Skip to comments.[Rush] Most Powerful Man on Earth Powerless Against Rogue Courts and Activist Judges
Posted on 02/25/2004 9:41:33 AM PST by tpaine
click here to read article
We don't need to change our constitution, - we need to change the political structure thay allows it to be violated.
Again! The grand illusion is that the Constitution is still in force! Wish I was wrong....=-(
To the subject at hand, I pray we find a cure for the moral laryngitis plaguing our nations so called republican leaders.
We used to have that option here in NC. It was called jail. Unfortunately the PC police have worn the state down so much that it's hardly even prosecuted anymore
I've read that in Massachusetts the state Supreme Court "required" the legislators to pass a law legalizing same sex marriage even though such interference from the Judicial branch and Legislative branch is supposedly explicitly prohibited in Massachusetts' state constitution.
Someone approved those same sex marriage forms in San Francisco. There is a rogue judge who is ignoring state law.
Seems to me that these people should be able to be taken off the bench. Would they be permitted to stay there if they were caught taking bribes?
There has to be a mechanism. In California the Attorney General seems to be slow to respond to the anarchist judge who does not believe in the rule of law.
The constitution could use some explicit language prohibiting same sex marriage because if it isn't added soon, in 10 years you will see an amendment including sexual preference along with classifications such as race, creed, sex, and color.
The communists and the anarchists have been trying to tear down our political institutions for much of the 20th century. Looks like the socialists have won because law is dead.
For instance, Congress already has the power under Article III Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "
In order to get rid of "activist judges," Congress can eliminate all the current judges seated on current circuit courts, Congress can then realign all the circuit courts (hello 9th Circuit), and then the President can renominate judges to the new circuit courts. Any judge with a history of activism can either not be renominated, or not be confirmed by the Judiciary Committee.
Also, can't Congress pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the courts? Can't Congress say that questions of marriage and the definition of marriage are out of jurisdiction to the courts?
The problem with an amendment to the Constitution is that the Constitution is supposed to be a limiting powers document of the Federal Government, not of the people. All the wording is about saying what the Federal Government is and what it can and can not do. Everything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and the people. We already tried amending the Constitution to limit the rights of the people -- see the 19th amendment and how well that worked out. The only language limiting the rights of people are in their roles as Constitutional officers, so even that is about limiting the Government.
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.
Congress has Constitutional authority to realign the courts. Let's get a debate going in Congress to eliminate the current configuration of the courts (and the activist judges who sit on them) and redesign the courts. Then we can have the President nominate a new slate of judges to sit on the new courts.
All perfectly legal and no Constitutional amendment is required.
No man is above the law.
There have already been cases where judges interpret the law as X. legislature and governor pass alaw saying that the specific law is not x but rather Y, and judges refuse to respect the legislative will.
You might be.
After the ratification of the Constitution and the 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of a sovereign state emanated primarily from Article I, Section 8, Cl 17 (To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever...over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings)and Article IV, Section I (Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.)
Otherwise, the states and the people had exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the boundaries of their state. (Amendment X)
That all change after the ratification of the Amendment XIV after the War of Northern Agression against the Southern States.
Amendment XIV, ultimately and in all practicality, severely diminished, denied, and disparaged the covenant of Amendment X and granted defacto jurisdiction of the entire U.S. Constitution within the boundaries of sovereign state.
Fast forward to today and the gay marriage question. Rush Limbaugh asks, why is a constitutional amendment needed to prevent gay marriage?
Because, gay marriage and for that matter, all "marriages" are a U.S. Constitution protected, "retained by the people," right. (See Amendment IX)
Amendment IX, now having jurisdiction within a sovereign state, coupled with Article IV and Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution, means there is no way any state or federal law could pass proper constitutional scrutiny. (A citizen has the "retained" right to marry the person of their choice (Amendment IX)and "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 to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Amendment VIX)
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.
California, on the otherhand, has not legally and constitutionally dealt with this issue properly within their state boundaries and thus Article IV will not bind the other states to the rogue behavior of the San Francisco mayor and local judges.
So it appears that both the states and federal constitutions are actively in play concerning this issue of gay marriage.
THE CURRENT SITUATION... outlined in this thread
The answer to the problem is bloody obvious..
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.