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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
I think that's quite clear. Morality was determined by the respective states by the state legislatures then and I don't have a problem with it continuing.
Presented, [in bold], for your consideration, BB.
The 'right to privacy' while not enumerated, can logically be infered, unless an irrational bias against liberty exists:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
They're not being deprived anything without due process now are they? As with any other crime, they are fully afforded their right to a trial by jury. I thought the definition of the Libertarian party was to return to a Constitutional government as established in 1789. However what you're arguing for is to return to said form of government without the binds of morality and faith that were not only generally accepted at the time but also woven into the law with such laws against sodomy
They're not being deprived anything without due process now are they? As with any other crime, they are fully afforded their right to a trial by jury.
And under the unconstitutional texas 'law' as it was written, they were guilty. So they appealed to the USSC and won.
Case closed, except for all the zealots shouting in outrage about non-existent violations of 'states rights'.
I thought the definition of the Libertarian party was to return to a Constitutional government as established in 1789. However what you're arguing for is to return to said form of government without the binds of morality and faith that were not only generally accepted at the time but also woven into the law with such laws against sodomy.
Show me the constitutional mandates about binding morality and faith into government.. None exist.
If they went to trial by a jury of their peers!! We have the same law here in NC and it withstood challenges for over 200 years. Except when it was written (during the lifetimes of the men who signed the Constitution) the penalty was death.
Sheesh, next you'll be telling me states don't have the right to pass laws against adultery (and yes I am proud to say we have one of those as well for over 200 years). If these laws were not Constitutional don't you think that the men who signed the Constitution would have said something about it?
Show me the constitutional mandates about binding morality and faith into government.. None exist.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State--Madison, Federalist45
Madison himself points out the states had the right under this new system to determine certain aspects and liberties of the citizens of that state.
Do you have the right to smoke crack in your own home? Do you have the right to distill your own alcohol? Do you have the right to set up a meth lab for your own personal use in your own home? Do you have the right to run a house of prostitution out of your home? Do you have the right to have sex with children in your bedroom?
There are lots of things you do in your bedroom that an individual state can make illegal.
My state has mandatory blood tests before getting married. That's almost the same thing if you presuppose no sex before marriage.
The ones the individual state CANNOT make illegal are enumerated in the constitution. Otherwise they can make illegal what they want. The things you do in your bedroom the federal government CAN make illegal are enumerated in the constitution. Otherwise they can't do anything about them. That's the difference between the two. The constitution tells the Federal government what it can do and that it should do no more. The constitution tells the state governments what it cannot do. It can do anything not forbidden to it.
So do you think what CWOJackson said is true or false?
I think my Constitutional rights do provide me privacy in my own home, privacy that no state has a right to infringe upon.
I think it's false, as there are quite a few "privacy" areas where the state has a right to intrude if the people of that state see fit to do so.
Where did Ron Paul find the words "States rights" in the Constitution?
"Ninth Amendment -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
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.