End of the Constitution? (Cal Thomas)

Jewish World Review ^ | 7/1/03 | Cal Thomas

[truthandlife]

Has the end of the world arrived because the Supreme Court ruled no state may prohibit private, consensual homosexual conduct? No, the end of the world is being handled by the Supreme Judge. But the end of the Constitution has arrived, and that is something about which everyone in this temporal world should be concerned.

Writing for the majority that struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law, Justice Anthony Kennedy takes us on a journey with no fixed origin, no map, but a certain destination. His constitutional rewriting will lead to same-sex "marriage" and a Constitution that means to liberal judges what the Bible means to liberal theologians - a document to be tailored to the whims of culture, not the reverse. This, from justices named by Ronald Reagan (Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy) and George H.W. Bush (David Souter).

Beginning with the manufactured "right to privacy" created out of nothing by the godlike court in Griswold vs. Connecticut, Kennedy leads us through Roe vs. Wade (which many correctly predicted would follow Griswold) to the present Lawrence vs. Texas. He asserts that religious beliefs, history, tradition and even the desires of the majority to set parameters for the moral climate in which they wish to live are irrelevant. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code," said Kennedy. That can lead to anarchy.

Kennedy dismisses thousands of years of law, history and theology, choosing to rely solely on modern times: "In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here." Kennedy deletes the wisdom of the ages, preferring to download the squishy morality of post-modernism.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) predicted two months ago that if the court struck down anti-sodomy laws, challenges would soon follow to laws prohibiting bestiality, polygamy and all sorts of other sexual practices. We will now see him proved right (see Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks below). Prostitutes, call your lawyers. Kennedy said anti-sodomy laws "do more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home."

Supreme Court decisions like this one also have far-reaching consequences. Griswold led to Roe, which led to partial birth abortion. And this ruling will lead to same-sex "marriage," because the court has removed from the people their right to create community standards for themselves. Inevitably, this will force the schools to teach homosexuality as normal and not just an "alternate lifestyle." The trend in that direction was already well advanced before this ruling.

It fell to Justice Antonin Scalia to say what needed to be said. While chiding the court for reversing itself in a Georgia sodomy case (Bowers vs. Hardwick) only 17 years ago, Scalia took the majority's arguments and turned them back. He noted that if the logic for reversal was applied to Roe, then Roe would also fall.

He said that the majority believe a case should be overturned if "(1) its foundations have been 'eroded' by subsequent decisions, (2) it has been subject to 'substantial and continuing criticism', and (3) it has not induced 'individual or societal reliance' that counsels against overturning. The problem is that Roe itself - which today's majority surely has no disposition to overrule - satisfies these conditions to at least the same degree as Bowers."

Then Scalia gets to the heart of it: "Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is 'immoral and unacceptable' constitutes a rational basis for regulation."

No wonder Kennedy wants to ignore history and appeals only to the last 50 years for his constitutionally twisted and morally specious rationale. Scalia declared the end to "all morals legislation. If the court asserts that the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws (prohibiting fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity) can survive rational basis-review."

This ruling and similar court usurpations of lawmaking power from the people's representatives will, and should, be a major theme in the coming election campaign. We know where the Democratic presidential candidates stand, as well as most Democratic members of Congress. Where do Republicans stand, and will President Bush make this an issue, as he should?

[mrustow]

If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right.

If Justices already disregard the Constitution, and we go through the ordeal of passing "Amendments" which merely repeat what the Constitution already says, the Justices will simply repeat themselves and disregard the "Amendments," as well.

[ModelBreaker]

If the right to privacy is a natural right as you imply then the proper procedure under our system is to ammend the Constution to make this right an explicit legal right. To act as the Supreme Court did under Lawrence is usurp powers reserved for State Legilatures under the Constitution.

Well said. If, as I suspect, agitator is a natural-rights libertarian, this argument will have no effect. Like liberals, they believe the constitution implements their agenda regardless of the text or history of the constitution. If I am wrong, my apologies in advance to agitator.

[colorado tanker]

Cal gets it.

[ggekko]

"The government calls talk like yours "specious legal theories."

Three of the Justices in the Lawrence eseentially agreed with my position. In truth, I am more less paraphrasing the substance of Justice Scalia's dissent.

Strict Constructionism is a foundational legal doctrine that is supported by a number of legal theorists such as Notre Dame's Douglas Kmiec and other prominent scholars; it is based upon the notion Natural Law as articulated repeatedly by the founding fathers. It is at this time a minority position in the legal profession but it is growing in importance. I am not willing to throw in the towel just because many Jurists are mired in Oliver Wendell Holmes' Legal Positivism.

Positivist Law has been enshrined in a number of foreign jusridictions and nowhere more universally than in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The Germans under the Nazis were among the most scrupulously law abiding people on the face of the earth. Every single act performed under Nazi rule was legal under the German code including the death camps. The Soviet psychiatric gulags created under the cover of similar legal punctiliousness.

Regardless of one's position on Constitutional interpretation no issue will be settled when a controversial matter is disposed of by legal fiat. The convoluted legal reasoning evidenced in Lawrence is indicative of the fact that almost any reasonable reading of the Constitution is incompatible with post-modernist ethical constructs. This may surpise you but most be people would be astonished and appalled to learn that the Constition has been summarily abolished in favor of the ethical relativism, anti-nomianism and totalitarian diversity doctrines as embodied in the Lawrence decision.

