Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul - Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
House Web Site ^ | 8-11-2003 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: constitution; globalism; lawrencevtexas; ronpaul; ronpaullist; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last
To: xzins
"Do you think the state has the mandate to debate behaviors that could impact on others?"

Not when it's done in the privacy of my own home between two consenting adults...not at all. The state has no right to trample my Constitutional rights in that way.

21 posted on 08/11/2003 12:42:17 PM PDT by CWOJackson (The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Of course.

Would it be fair to assume that Mr. Paul also feels that Michigan should be able to write its own admissions standards for the University of Michigan?

22 posted on 08/11/2003 12:44:14 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (All roads lead to reality. That's why I smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Not when it's done in the privacy of my own home between two consenting adults...not at all. The state has no right to trample my Constitutional rights in that way.

If one was sitting in the privacy of their own home smoking a joint with a consenting adult and someone called a bogus report into the police causing them to break in and see you smoking, should they let you go?

23 posted on 08/11/2003 12:44:17 PM PDT by jmc813 (Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Would it be fair to assume that Mr. Paul also feels that Michigan should be able to write its own admissions standards for the University of Michigan?

Good question.

24 posted on 08/11/2003 12:45:17 PM PDT by jmc813 (Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
And would it be fair to assume that Mr. Paul also feels that New Jersey should be able to implement laws designed to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against gay scout leaders?
25 posted on 08/11/2003 12:48:50 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (All roads lead to reality. That's why I smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
If the University of Michigan were a private institution, most certainly they could set their own admission standards.
26 posted on 08/11/2003 12:49:46 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
So, if one of those 2 individuals has a new strain of totally anti-biotic immune syphilis, then you don't think that's a concern for the rest of us?
27 posted on 08/11/2003 12:50:07 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Once again, if the Boy Scouts are a private organisation, then they could prohibit anyone they want. Last I heard, the Boy Scouts were not a government funded entity.
28 posted on 08/11/2003 12:51:08 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What "if" a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's tail so much.
29 posted on 08/11/2003 12:51:17 PM PDT by CWOJackson (The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Once again, if the Boy Scouts are a private organisation, then they could prohibit anyone they want. Last I heard, the Boy Scouts were not a government funded entity.

Well, as I understand it, Mr. Paul is making a states' rights argument. He believes that, under our Constitutional system, the State of Texas should be permitted to determine for itself whether or not private acts of sodomy are legal or illegal within the State of Texas. Can he take that position and consistently argue that the State of New Jersey should not be entitled to decide for itself whether the Boy Scouts can or cannot discriminate against gay scout leaders?

30 posted on 08/11/2003 12:58:42 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (All roads lead to reality. That's why I smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235

Its been a pretty brutal summer for fiscal conservatives as well.

However, I hear the Republicans are doing Great!!!

I'll be honest here. I am so very fed up with the Republican party, I may end up voting Libertarian from here on in.

Reagan, who I voted for in 1984 (my first year voting), was great. I was hoping that Bush would keep that momentum.

In 1988 and 1992, I was active in politics and was elected precinct delegate...and I campaigned actively for George H.W. Bush. He let me down, both by raising taxes and his appointment of Justice Souter.

In 1996, I jumped on the "Contract with America" bandwagon and inevitably was let down (though they did provide a decent counter-balance to Commie Clinton).

Finally, in 2000 I voted straight ticket Republican again, hoping that if we had the White House and the House and Senate, we'd finally do something right. Bush goes ahead and increases spending on social programs, doesn't fight the left side of Congress on his judicial appointments, and doesn't cut taxes enough. I can't blame him for the Supreme Court, because he hasn't appointed anyone yet. If this is what the GOP has turned into...a moderate wing of the DemonRats, I'm finished with them.

31 posted on 08/11/2003 12:58:48 PM PDT by LiberalSlayer99 (Follow-Up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
Neither of which are under the Federal governments realm of responsiblity according to the Constitution.
32 posted on 08/11/2003 1:04:50 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Wrong, my friend.

It's a real case. The infected person was quarantined.

Besides, you dodged the question.

So, if one of those 2 individuals has a new strain of totally anti-biotic immune syphilis, then you don't think that's a concern for the rest of us?

33 posted on 08/11/2003 1:04:55 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"It's a real case. The infected person was quarantined."

If they were quarantined then they should be in a controlled environment, not in the privacy of their own home. What goes on inside the home between consenting adults is none of the state or Ron Paul's concern.

34 posted on 08/11/2003 1:07:25 PM PDT by CWOJackson (The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Neither of which are under the Federal governments realm of responsiblity according to the Constitution.

If that were the case, then both the Texas sodomy case and the New Jersey Boy Scout case were decided incorrectly by the U.S. Supreme Court and sodomy would still be illegal in Texas and the Boy Scouts would have to accept gay scout masters in New Jersey.

Right?

35 posted on 08/11/2003 1:14:04 PM PDT by Scenic Sounds (All roads lead to reality. That's why I smile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I guess that would also include the states' rights to ban smoking mj in the privacy of one's home?

My response is somewhat off-topic, but what the heck.

No, most Libertarians would support someone doing drugs...so long is it doesn't affect anyone else. For example, just as you can't drive drunk or show up to work drunk, you can't drive drunk or show up to work high. Face it the so-called War on Drugs is a dismal failure. My guess is that in the near future a state vote on legalizing marijuana would pass in a majority of states, just as sodomy would. Personally, I could care less if my neighbor engages in sodomy and smokes pot...so long as he isn't hurting anyone else with his behavior. I just don't want to know about it.

Of course, there are those of you that make the argument that the person will harm himself. People do things to harm themselves all the time. Smoking, drinking, sex w/o condoms, etc. When should the state regulate such behavior and when does it become personal responsibility? I'm of the opinion that government attempts to regulate personal responsibility intevitably fails.

Protect me from my neighbor that may try to steal from me or kill me, protect me from terrorists that may try to kill me, but do not try to protect me from myself. It's my life.

36 posted on 08/11/2003 1:16:37 PM PDT by LiberalSlayer99 (Follow-Up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
That is between you and your state.

The feds have no jurisdiction:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you can find a "right to privacy" in this then you can also find a right to a state funded abortion, you could also find seperation of church and state in the first, and you'll find that "the right of people to keep and bare arms" only applies to the National Guard.
37 posted on 08/11/2003 1:18:50 PM PDT by Dead Dog (There are no minority rights in a democracy. 51% get's 49%'s stuff.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Scenic Sounds
If that is what the State courts decided. It would depend on whether the State courts violated their own Constitutions in deciding as they did.

Just for clarification. I hold the view that the Boy Scouts should be able to hire, or deny hire to, anyone they want since they are a private organization. By the same token, they should recieve no public tax money. As for gay sex, as long as it is between consenting adults I couldn't care what they do in their bedrooms.

38 posted on 08/11/2003 1:20:02 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
You realize, of course, that your answer makes absolutely no sense. They were only quarantined after they were found to be a carrier of such a potentially harmful germ.

As long as disease can be passed via sexual contact, then what you do in your bedroom is not private business, and it SHOULD be debated and controlled.

Homosexuality, e.g., is an especially infectious behavior.

39 posted on 08/11/2003 1:23:00 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Sorry, but my Constitutional rights aren't subject to the dictates of the local bedroom police.
40 posted on 08/11/2003 1:24:06 PM PDT by CWOJackson (The World According to Garp isn't that bad when compared with The World According to Todd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-308 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson