Friday, July 01, 2005

What's The Excuse For Inaction Now?

By Gary Bauer - 7/1/2005 - The American Spectator

Back in 2000, 70 percent of Nebraskans expressed the desire that marriage remain between one man and one woman. A single judge decided he knew better.

While this is not the first time a judge has sought to redefine marriage against the people's will, this is the first time a state constitutional amendment has been struck down. It was the supposed strength of these state amendments to which many politicians alluded when they falsely claimed that a federal marriage amendment was unnecessary.

Senator John McCain called an amendment un-Republican because it imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid stressed that he "believe[s] in the sanctity of marriage" but that, "before we tinker with our most cherished rights, we should allow the states to deal with this issue..."

The Nebraska judge's decision is irrefutable proof that those who say marriage can be handled state by state are categorically wrong. Such assertions ignore the reality that federal judges have signaled unequivocally that they will not allow the people to decide for themselves.

Our courts are corrupt. The "rule of law" does not permit courts to make law. The "rule of law" does not permit courts to be conservative, moderate or liberal. Both of those are politics, not "rule of law". The "rule of law" assumes there is justice in our courts. However there can be no justice when the courts have become a law unto themselves. The courts have reached a point where they are unconcerned with the Constitution, the people or the legislature.

They have created a revolving door criminal justice system where citizens and victims of crime have no rights, and criminals who give lawyers fat legal fees can do just about anything they want.

They now allow government to seize any property that they want; assuring that rich developers can bring cases into court that previously needed local government to rule.

To expand their power to issues of immigration policy, they have granted the right to citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, even as the children of some legal aliens do not become citizens.

To allow judges to involve themselves in setting marriage policy, they have created a gay marriage right that 70% of the people oppose.

They claim all of these seized powers under the premise that we have a "living" Constitution. This premise has evolved to an assumption they can do whatever they want. The end result is that the Constitution has become meaningless. What they have given us is a "dead" Constitution, a Constitution which does not exist and to which they owe no fidelity. Judicial activism has really become judicial corruption.

The article listed above proposes that our federal legislature create a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. Since the recent rulings of the court, this is an ignorant proposal. If the Constitution is "dead", what difference can it possibly make to put more words into the Constitution to be ignored by a corrupt judiciary?

Unless the legislature starts mass impeachments of justices who are themselves violating the constitution and their oath of office, they will soon be irrelevant. Passing useless amendments will not change that.


4 Comments:

At 5:25 PM , Blogger Tarvok said...

You said:
> They have created a revolving door
> criminal justice system where
> citizens and victims of crime have
> no rights, and criminals who give
> lawyers fat legal fees can do just
> about anything they want.

Actually, that isn't the judiciary's fault; it's the legislatures' fault. We have created a set of laws (drug prohibition) that makes a prohibitively large proportion of our citizens into criminals. There are simply too many criminals for us to jail. Legislatures would have to set rediculously high amounts of money aside to create a prison system capable of holding all of these criminals. Because that's simply impossible, the judiciary has had to deal with the problem.

> To expand their power to issues of
> immigration policy, they have
> granted the right to citizenship to
> the children of illegal aliens, even
> as the children of some legal aliens
> do not become citizens.

That's not an expansion, I think. The Constitution guarantees citizenship to anyone born on US soil. I think this a good thing. Children should not be punished for the actions of their parents, or the inactions of our legislatures and executive branches (federal and state levels). We create a hypocritical system that makes illegal immigration easy. If someone is born and grows up here because of a failure to create and enforce a sensible immigration law (legislative and executive matters), should they be tossed out? I don't think so.

As to the children of US Citizens born outside the country, well, we do have laws allowing for that, don't we? When have the courts denied them citizenship?

 
At 4:00 AM , Blogger Dean Stephens said...

They turn pedophiles, rapists, murderers and extortionists loose because of drug laws? You have to explain that (if you can). Drug laws are passed by legally elected members of a legislature chosen freely in a representative democracy. Do you not see how your opinion is really an argument that you condemn our system of government? If you are unhappy with these laws get them changed within the system. Too many criminals for the jails is a policy issue that is none of the courts business, other than their decision that criminals are their pet people and they have the power to subvert representative democracy. This shows an arrogant contempt for the system of which they are a part. I am arguing that we should use that system to punish judges for their arrogance.

The Consitutional guarantee of citizenship (an amendment to protect the children of legal residents of our nation after the civil war) was never intended to extend citizenship to illegal invaders. This was an invention of a federal judge who declared as unconsitutional laws passed by our elected representatives that prohibitied the current insanity. His logic was an idiot argument. If his argument had any validity please explain why the children born here to embassy personnel from foreign countries are NOT given citizenship, but children born to illegal aliens ARE. The judge split this hair proving that his opinion was not a rational extension of the rights in our Consitution, but simply arrogant contempt for our system (much as you proved you have the same in your logic above).

As far as your last paragraph, what are you talking about? I said nothing about children of U.S. citizens born outside the country. Is this some kind of gratuitous attack? Comments should have some relevance to the points made.

 
At 3:42 PM , Blogger Tarvok said...

> Drug laws are passed by legally
> elected members of a legislature
> chosen freely in a representative
> democracy. Do you not see how your
> opinion is really an argument that you
> condemn our system of government?

I am not condemning our system of government, I am participating in it. I, a free, voting citizen of the United States of America, am making the claim that our current drug laws are the cause of our current criminal problem. Today's drug prohibition *creates* violent crime, much like the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s created violent crime. I would very much like to see these laws changed, and I believe it would make *everybody* safer if they were.

I'm just saying I do not believe the judiciary is responsible for the high levels of crime in this country.

> The Consitutional guarantee of
> citizenship (an amendment to protect
> the children of legal residents of
> our nation after the civil war) was
> never intended to extend citizenship
> to illegal invaders. This was an
> invention of a federal judge who
> declared as unconsitutional laws
> passed by our elected
> representatives that prohibitied the
> current insanity.

I apologise. I was unaware of the history behind this matter. Perhaps you could educate me more about this issue.

 
At 8:41 AM , Blogger Dean Stephens said...

I'm just saying I do not believe the judiciary is responsible for the high levels of crime in this country. I disagree. The courts show their contempt for justice when ruling that a police officer did not use the "right words" when he gave a Miranda warning and it is thus just to turn a rapist free. What about justice for the victim? They did nothing wrong. Ask any criminal and they proudly brag about gaming the system constantly. Our courts have long since stopped caring about justice and only care about the perogatives of judicial power. They use "technicalities" not to protect the innocent but to protect the guilty. When you do that again and again, your motives are clearly suspect. Judicial disdain for justice is totally responsible for the rampant crime in our nation.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home