NationStates Jolt Archive

(Please read the entire post before you reply)

Judicial activism has gotten out of hand.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control. ... The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will. ... The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. ... It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation. ... It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

(Source: A Mark Alexander article on www.townhall.com ; you can read the full article about the amendment i'm going to talk about below in that article found here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040716.shtml )

At this point in time we have courts that are writing law and creating whole new rights not found in the constitution. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and religious displays and prayers should be decided by each state as the Tenth Amendment originally intended.

There is an amendment sitting in limbo in Congress that would have each judge interpret the constitution only and not create wholesale new rights, there is site you can learn more about this amendment and where can you sign a petition in favor of this amendment here

http://patriotpetitions.us/amendment28/

I can tell already that most liberals are going to go off the handle in this post, but thats ok, because I know that you'll be upset if this amendment actuall gets passed. It means you have lost your only way to impose on the American people your agenda since you can't pass it normally through Congress.

Haha, that's a good one :D

At this point in time we have courts that are writing law and creating whole new rights not found in the constitution. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and religious displays and prayers should be decided by each state as the Tenth Amendment originally intended.

Yes... because obviously the Supreme Court is forcing all states to legalise homosexual marraige. Oh... wait... no it's not. I remember now! It was George W. Bush and his Republinazi cronies who tried to force a ban of gay marraige through the constitution instead of letting the states decide! :rolleyes:

Yay, let's break the judicial branch open! And then the checks and balances will continue to work the same besides a major reworking of the government, and nothing bad at all will happen- all in exchange to take away the civil rights of minority groups and make America a theocracy! Yay!

Or not. Do you have any idea what would happen with restructuring the judicial branch so much? It's their job!

And I'm only slightly to the left, if you wanted to know.

Haha, that's a good one :D



Yes... because obviously the Supreme Court is forcing all states to legalise homosexual marraige. Oh... wait... no it's not. I remember now! It was George W. Bush and his Republinazi cronies who tried to force a ban of gay marraige through the constitution instead of letting the states decide! :rolleyes:

38 States have declared Gay Marriage illegal either through Amending their own state constitution or laws passed by the State Legistlature.

Ironiclly enough, 38 states are needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Right now the people are opposed to the amendment, as am I, but I like the majority of the nation, don't want Gay Marraige to be legal.

IF this hits the federal courts, and it will trust me, then look for action on a Constitutional Amendment. Right now its dead in the Senate but look for it to come up again when the Federal Court gets involved.

Haha, that's a good one :D



Yes... because obviously the Supreme Court is forcing all states to legalise homosexual marraige. Oh... wait... no it's not. I remember now! It was George W. Bush and his Republinazi cronies who tried to force a ban of gay marraige through the constitution instead of letting the states decide! :rolleyes:

hmmmm

lets think about what's more democratic

on one hand we have elected representitives from all over the union and beyond voting on an issue

on the other we have 5 un-elected men sitting in a courthouse in massacusets who one day wake up and decide they want to force their views on the whole country and there is nothing we can do to stop them


this is a tough one

(by the way, if one state recognizes a marriage all the other states have to do like wise)

Yay, let's break the judicial branch open! And then the checks and balances will continue to work the same besides a major reworking of the government, and nothing bad at all will happen- all in exchange to take away the civil rights of minority groups and make America a theocracy! Yay!

Or not. Do you have any idea what would happen with restructuring the judicial branch so much? It's their job!

And I'm only slightly to the left, if you wanted to know.

yes, I'm sure that's what this is leading up to

I'm sure democracy is in no way threatened by the fact that one un-elected judge can re-write all our laws overnight and theirs nothing we can do about it

its all about a theocracy

yes, I'm sure that's what this is leading up to

I'm sure democracy is in no way threatened by the fact that one un-elected judge can re-write all our laws overnight and theirs nothing we can do about it

its all about a theocracy

And it works. The judges have to follow the constitution. If their rulings are unconstitutional, other judges can overturn it. Ever heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson? And then Brown vs. Board of education? What makes you think a judge can just re-write all the laws without a good, constitutional reasons? Massachusetts judges found that banning Gay Marriage was unacceptable to the state's constitution (and most likely the federal one, too), and allowed it. Not because "Hee, we're going to be activists and rewrite the American value system."

And you'll note that the rulings he listed as unacceptable to be given by activist judges are all right-wing christian values and complaints. Since his move would essentially cause judges to be useless mouths of the people (with no capability to interpret the Constitution except as written), who consistantly prove themselves unacceptably apathetic and illogical when it comes to civil rights that are not their own, it would make the laws a mouthpiece of the biggest religion or political party to get up there.

