[Rush] Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges

Rush Is Right ^ | 2/25/04 | Rush

[tpaine]

The president of the United States, the most powerful man in the world we assume. We think. Do you know why we have to do this, according to the president? Do you know why we need a constitutional amendment to see to it that everybody understands and knows what marriage means? Do you know why?

Why? It's not just that. It's not just some people breaking the law.

It's that we're not enforcing the law!

We've already got law. But since nobody's willing to enforce it, we've got to put another law on the books, this time in the Constitution.

The president of the United States said, We've got rogue courts and activist judges who are legislating from the bench. Something is terribly wrong.

Now, you and I all know this is nothing new, and we all know this is terribly wrong. But for the most powerful man in the world to stand up and say, There's nothing we can do about activist judges legislating from the bench and rogue courts imposing their version of law and order on society? There's nothing we can do about it, folks. Nothing we can do.

There's nothing currently in the statutes that allows us to stop this. There's nothing we can do to stop these people from doing what they're doing. Instead, we're going to have to go amend the Constitution so they can't do it in this area. Okay, let's assume that we amend the Constitution and let's say that we get this Defense of Marriage Amendment -- and I'm all for it, don't misunderstand. I just think it's a crying, damned shame that we have to go this far. Pick any other institution that you want. Pick any other tradition in this country that you want and imagine this kind of thing happening to it. I just think it is absolutely outrageous for the most powerful -- and this is not a criticism of the president. Don't misunderstand here. I realize many of you may think I'm being critical. I'm not.

I'm...I'm...I'm... I feel totally powerless today. I feel more powerless than I have ever felt in my life. We've got the president of the United States, who himself is complaining about activist judges and rogue courts. We've got the president of the United States who is claiming that they are more powerful than the Constitution, that they are more powerful than existing statute, that they are more powerful than he is.

[tpaine]

You are supporting the concept that a super-majority can pass an amendment to modify our individual right to marriage into a collective, government approved licensed procedure?

Would you then support the concept that a future super-majority could pass an amendment to modify our individual RKBA's into a collective government approved licensed procedure?

I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitution.

[ravingnutter]

Congress has Constitutional authority to realign the courts....Then we can have the President nominate a new slate of judges to sit on the new courts.

I hope you are just trying to be funny...

The Democrats’ Big Plan - They don’t want to stop a few Bush judges. They want to stop them all.

Your plan would never work.

[jwalsh07]

Massachussets has properly and legally exerted their 10th amendment right, thus Article IV (full faith and credit clause) is now in force and creating a legal and constitutonal federal issue.

Bologna, the Constitution also guarantees a "republican form of government" to all of the states. Republican forms of government do not allow legislatures to break the law and courts to make the law. And that is exactly the path to homosexual "marriage" in Massachusetts.

[unixfox]

No man is above the law.

Uh, I think you forgot about X42. Not only was he above the law, he flaunted it.

[tpaine]

I would love to see a debate in Congress on realigning the Federal Courts and getting rid of sitting activist judges. That ought to put a scare in people, and maybe reel in runaway courts a bit.
-PJ
11


_______________________________________


Me too.. But it's best we don't hold our breath while waiting for hell to freeze.

[4CJ]

Again! The grand illusion is that the Constitution is still in force! Wish I was wrong....=-(

I wish you were wrong too ;o) How sad that elected officials flout their law-breaking, and no one has the guts to enforce the laws - they're too chicken to possibly offend their constituents. Tossing aside the dim bastions of NY City, LA, Hollyweird, SF, Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee, Washington DC etc, that would leave about vast majority of the constituents (flyover country) that would side with the enforcement.

[tpaine]

Wake up to reality.. The fed judge that just 'ruled' that citizens of DC have no RKBA's was appointed by Bush.

[uncitizen]

It makes me sick to see how disrespected the POTUS is"

Yeah, and recall how the sentence "the most powerful man in the world" almost always followed Bill Clinton's name when he was president. Hell, the media don't even use the title President, when referring to Pres Bush. They just call him Bush.

[King Black Robe]

Hmmm...I am not really sure what you just said to me, but I am pretty sure I disagree with it.

The FMA will change nothing; it will simply protect long held definitions from being altered by an activist court. On every detail other than the actual word "marriage" (already taken), the state legislatures, true to the constitution, remain free to do as they wish.

[tpaine]

It ~IS~ the system, imo.. We see it operating at FR..

We can change it.. We will change it when enough people get fed up..

It is almost time.

