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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
Marbury V. Madison says that rights are protected, or did I miss something?
The STATE has the right to regulate actions that affect society. Are you insinuating that sodomy has no detrimental effects on society or the health system??? Are taxpayers NOT paying billions of dollars because of homosexual acts??? done in the "privacy" of their homes(not just in public restrooms and parks)???
Perhaps you and your sex gestapo should just outlaw sex completely. We could always put cameras in everyones home to make sure they don't engage in nasty "sex".
The problem is that of the welfare state (communism) which makes the taxpayers pay for the results of sodomy which costs billions. If people take risks with their behavior--THEY should have to pay the costs. Then we need no laws on the reckless behavior done on "private property".
No, it just reiterated the constitutions original intent, that we would have one "supreme Law of the Land", and that all states would be "bound therby".
It sure looks that way, but I don't think that was the intent.
The states are failing in their duty to check/balance federal power, and protect their citizens from federal abuse. This is a failure of our political systm, not one of our constitution.
Actually, I believe tpaine is claiming that Constitutional rights include both enumerated and unenumerated rights.
I don't disagree. I think that the 14th is maligned. The 9th is further grist for the mill. Do you agree that it's as simple as the Feds providing protection for rights; I do.
It's a matter of semantics that protects rights and that should scare everyone.
Tommy, don't be an ass. If you are going to debate the legalities of things, the learn to use the correct terminology. Constitutional rights are those rights listed in the Constitution, these are also known as enumerated rights; the rest of our rights by the very fact that they are not listed in the Constitution are unenumerated. The fact that they are not enumerated does not make them any less viable or valid, and to drive that point home, the Founders wrote the Ninth Amendment.
In this thread you are arguing with people who do not understand that we have rights beyond those rights enumerated in the Constitution, and until the moment that you make them understand that unenumerated rights are as real and inviolate as those enumerated in the Constitution, you will neve make any one of them see the points you are trying to make.
Here I am trying to help you make your point and you turn into an ass.
The correct phrase would be that fundamental rights include both Constitutional and unenumerated rights.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this issue. People want to take risks, then they should be held accountable by incurring the costs that may arise from risky behavior. Of course, insurance usually ends up drilling people for risky behavior, but the state should not incur any costs for risky behavior (i.e. drug usage, sodomy, etc.).
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
you: 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'.
Your response had absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Regardless of whether Paul's right or wrong in saying that the state has a right to pass these laws, his statement does not indicate that he approves of the passage of these laws.
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.