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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
Being male doesn't change the nature of the offense of murder. Being of the same gender, on the other hand, most certainly does change the nature of sexual deviancy (seeing as how it defeats the whole point of the word "sex") - just as being in the same family changes the nature of sexual deviancy.
In your eyes perhaps, the Founders didn't see it that way, they condemned all sodomy, all fornication. Up until 1973 Texas found all sodomy unacceptable, then they decided that the majority wanted to enjoy deviant behavior...what happened in 1973 that this specific deviance became acceptable for most?
Nothing other than the majority decided to decriminalize the act for themselves.
Inequity in the law.
But you want to change the nature of sodomy and make it less deviant for yourself.
And as soon as you can find the section in the Constitution that says that all our laws must be exactly as the Founders wrote them, you're home free. Otherwise, you're left without any meaningful explanation as to why the Texas law is unconstitutional. "Discrimination" doesn't cut it, as all law discriminates in some form or another - for example, laws against siblings engaging in sexual intercourse, despite the fact that everyone else is allowed to do it.
No, I want states to be able to decide these matters for themselves, without the courts making up ever more arcane legal theories to force down their throats.
The States do not have the power to vioate the people's rights at a whim. That's what Texas did.
The US Supreme Court os the correct place to raise the question of a State violating fundamental laws.
It violated the equal protection under the law clause.
Incest involves a third party...the possible issue of the relationship. That third party may suffer physically from the union of siblings by way of birth defects. There is ample proof of the negative impact that incestuous breeding can bring.
In some States, cousins may marry ONLY if they can prove that they are unable to bear children.
Not true, unless you are limiting the definition of incest to siblings or parent/child relations, which the law does not do.
This is not a great site, but it has the most comprehensive State-by-State listing of incest laws.
Not the same thing, incest laws exist to stop the possible creation of genetically defective offspring.
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.