Posted on 07/03/2003 10:37:53 AM PDT by chance33_98
Constitution Party Denounces Pro-Sodomy Court Decision, Seeks Impeachments
To: National Desk
Contact: Constitution Party, 717-390-1993, e-mail: press@constitutionparty.com Web: http://www.constitutionparty.com
WASHINGTON, July 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Constitution Party is the first national political party to denounce the recent Supreme Court ruling that refused to uphold a Texas law that imposed criminal penalties upon homosexual sodomy. In light of that, the Constitution Party has also called for Congress to draw up articles of impeachment against Justices Kennedy, O'Conner, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens, the six justices that refused to uphold the Texas law.
"This ruling is an affront to the very foundation of United States Constitution. It also shows blatant disregard for the people of various states and the laws their representatives have lawfully enacted. Those members of the court who have so brazenly exercised illicit judicial authority should have to face the consequences of their actions which are violations of the Constitution, something they took an oath to uphold." said James N. Clymer, chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee.
"The constitutional problem with the ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court willfully chose to interfere in areas of State jurisdiction that the Constitution does not allow it to," Clymer elaborated. "The 10th Amendment is very clear that unless the Constitution specifically delegates authority over something to the federal government, it has no authority over it since all other powers are reserved to the States and to the people. In other words, if a state is exercising a power reserved to it, like defining, establishing and applying its own laws pertaining to criminal justice, then the federal courts are supposed to maintain a hands off attitude and uphold the State's right to do so."
"This court, however, deliberately chose to take upon itself the role of an activist court, by strongly interfering in the affairs of an individual state, and, consequently showed gross disregard for the exercised will of the people of Texas whose elected representatives passed this law to begin with," Clymer continued. "This ruling is not only a blatant violation of the Constitution, it is a dangerous precedent as well."
Clymer went on to contend that it is now Congress's duty to draw up articles of impeachment against the justices who refused to uphold the laws of Texas in their appellate decision.
"Justices like these who are so quick and willing to ignore the very document that they are sworn to uphold, have no business presiding in a courtroom anywhere, even less serve on the Supreme Court level. In this case, they have demonstrated once and for all that they have no regard for the rule of law and the Constitution itself," Clymer said.
"Contrary to popular belief, the justices of the Supreme Court do not have life tenure", Clymer explained. "Instead, the Constitution states that they are to serve "during good behavior," and this ruling is a prime example of what truly bad judicial behavior is. The intent of that constitutional provision was so that we could be assured that judges would maintain fidelity to the Constitution, the law and the highest of ethical standards during the conduct of their work. Their failure to do so is supposed to disqualify them from continued service on the bench, and Congress has the duty to see that this requirement is enforced, if those principles are seriously violated, through the mechanism of impeachment."
The Constitution Party is the nation's third largest political party in terms of actual voter registration. Known for its strong stand on moral, economic and constitutional issues, the Constitution Party is focused on restoring government back to its vital, yet limited, constitutionally defined role. The Party's strong advocacy of less government spending, regulation, control and taxes coupled with its expressed commitment to the protection of life, liberty, and property is finding growing popular support nationwide.
You are right, but I still feel compelled to fight the good fight and point out obvious flaws when I see them.
Trace
Thank you. I was hoping for the ladies from the neighborhood WELCOME WAGON. But . . . uh . . . good enough . . .
At least I wuzn't flamed out!
You know you're right Trace. Erskine is different. He actually stood for something. Well that and the fact that he lived in North Carolina for a time instead of Giddy's carpetbagging ways after 30 years. Mind you I don't like what he stood for but at least he did stand for something
And Trace FYI, I don't consider anyone a conservative that agreed with John Edwards on a judicial nomination, I don't care that Allyson Duncan was from our state. If Ambulance Boy agreed to put her on, she's no conservative. But heck, maybe that's why Giddy agreed to do it to
Very good, counselor.
BTW, our friend L,TOMW posted the Constitution Party platform earlier, but the thread was pulled.
It was up long enough to demonstrate that the Constitution Party is, indeed, the Christian Party of the United States, and proud of it.
There was no Judaeo to be found.
ROTFLMAO ! Sounds like you know us pretty well !
Now, as to Constamatooshin Party members, they believe in absolute freedom for white, anglo saxon, aggressively evangelical fundamentalist Christian misogynist white men who find sex gross, and who tend to think prohibition wasn't given a good enough chance. Everybody else just has to accept that or leave the country. They tend to spend a lot of time at the cardiologist getting checked out for high blood pressure.
Sounds a little harsh. They generally do tend to be fundamentalists, but the big issue Libertarians would have with them is their using scripture as the guide to making laws. They honestly feel "legislating morality", by which they mean fundamentalist Christian morality, is the proper purview of government.
Don't take that as a slam on fundamentalists. We've got not just a few in the LP, who believe a free (aka libertarian) society will best allow them to follow and practice their beliefs.
It's fun to watch a fundamentalist Christian, a doper, a businessman, a homemaker, a computer programmer, a biker and a retired prostitute all arguing for the same thing, but disagreeing as to how many tax collectors can dance on the head of a pin - as you describe above.
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.