[vanmorrison]

The mechanism to remove rogue judges, or any other elected representative, is the impeachment process. I agree with Rush's point, but I ask why it is that our Congress doesn't impeach them. I suspect its because the judiciary in this country has become an exclusive reserve and cottage industry of attorneys, and, since most Congressmen and Senators are lawyers, they just can't bring themselves to discipline one of their own. Look at how they let President Caligula off scot-free when they had him dead to rights. The rot is replete throughout the body politic.

[Sabertooth]

Would you then support the concept that a future super-majority could pass an amendment to modify our individual RKBA's into a collective government approved licensed procedure?

I'd support the concept that a super-majority can pass such an Amendment, but not that they should, and I would oppose it. The founders sought to protect us from tyrannies of the majority by providing the safeguards of supermajority requirements.

When we have tyrannies of the supermajority that infringe on our endowed rights, the social contract is fully abrogated, and all of the predictable consequences will follow.

I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitutio

Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended?

[Cboldt]

Your plan would never work.

No plan, no Constitution, will work if judges rule counter to the will of the people, and the people tolerate it.

Is the Campaign Finance Law Constitutional? The recent one that prohibits certain "forms" of advertisement 60 days before an election? Well, is it Constitutional in light of the 1st amendment? The answer, in law, is YES. Because the law was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, and specifically ruled on by the Supreme Court. How do we change THAT?

[tpaine]

'Checks & balances' can be applied politically to "rogue courts"..

This is not being done because politicians are ignoring their oaths.

[tpaine]

Would you then support the concept that a future super-majority could pass an amendment to modify our individual RKBA's into a collective government approved licensed procedure?

I'd support the concept that a super-majority can pass such an Amendment,

Our RKBA's is part of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, & property. These rights cannot be 'amended' away.

but not that they should, and I would oppose it. The founders sought to protect us from tyrannies of the majority by providing the safeguards of supermajority requirements.

Exactly.. Such a majority would be supposedly be rational enough to avoid passing 'laws' that would lead to civil war.

When we have tyrannies of the super-majority that infringe on our endowed rights, the social contract is fully abrogated, and all of the predictable consequences will follow.

Yep.
I say a FMA is beyond the scope of the powers granted in our constitution.

Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended?

In the principles embodied in our BOR's as a whole.. -- And in the 14th amendment, which was needed to explain those principles to rogue states after the civil war..

Now we need bold politicians to once again explain those principles to most everyone..
And in particular to our rogue courts.

[Yosemitest]

I'm really angry about this! Rush is right and I need to work on my patience. I know from my Bible studies that when Christ returns, before He returns, it will be worse than in the days of Sodom when homosexuals were willing to tear down a house to get to strangers.

BUT, I'm ashamed to say that I want to see a good ole fashon lynching, starting with the mayor of San Fran, continuing on to the people who issued those licenses to homosexuals, and including the people who preformed the ceremonies.

Malachi 4:1-3

1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

---

FOOTNOTES:
F6: in them: or, to them


---

Leviticus 20:13

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

---

Romans 1:16-32

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; ^F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so ^F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain ^F8 God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

---

FOOTNOTES:
F1: declared: Gr. determined
F2: for obedience...: or, to the obedience of faith
F3: with: or, in
F4: with: or, in
F5: among: or, in
F6: in them: or, to them
F7: so...: or, that they may be
F8: to retain: or, to acknowledge

 

---

What else needs to be said. Homosexuals should repent, while there is still time and ask Christ for help.

[tpaine]

See #35.. The FMA changes everything, in the sense of amending away our inalienable rights.

[Sabertooth]

Where does the Constitution limit how the Constitution may be Amended?

In the principles embodied in our BOR's as a whole.. -- And in the 14th amendment, which was needed to explain those principles to rogue states after the civil war..

You're gleaning meaning from a penumbra here. The laws of physics don't even limit how the Constitution may be Amended. Article V is the beginning and the end of the limits.

If 2/3 of both chambers and 3/4 of the states willingly Amend the BoR out of existence, the Constitution empowers them to do so, and civil war is the only recourse.

In any case, a CMA doesn't infringe in any inalienable right, and protects the rights of the states.

I agree that it shouldn't have come to this, and a few dozen judicial impeachments over the past 100 years would have been sufficient to prevent it, but here we are.

[Grig]

No system can overcome the effects of a population full of people who are morally corrupt. I'm not saying everybody is, but enough are that changing the system won't fix anything.

[goldstategop]

Yes... what about a law that allows Congress to override these rogue courts? Congress could pass a law requiring any court decision that invalidates a law to get a majority vote in both Houses Of Congress with the President's signature BEFORE it can take effect. That way judges don't toss out laws simply due to ideological bias or erroneous reasoning. The courts might declare such a law unconstitutional but then they'd be perceived as protecting their turf than acceding to the will of the people. Its a worth a try.