Posted on 08/11/2003 11:45:05 AM PDT by jmc813
It’s been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From “gay rights” to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.
The practice of judicial activism- legislating from the bench- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts’ presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law”- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.
These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.
The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.
Or how about the State of New Jersey having the right to punish the BSA for not allowing homosexual Scout masters?
LOL. See post 25.
How've you been? ;-)
In this case he is defending the one great shining success of the Anti-federalists: the Bill of Rights, and specifically those two restrictions on the federal government that survived the Fourteenth amendment.
There are obviously a very few loud jackboot libertarians around FR who advocate the use of government force to impose libertarian ideals upon an unwilling populace, but most FR libertarians are modern day Anti-federalists like Ron Paul.
The trouble is the vagueness of the term and the trouble it would be to accurately define it.
More dodging. "Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right.
There have been countless examples of such confusion floating around FR since the Lawrence decision.
Another generalization, an attempt to dodge the issue.
Furthermore, the Lawrence case in reality had nothing to do with privacy whatsoever, as there was no mechanism in the anti-sodomy law allowing for breaches of privacy via enforcement.
Sheer denial of the circumstances. More doding of the issue.
Does THAT answer your question?
You didn't answer.
What is your constitutional basis in objecting to our right to privacy?
I'm not dogdging $hit.
"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of criminal law], is a basic right.
Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above. However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law. Do I think state sodomy laws are stupid? Yes. Do I want to go down the road of having the supreme court legislate state laws? No.
I see, so you say that they have the right to engage in these acts, but refuse to say whether you actually approve or disapprove of those acts, thus leaving open the possibility that you can disapprove of what you say they have a right to do.
That perfectly illustrates my point, namely: Saying that a person (or a state) has a right to do something is not the same as actually approving of it.
Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above.
Yet you contradict yourself in your next sentence.
However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law.
How so?
Because there was a Texas criminal law against it.
I see, so you say that they have the right to engage in these acts, but refuse to say whether you actually approve or disapprove of those acts, thus leaving open the possibility that you can disapprove of what you say they have a right to do.
My personal disgust of their acts does not stop me from defending their rights.
That perfectly illustrates my point, namely: Saying that a person (or a state) has a right to do something is not the same as actually approving of it.
Not at all.
The state is attempting to criminalize the disgusting acts, without reason. No level of government has the power to jail anyone for a non-violent private consensual act, -- lest 'they' next decide, arbitrarily, that my acts are 'disgusting'.
The state must show proof of a compelling reason to infringe upon our liberty.
Therein lies the problem right there. I have no problem with what you mention above.
Yet you contradict yourself in your next sentence.
However, in this case, sodomy WAS NOT within the bounds of criminal law.
How so?
Because there was a Texas criminal law against it.
You are using circular logic .
The issue at hand is that the Texas criminal law was unconstitutional.
- Thus, you DO have a 'problem' with what I mentioned above.
IE, that:
"Privacy' is a simple word for a simple concept. Being left alone in a private home to do as you please [within the bounds of {constitutional} criminal law], is a basic right."
Well said. My state's sodomy law was overturned in this fiasco as well, contrary to the Tenth Amendment
There is a difference between supporting a law and opposing a SCOTUS ruling striking down the law. For example, if New York decided to lower their maximum speed limit to 45 MPH, it would restrict my liberty (to drive a safe but reasonably fast speed) and I would oppose the law, but I would not support striking it down on Constitutional grounds.
I, & many others, [and I bet Ron Paul] opposed the Feds 55 MPH limit on constituutional grounds. Why not?
Clearly it is not the job of the Federal government to set state speed limits by judicial fiat. I feel similarly about sodomy laws.
The USSC, [not the 'Fed-Gov'] is setting constitutional limits on a states powers to violate individual rights. That's their job.
We can disagree about whether the SCOTUS should strike down sodomy laws based on a right to privacy, but I (and Ron Paul) still oppose the sodomy laws. If Ron Paul were in the Texas government, I have no doubt he would be one of the biggest opponents of the law.
Yep. That's exactly what makes his position so strange & illogical.
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.