[wagglebee]

As we've seen in decisions ranging from abortion to the public expression of religion, judges clearly no longer feel an obligation to connect their opinions to the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the land. In fact, the courts have started citing the laws and judicial proceedings of foreign governments to defend their findings.

I've read the Constitution countless times, and nowhere can I find the justification for the judicial power grab that has been forced upon our nation for 200 years.

[COEXERJ145]

All Congress has to do is remove the ability for the federal courts to hear any case involving faggot marriage. Takes a simple majority vote, not the 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states that an amendment does.

Of course the President can also says:

"The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it".

[hunter112]

Isn't this pretty much the approach favored by Luis Gonzalez in his posts on other threads? If its different, would you explain, Luis?

[Ken H]

The third power granted to Congress and denied to the courts is the authority to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts on specific topics.

The Framers of the Constitution made explicit provision for this type of check in the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Sections 1 and 2 grant Congress the authority to establish inferior federal courts, determine their jurisdiction and make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

All of that is true, but you simply cannot get around a judicial review of laws passed by Congress.

Yes, Congress could establish an inferior court and limit appellate review by the USSC in the area of marriage. But the new court could then rule that a marriage law passed by Congress was unconstitutional and the USSC would not be able to overturn the ruling.

Keep in mind also that the new court's judges would still have to be appointed by the President and approved by Congress.

[Not a 60s Hippy]

Just ignore the court and arrest anyone who issues a marriage license.
Let the court try to enforce their decision, they don’t have LAW ENFORCEMENT abilities, the state does!

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping. Makes sense to me. But if it doesn't make sense to others, what good does the truth do?

This judicial tyranny is like a form of mass hypnosis, or lemmings jumping off a cliff.

What we need is some governors with (ahem) testorone! And some Congresscritters as well and any other elected official that wants to do the right thing. But courage is desperately needed.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this ping list.

[lakey]

Good post. Thank you.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Unconstitutional judicial decisions only have effect if Congress and the president allow them to.

Bingo. So why are they allowing it?

[John O]

One of the saddest days I remember was when I was redistricted out of Congressman Hostettler's district. Of course that sadness was short lived because I was districted into Congressman Steve Buyers district. (I am so blessed)

[Aquinasfan]

But today we're told that when the court violates the Constitution there is no recourse short of amending the Constitution. Congress, the executive branch and the people must simply live with its decision.

This is a myth. Judges can't force their will upon the people because the Constitution doesn't provide them with a single tool to make their rulings become reality. Unconstitutional judicial decisions only have effect if Congress and the president allow them to.

Unfortunately, the cultural institutions whose duty it is to instruct the public regarding the our form of government, the schools and media, are controlled by liberals and statists.

[mrustow]

I think this guy (or the staffer who wrote it for him) is brilliant ... but what do I know?

Ever since Brown v. Board, this country's been headed for a constitutional crisis. Eventually, an executive (gov. or pres.) is going to refuse to comply with the order of a federal court. And when that happens, it's going to be a dark day in America, because the loss of prestige of the judiciary will spread far beyond the case in question. But if no one ever faces down the courts, popular rule will be dead.