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 They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case.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.
The Libertarian Party supports:
Same sex (whatever sex) unions
The right for a child to declare himself an adult at any age
Elimination of ALL drug laws (even for minors)
Not all Libertarians support those items. As for same-sex unions...it isn't something I personally favor, but why should I care? I do believe that the Supreme Court overstepped it's boundries on the sodomy issue (which was a States-Rights issue). On the other hand, why should I care. It's their lives and so long as it isn't affecting me...
As far as a child declaring themselves adults at any age, that's ridiculous. I've never read that in ANY libertarian writings. What is your source? Truly personal responsibility cannot happen until adulthood.
As far as legalizing drugs is concerned, I'm definitely in favor of that because the so-called War on Drugs is a dismal failure. If individual parents put as much effort into educating and communicating to their children the evils of drug abuse as the Federal Government, we wouldn't have a drug problem. Drugs and alcohol will always be a problem for some people. If they want to piss away their lives and ruin their brains, they'll do it whether legal or illegal.
That may be accurate, though drugs still flow into this country despite the huge expense of combating them. The only thing the drug war as done is: 1) Create a huge bureaucracy; 2) Put many non-violent offenders into prision (which shortens the term of the truly violent offenders; 3) Cost a LOT of money with little gain.
The only thing that will work in fighting the War is parents talking to their kids about drugs, showing them the evil of drug usage, and nurturing them so they don't need an escape.
What I'm most irate about is the tax rebate for people that don't pay taxes. That's an entitlement. As for the Medicare bill...that's a lost cause because boomers are retiring and have the voting power. There's little we can do about it. The Education bill is a joke as well. Many private schools get less money per student, but their students actually LEARN. Private education is superior because there's competition for the tuition. Public schools have zero competition and most fail horribly.
I'm just fed up. If the GOP doesn't start acting like the conservative force I've continually supported for the past 19 years at the polls, I'm bailing out...or I'll vote independent. Enough is enough already!
Then explain these words. Ron Paul writes:
"-- 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."
You left out the first words of the sentence:
"Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."
Yep, because Pauls belief they are ridiculous does not alter his support for them, a strange & illogical position, imo.
Ron Paul is a strict constructionist, and, though he is totally opposed to sodomy laws, he interperts the Constitution in a conservative, literal way. He doesn't find new rights in the Constitution that weren't written into it (as important as those right may be), and so his is probably the safest way to interpert the Constitution.
Life, liberty & property rights cover a lot of unenumerated ground, to me. The 'strict constructionists' notion that privacy rights are somehow 'new' is just a dodge to cover their moral opposition to abortion.
Remember that the same type of justice who finds new rights not expressly written in the Constitution (ie. Anthony Kennedy or David Souter)
They aren't finding new rights. The courts are being forced to enumerate formerly unenumerated rights that are being violated.
IE- That a mans home is his refuge from the arbitrary regulations of public society has long been a part of common law.
(ie. Anthony Kennedy or David Souter) is also likely to disregard others which are such as the right to keep and bear arms.
Actually, they are backing themselves into a logical corner with their comments about 'compelling interest'.
CA, for instance, can show no compelling interest to ban phony 'assault weapons'. Thus, that law will be struck down on 14th amendment grounds.
It's absolutely no more strange and illogical than people who say that homosexuality is an abomination, but should be legal.
I think the Klan is an abomination, but will fight to the death for their right to exist.
To some degree they do, until our behavior infringes on the rights of others and needs regulating. But that is a difficult discussion to have because the "line" is defined differently by every air-breather in this forum.
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.