Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution

House Web Site ^ | 8-11-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

[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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.

[FreedomCalls]

Texas actually created the right to sodomy for the majority of its citizens, and denied it to others based on the sexual make-up of the couple involved. Unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution is it unconstitutional? Texas can regulate sodomy as it pleases since it is a power not prohibited to it. It can't be an issue of "equal protection" as Texas makes laws for different people all the time. For instance, while a 20-year old can't drink, a 21-year old can. Why was it constitutional under Bowers v. Hardwick but unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas?

[Kevin Curry]

I'm more concerned with his Groucho-Marxist tendencies.

LOL! Very apt.

[Kevin Curry]

Luis believes there are more than two genders. That's why he is so confused.

[tpaine]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights (Constitutional rights), shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (unenumerated rights) retained by the people."
Get it now?

Now? -- Luis, I've never been confused on this issue. You seem to be confused about my alledged confusion. You're becoming very weird.

Now, please answer my question. Where in the Constitution can State's rights be found?

You asked that rhetotical question of Ron Paul just a few posts ago. Now you're pretending that I didn't respond to that post? As I said above, you're getting bizarro. Whats your point?

[tpaine]

"State's don't have rights."


Thank you.
Paul's entire article is based on a false premise.
-LG-

Luis belabors an obvious point which was made evident in the first group of posts to this article.

[tpaine]

Nitpicking word games make you happy, luis?

[tpaine]

Yep, up jumps the devil that drives 'states rights'. Abortion. - So it goes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Texas can regulate sodomy as it pleases"

Obviously not.

Texas cannot make the very same activity legal for some and not others.

"...while a 20-year old can't drink, a 21-year old can..."

ALL 20 year olds can't, ALL 21 year olds can. Not different at all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Using the correct definitions of words is not nit picking Tommy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are making the argument that Constitutional rights and unenumerated rights are the same...they are not.

[tpaine]

Don't talk to the inmates about their delusions unless the doctor and orderlies are present.
You may be encouraging even more dementia.

[nunya bidness]

You are making the argument that Constitutional rights and unenumerated rights are the same...they are not.

What is the distinction and what is the effect, benefit, result?

[tpaine]

You are making the argument that Constitutional rights and unenumerated rights are the same...they are not.
190

Why not?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The distinction is simple, constitutional/enumerated rights are part of the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, unenumerated are not.

You have a right to raise your kids in accordance to your religious beliefs, that right however, is not listed in the Constitution, so it falls under the Ninth Amendment's definition of rights retained by the people.

Benefit?

There is no way that every one of our rights could have possibly been listed in the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Enumerated means "listed", unenumerated rights are not listed in the Constitution.

[nunya bidness]

I agree. I was just wondering if you had made a distinction based on the difference.

Look up "fundamental rights" sometime in Black's and you will see an eyefull.

The courts do not favor individual rights in quite the same fashion that you and I do.

I believe the court (USSC) is moving in the right direction but Scalia's words should send shivers down every conservative's back. He actually believes that rights descend from the court. That's scary.

[tpaine]

So what? Is that your point?

[Luis Gonzalez]

My point is, and has been, that you and the other poster have been arguing about a point when your definition of the word you are arguing about is different than theirs.

First, settle on the definition of the phrase "constitutional rights".

[tpaine]

Constitutional rights are (reletively) clearly written out and should be almost indisputable. Unenumerated rights are more vague, are no where clearly written out, and their extent is up for debate.
196 -NF-


I give up...

But Luis, our resident FR expert on word games and their constitutional applications, may be able to help sort your gibberish from the chaff.