We need to keep our focus on marriage, and rebuke the SCOTUS with an Amendment to the Constitution.
Posted on 07/03/2003 12:09:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
There's a rising chorus of anger across the land in response to three U.S. Supreme Court decisions within a week that strip the people of their power, eviscerate the rule of law and illegitimately empower nine unaccountable high priests in black robes.
In the first case, in a 5-4 ruling, the justices found the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause really doesn't mean what it says. They found there is a compelling state interest to discriminate on the basis of race to promote a more diverse society.
The court ruled that so-called "affirmative action" programs in colleges and universities that show racial preferences for the purpose of achieving the nebulous goal of "diversity" are perfectly appropriate.
Back in the 1960s, the civil-rights movement opposed racism. But, most of all, it opposed "institutionalized racism" – the pernicious kind sponsored by states and corporations and cultural institutions. This was seen, rightly so, as the most insidious form of racism.
Today, through decisions like this by the Supreme Court, the U.S. is re-institutionalizing racism that has been largely destroyed through the good efforts of those striving to achieve a color-blind society.
The next blockbuster ruling was the 6-3 vote determining, for all intents and purposes, that the Constitution contains a hidden right to practice homosexual sex.
Of course, if there is a constitutional right to have homosexual sex, how can one deny there is a constitutional right to group sex? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to consensual incest? How can one deny there is a right to have sex with animals? How can one deny there is a constitutional right to polygamy?
You can't. There is no difference. And that's why there is no constitutional right to homosexual sex – or any other kind of sex for that matter. The word sex doesn't appear in the Constitution. It is a subject not addressed – which is, under the Constitution, precisely why it is a matter left to the various states.
This opinion bears striking resemblance to an earlier court decision still hotly debated 30 years later – Roe v. Wade. There, too, the justices acted as super-legislators rather than slaves of the Constitution.
As Justice Antonin Scalia explained it, the court "has taken sides in the culture war." He added, "The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
Homosexual marriage? Homosexual adoption? How can the court say no? It's just a matter of time before all state laws prohibiting them are struck down using the same logic – or illogic – used by the current court.
The third ruling that demonstrates the hyper-activism of the Supreme Court majority was a much-less-noticed 5-4 decision to overturn a California law and free hundreds of confessed and convicted child molesters in California.
The court found the state had violated the Constitution's ban on ex post facto – after the fact – laws when the Legislature changed the time limit for bringing criminal charges in child sex-abuse cases to cover older cases.
As a result, hundreds of molesters have been or will be released from jails and prisons across the state. The cases all involve not just allegations of abuse, but strong corroborating evidence, which was required under the 1994 law struck down by the high court.
Americans had better rise up angry against this court or we as a nation will cease to have anything even remotely resembling a representative form of government. It's not enough to wait years for new justices to be appointed. At least five, perhaps six, members of the court have proved they are out of control, unaccountable to the Constitution from which they derive their limited authority. They are in clear violation of the oaths they took to their offices.
It's time to impeach them. It's time to put some heat on those abusing their power – and let's name names: Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens. Anthony Kennedy sometimes goes along for the ride.
These people have to go.
It's time to challenge the authority of the majority with an impeachment movement.
Will it happen overnight? Absolutely not. No great movements ever do. But it will only happen if Americans stand up and demand it. Even if the movement fails to achieve its objectives, it will set a different tone for the appointment of future justices who will know there is a political price to pay for undermining the Constitution.
Thm. Jefferson, while president, tried this very thing with Justic Samuel Chase of the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Marshall clearly in the cross hairs. Thank God Jefferson failed...to his towering fury, I might add.
Jefferson and the rest of the Republican/Jeffersonians felt that the SC had no business deciding on and/or over turning laws passed by the (Republican/Jeffersonian) congress who claimed they spoke for "the People".
The role of the SC was to be, in their view, essentially to serve at the pleasure, and for the purpose, of the party in power- namely the Republican/Jeffersonians who felt that with the manipulation(s) of the SC they would maintain a lock on power; as they probably would have for several elections, if not longer.
Mercifully, when it came to a vote the sense decency, statesmanship, and of duty called forth "the better Angel of our nature" in enough members of Congress, including a surprisingly large number of Republican/Jeffersonians, to defeat the measure of impeachment against Samuel Chase...and any other Justice, at any other time.
So why was no amendment passed? Oh, several reasons, I expect. The shame a lot of the members of Congress felt about getting tangle up in this mess ("Damn your conscience! Vote with your party!"); the sullen fury of Jeffereson who most certainly would have pushed for an amendment if he thought he had even a ghost of a chance; the mounting troubles with Britian; the trouble brewing out West, etc.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
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."
This crisis has arisen not because the Justices of the Supreme Court are or are not impeached.
It has arisen because of the repeated failure of Congress to make proper exceptions to, and regulation of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as they are charged to do by Art. III, s. 2.
A Congress so weak as to fail in its written duty to make exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS consider the much more radical, and much less well-documented, step of impeachment and removal of one or several justices.
We need to keep our focus on marriage, and rebuke the SCOTUS with an Amendment to the Constitution.
It has arisen because of the repeated failure of Congress to make proper exceptions to, and regulation of, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, as they are charged to do by Art. III, s. 2.
A Congress so weak as to fail in its written duty to make exceptions to and regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Court will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS consider the much more radical, and much less well-documented, step of impeachment and removal of one or several justices.
======================
Amen! While morally reprehensible, short sighted, callous, and opportunistic, a SCOTUS Justice voting for "gay rights" is not an impeachable offense.
==========================================
Mr. Jefferson's near paranoid antipathy toward both the SCOTUS and the Federalist party in general is a well know albeit little mentioned facet of his being.
The above quote, read w/o this knowledge of Jefferson's character does indeed sound noble. However, considering Jefferson the man and politican, as opposed to Jefferson the historial liberal icon, his words take on altogether different shading.
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.