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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
Show me where in the Constitution your right to marry and raise children can be found.
"Ninth Amendment -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
160 -LG-
There ya go luis, now it makes sense.
LOL!
Hey, Mr. Constitutional Expert, the USSC is a branch of the federal government!
If you don't feel stupid, you ought to.
The best thing about this thread is that your hero, Ron Paul, says you are a tin-plated idiot. You're 180 degrees out from Rep. Paul. If he's conservative, and you're 180 degreees out, that makes you . . . . .
Well, we've long known about your anarcho-marxist Gramscian tendencies.
I guess Ron Paul finds things in the penumbra, yet he gives crap to others for finding stuff there as well.
Are you daft? I simply restated the 9th and 10th amendments. The feds have the powers specifed in the constitution -- no more. The states retain all other powers unless the constitution prohibits them from retaining them. No where does it say the feds have any say-so over acts of sodomy. The states do, since it is not forbidden to them to regulate that activity. What's your problem with that interpretation?
Get it now?
Now, please answer my question.
Where in the Constitution can State's rights be found?
That's your OPINION. That may even be my opinion, but that is not what is in the constitution. States have that power (or at least had it until the USSC Lawrence v. Texas ruling) and that is where the fight to remove those laws should occur. If you disagree with such a law on the books in your state, then you need to get your state legislators to alter or abolish it. You should not get the U.S. Supreme Court to issue new legislation abolishing it by dictat. They should not have that power.
I'll take a shot. State's don't have rights. They have, through their legislature and executive branches, delegated authorities. These are specific and enumerated.
The notion of rights is quite simple. We the people have rights, not civil rights, not constitutional rights, not enumerated rights, but rights. That's it.
They aren't defined by government but rather despite it. Government, on the other hand, has limitations defined by us. This delegation of authority is the key to understanding rights but it is lost on most Americans due to apathy, lack of understanding, or both.
Thank you.
Paul's entire article is based on a false premise.
My view is that the Lawrence decision was an unconstitutional overreach of federal powers into an area of states' rights (in fact just 15 years ago this same Supreme Court agreed with me). A fundamental bedrock of federalism is that there are areas where, even though the activity may be repugnant, the federal government is restrained from making laws to prohibit it. That is left to the states. I understand the concept of Lawrence -- I just disagree with it, as I disagree with the USSC Roe v. Wade decision that there is a "right to privacy" that allows a woman to have an abortion.
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.