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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
That isn't a "states rights" argument.
Not just wrong, but very wrong.
Such "liberties" as prostitution and legal private sodomy came from the people of the states.
The people in the states also removed their state-supported religious establishments.
Jim Crow was the exception in the states' experimentations with liberty.
Strongly disagree with freedom of choice — 45.3%.
Now this surely wasn't good news for the pro-freedom movement back in the 1770s. 1/3 of Americans were pro-American/freedom, 1/3 were pro-British/continued oppression, 1/3 were fair-weather fans. Which side would you have been on?
Another reference paints a less bleak picture:
That wasn’t the case, as only 20% of the entire population of America supported the American Revolution.
If you can think of any counter-example...
There's no growth of liberty without experimentation. Some times the people get it wrong, but historically Americans have done pretty well seeking liberty in their states.
Tell that to the blacks down south who were shut out of the voting booth and their communities all the way into the 60s.
How many southern states voluntarily conveyed voting rights and and eliminated legal segregation prior to the 60s?
Too bad you don't approve.
Maybe you can get the federal government to put an end to the rights of states to do such things.
"A great lawyer of the [Puritan] period, Sir Edward Coke, made it a maxim that the common law was the embodiment of reason; -- it followed that judges must not only give reasons for their decisions, but must use reason to iron out the kinks created by bad cases….
"Nature is the twin of reason in that both are given: man is the reasoning animal by nature, and nature is what man finds ready-made to be reasoned about. It acts apart from his will and wishes.
Natural law and natural rights seem plain when one argues about fundamentals;
for instance, that every human being has a right to live unmolested, that government is needed to ensure that right, and that man-made laws must serve and not defeat natural rights.
If any civil law does work against a natural right, the law of nature warrants disobeying the law and even overthrowing the government."
"These reasonings are familiar to those who remember the preamble to the Declaration of Independence…."
Have we been transported to some sort of strange parallel universe? Here I am on a libertarian Ron Paul thread, where he and the libertarians are claiming that the state has a right to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, I'm arguing to libertarians that the state has no authority to regulate my bedroom, AND you and I are in agreement?
I haven't had a drink in days! What's going on here?
What in the blazes is going on? I'd surely like to know before tpaine and I go out for coffee?
I think you are under the mistaken impression that libertarians are pro-deviance. Given the smearing of us here on FR, this is not surprising. Most libertarians simply wish that we would follow the Constitution when governing. In my humble opinion, and I realize tpaine and I disagree on this one, the seperation of federal and state government takes precident over a "right to privacy".
Good point! This is more than just a recent trend. ;-)
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.