[Junior]

Amen. It scares me when conservatives disparage the right to privacy ... as if they'd enjoy the government poking around in their business.

[aristeides]

Limon involves the homosexual sodomization of a 14-year-old boy.

[aristeides]

If the Justices proceed to ignore or mangle a new amendment, then it will be time to pass an amendment taking power away from them (e.g., allowing the Congress to overrule them.)

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

We the People need to assert our authority. Impeach the U.S. Supreme Court!

I'm with you. Just tell me how!

[Nix 2]

Odd that you will recognize the Bible as the *authority* for moral law, and I agree with you and Cal 100 per, but have you, any of you, thought beyond religion and realized that the fascists in this country have been wanting to destroy our economy any way it could? With this ruling, the Supreme Court has made it eminently possible and probable that this country could be bankrupted within very few years if this agenda succeeds to the point it is trying to.

1. First, gay marriage. It would certainly coax men who are now gainfully employed to quit to become *homemakers.* Off the taxpaying rolls and onto the deduction rolls. Eventually they will collect their spouses' Social Security Benefits, which will unbalance an already precarious program that is failing rapidly, to its doom. Busted, broke.
Medical insurance would have to be extended to *spouses* by companies who still provide insurance benefits, therefore, costs would pass the possible and those benefits would be cut off sending people to Medicare.
From the Federal Government to the smallest Village Government, gay marriage would exact a toll so costly that recovery would be barely possible.
2. Adoption by gay couples could hardly be refuted since the Court has decided they are so worthy of respect. More SS money, more tax deductions. More medical services.

3. After gay marriage, can polygamy help but follow? What will THAT do to taxes and an economic system that is built on the one male and one female description of marriage since this country's founding?

4. Incest can and will have to be accepted and *normalized* by marriage. We will have to *respect* them as well. Retarded children require special care which we will all pay for.

5. The age of consent in most states is different. In some states it is as young as 12 for girls, 13 for boys. If these children are then considered consenting adults, pedophilia can no longer be called what it is in the privacy of the bedroom, which is perversion.

There is so much more if you follow the logic. The idea is to murder morality and this country at the same time.
All in all, you will have constituencies for every nutty psychologist's fantasies in the world. Then what? We have been incredibly had and should fight this on any grounds we can.

[mikeb704]

America: Still a work in progress

[roderick]

Anarchy stinks.

[dark_lord]

You make a number of good points, however I don't think we have to worry too much about this one: After gay marriage, can polygamy help but follow? What will THAT do to taxes and an economic system that is built on the one male and one female description of marriage since this country's founding?

1st, very, very, very, very few women have any enthusiasm for polygamy. As far as I am concerned I could care less if it was legal, but I think very few would do it if it were legal.

2nd, if one guy supported 2 or 3 or 4 women, then they have to share that one single SS payment when he retires. That reduces the SS payout.

[Nix 2]

With wives AND seperate payments for each child...or did you forget that polygamous marriages increase the number of children in a family?

[dark_lord]

Not exactly. The specific details on kids increasing SS payments are:

When you retire, your eligible dependent children can receive benefits. To be eligible, your child(ren) must be

• under 18,
• still in high school and under 19, or
• disabled before age 22.

Eligible children receive 50 percent of your PIA up to the family maximum.

There are some more details on what happens if you die, and so on, but the bottom line is that regardless of how many kids there are, the payments don't exceed the "family maximum" -- and that is not a big number.

[rudypoot]

"It is a compelling state interest that we ignore the Constitution." - US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Communist

[unixfox]

But the end of the Constitution has arrived.

Good, then it's time for all good men to come to the aid of their country and take it back.

REVOLUTION !!

[Nix 2]

If you turn 62 or become disabled or die before 1979, your PIA is based on your average monthly earnings. It is determined from the table that was in the Social Security Act as of December 31, 1978, and increased by cost-of-living increases. A table of family maximums that is associated with special minimum PIA's is published in the Federal Register after each increase.

It is determined from the table that was in the Social Security Act as of December 31, 1978, and increased by cost-of-living increases. A table of family maximums that is associated with special minimum PIA's is published in the Federal Register after each increase.

A table of family maximums that is associated with special minimum PIA's is published in the Federal Register after each increase.

after each increase.

[agitator]

I tuned back in late so I'll just do a mass reply. The phrase "manufactured right of..." would best be applied to the word "authority," not "privacy." I really could care less what two people do in a private home; what they do in the bushes of a roadside rest area is entirely another matter. In any event, and as unpopular as it may seem to some, the issue at hand like the issue of abortion is properly in the domain of the states, not the federal govt.

What the reference to "anarchy" was about in one of the comments I don't know but my defense of the 9th Amendment stands :)

[Mike4Freedom]

Can anyone explain to a libertarian why simply ignoring two gay people having sex in private is so terrible, but no one has time to worry about US citizens held prisoner without any charge, trial or anything resembling due process. That is the unbearable violation of the constitution that has to be challenged.

When we have all the due process violations that are imprisoning innocent people and allowing forfeiture and on and on, taken care of, then maybe we can take the time to debate this issue. Right now, it pales into insignificance.