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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
Wrong. You quoted his indication that Texas has a right to pass its law, which as I carefully explained to you, is not an expression of approval.
Once again: Saying that a person or a state has a right to do A is not the same as approving of A.
Sounds good to me.
"...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.
ALL men, homosexual or heterosexual, were prohibited from receiving anal sex, ALL women of both orientations were permitted.
There is no problem subjecting Ninth Amendment rights to the tests of the Fourteenth.
The Fourteenth says nothing about what these privileges etc are, but the Ninth says they are retained by the people- and that is where the court must look to for their definitions.
Once defined, the court can test them by the Fourteenth. But if the court just makes up it's own definitions it can always define them in a way that will give them cause to act as they wish. That is no rule of law at all.
In Griswold and in Bowens the court looked to the record of the people, as the Ninth requires, to tell what the unenumerated right is. That is how they had decided all questions of rights- even the enumerated ones when it wasn't clear.
The striking aspect of Lawrence was the total disregard for the Ninth amendment. Their dicta basically said "we don't care what rights the people have had or that they think they have", going so far as to cite European rulings for the court's new definition of liberty.
It seems they have finally given up trying to incorporate the Ninth into the Fourteenth, and have decided to ignore it. But an honest examination of the record to see the rights retained by us, including the majoritarian ones, solves all these questions of privileges and immunities.
Of course, getting answers from the people instead of from law-school theories doesn't offer much opportunity for aggrandizement.
What if illegal drugs are involved?
Not that I expect an answer, but do you agree with the general gist of this article?
Despair helps no one. Don't give in. There's no reason to.
That's not true at all, you don't even know the law, do you?
Texas statutes defined sodomy as "deviant sexual intercourse", sodomy being defined as any contact between one person's anal/oral cavity, and another person's genitalia.
What was prohibited was same-sex couples engaging in deviant sexual intercourse.
Your argument was debunked many, many times...including by the Supreme Court, only homosexual individuals would engage in same-sex sodomy, so the law as written was a targeted law.
To illustrate just how ridiculous your spin of the Texas law is, imagine that in Texas, the legislature decides to make participating in or conducting Jewish religious rituals illegal, and their argument to avoid the anti-semitic charges is that the law is equal for everyone, because it makes performing or engaging in Jewish religious rituals illegal not only for Jews, but for Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and all other denominations as well.
The idea that only those rights listed in the Constitution are the only rights we have is the very thing that you are arguing against here.
Try a good twelve steps program, will you?
Yeah, it's "targeted" towards those who would be inclined to break it, as are all laws.
Laws are not targeted at anything other than an act. Obviously, Texans don't have a problem with sodomy, they made it legal for 97% of the population.
Laws do not target anyone, they apply equally to all. It does not matter what your sex, race, age, social status, religion, nationality, or whatever ckassification you may find, murder laws apply to you if you commit murder.
And same-sex sodomy laws apply to you if you commit same-sex sodomy.
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.