then it's perfectly reasonable for them to not report on it).

[expatguy]

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The hijackers of the constitution and our freedoms are lawyers, period. Lawyers rule this country with an iron fist, almost all judges are lawyers, the state and federal legislatures are predominately lawyers. Lawyers make the laws and then for good measure lawyers as judges interpret the meaning of laws. It is like putting foxes in the hen houses to do the maximum damage, and they have.

The Bard said kill all the lawyers, and he was right.

[upchuck]

CBB I understand denigrating the Founding Fathers by instead calling them the "Framers" is the latest politically correct thing to do. I strongly disagree with this move and am sorry you have succumbed. Please come back from the dark side :)

[lainde]

Terrific!

[Congressman Billybob]

I care not what reason others have for using the word Framers, rather than the phrase Founding Fathers. My reason is quite specific. To my view, the FF refers only to those who met in Philadelphia to write the Constitution.

On the other hand, to my view the Framers are ALL of those who played critical roles in the creation of our nation. Sam Adams was nowhere near Philadelphia -- but I count him as a Framer because he created the Sons of Liberty. Tom Paine was not there, but he wrote the words that made us a nation in Common Sense and The American Crisis. Patrick Henry refused to take his elected position in Philadelphia because, as he his purported to have said, "I smelt a rat."

My purpose is to include all of them, including the one that almost no one pays attention to, George Wythe, when I use that word. There's no "dark side" in my writing and thinking.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Keep in mind that the most numerous single profession among the 55 who went to Philadelphia, and the 39 who were there when the Constitution was signed on 17 September, 2004, were lawyers. Not all lawyers are bad.

With that said, I agree that the law has descended as a profession since then. We are at risk of becoming a nation of the lawyer, by the lawyer and for the lawyer -- and that kind of lawyer is the lowest of the breed, trial lawyers. Like John Edwards.

John / Armor

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think you have your terms reversed. According to my dictionary, the word frame, in its verb form, means (among other things) "to compose, to compress in words, frame a treaty or a question."

I would call the people you named Founding Fathers because their influence goes beyond framing the Constitution. I would also add the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and George Washington as Founding Fathers, too. For me, the word Framer doesn't do Washington justice.

Just my opinion...

-PJ

[Ready4Freddy]

Nonsense, upchuck. 'Founding Fathers' refers to those involved in the Declaration of Independence, 'Framers' refers to those involved in the writing of the Constitution more than a decade later.

upchuck upchucked thusly:

CBB I understand denigrating the Founding Fathers by instead calling them the "Framers" is the latest politically correct thing to do.

[R. Scott]

. First, why does a decision by a Massachusetts court present a national problem? That’s due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which requires all states to recognize the official acts of other states. And a marriage certificate from one state is clearly represents an official act, when that couple travels to another state.

Why does this apply to gay marriage and not to concealed handgun permits?

[Constitution Day]

I will, with pleasure.

Regards,
CD

[Constitution Day]

NC ping!
Please FRmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[Kryptonite]

The civil disobedience and anarchy of today is directly related to the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, the canard being hoisted these days is an equal protection argument that only one justice (out of 9) agreed with, as noted by Scalia in his dissent.

[azhenfud]

Thanks for the ping, CD.

Thought provoking to the preprovoked, I must say.

I would like to comment on this one statement:

"To impeach one judge for the contents of one decision, even for a grossly incompetent decision, sets a precedent that all future Congresses could remove any future judges for little or no cause."

That precedent has been set by Alabama; decisions reflect the belief of the judiciary and if no accountability restraints are placed upon them, we might as well submit the future of these United States to the control of a committee of select justices - an end Abraham St. Lincoln warned of in his First Inaugural.

No, I'd rather see the people's voice heard through Congress and Congress to have the authority to impeach and disbar any justice(s) who think they are immune to laws they swore to uphold.

[MissAmericanPie]

So... now that several judges and local officials are setting anarchy as the appropriate example to govern by, what is to be their punishment?

[F.J. Mitchell]

BUMP!