And it works. The judges have to follow the constitution. If their rulings are unconstitutional, other judges in a case can overturn it. Ever heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson? And then Brown vs. Board of education? What makes you think a judge can just re-write all the laws without a good, constitutional reasons? Massachusetts judges found that banning Gay Marriage was unacceptable to the state's constitution (and most likely the federal one, too), and allowed it. Not because "Hee, we're going to be activists and rewrite the American value system."

And you'll note that the views he listed as unacceptable to be given by activist judges are all right-wing christian values and complaints. Since his move would essentially cause judges to be mouths of the people, who consistantly prove themselves unacceptably apathetic and illogical when it comes to civil rights that are not thir own, and would essentially make the laws a mouthpiece of the biggest religion or political party to get up there.

where the puritan unitarian John Adams (who wrote the [massachuets] constitution) put a clause about gay marriage in?

and the SF judges don't seem to have a problem with randomly overthroughing legeslature on the grounds of being vaugly unconstitutional (come on, presuite of happyness, that could mean anything - people could find lynchings fun)

And they found it unconstitutional and a byproduct of a long passed puritan age of victorian sensibilities. And overturned it.

Lynchings are murder, and therefore are against the law. Straw Man.

I knew we would have a ranting and raving liberal respond, thank you Myrth, you provided my entertainment for the day. In case you hadn't connected the dots Myrth, the reason there is a Federal Marriage Amendment is because of judicial activism in the first place. The decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the current attempt to strike down the Defence of Marriage Act in the lower courts.

I would rather see the Amendment language say something to the effect of letting each state decide. But what does it really matter when the courts can interpret something thats not there and ignore the constitution altogether in other cases. The Campaign Finance Reform bill was upheld even though it is unconstitutional by limiting political ads before elections.

And you find Judicial Activism a problem?

hmmmm

lets think about what's more democratic

on one hand we have elected representitives from all over the union and beyond voting on an issue

on the other we have 5 un-elected men sitting in a courthouse in massacusets who one day wake up and decide they want to force their views on the whole country and there is nothing we can do to stop them


this is a tough one

(by the way, if one state recognizes a marriage all the other states have to do like wise)

er correct me if i'm wrong but i think that sometime in when clinton was in power a law was passed that no states had to recognize a gay marriage other than the one it was performed in. I think i read this on NS sometime ago so it may be wrong.

er correct me if i'm wrong but i think that sometime in when clinton was in power a law was passed that no states had to recognize a gay marriage other than the one it was performed in. I think i read this on NS sometime ago so it may be wrong.

Defense of Marriage Act is what you're talking about. It's not as extreme as you said, but other than that it's pretty close.

As I noted above, the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton is being challenged in the lower courts as we speak.

I'll repeat again but more verbosely-


Why do you give Judicial Activism a negative connotation when in fact activist judges are responsible for some of the greatest victories of liberty and civil rights in our nation's history?

Judicial Activism has given us abortion and now gay marriage as hugely divisive issues to debate in this country. Please point out to me where in the Constitution the issues of abortion and gay marriage are mentioned and if the Constitution takes a stance on either of those issues. By my last reading of it, it doesn't. If you want to go ahead and amend the Constitution to allow those type of things to happen, then feel free (and God have mercy on us if we ever do that). But don't just rule through judicial fiat to make those things legal and invent rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a great legal victory, but the Constitution clearly states in the 14 Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Judicial Activism has given us abortion and now gay marriage as hugely divisive issues to debate in this country. Please point out to me where in the Constitution the issues of abortion and gay marriage are mentioned and if the Constitution takes a stance on either of those issues. By my last reading of it, it doesn't. If you want to go ahead and amend the Constitution to allow those type of things to happen, then feel free (and God have mercy on us if we ever do that). But don't just rule through judicial fiat to make those things legal and invent rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a great legal victory, but the Constitution clearly states in the 14 Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Please point out in the constitution where it says that Women do not have the choice to abort or where it says that Homosexuals are second class citizens.

Doomduckistan, you quoted my entire previous post but maybe you didn't read it all because I made this point:

Please point out to me where in the Constitution the issues of abortion and gay marriage are mentioned and if the Constitution takes a stance on either of those issues.

Now I will pose this question back to you, how can you infer a constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage when they are not even mentioned in the constitution?

And I return- How can you interpret the lack of a right simply because it is not stated? The constitution doesn't authorize me to eat pancakes, either, but I still can.

Because we previously had laws prohibiting abortion and gay marriage, but we never had laws prohibiting you from eating pancakes.

Judicial Activism has given us abortion and now gay marriage as hugely divisive issues to debate in this country. Please point out to me where in the Constitution the issues of abortion and gay marriage are mentioned and if the Constitution takes a stance on either of those issues. By my last reading of it, it doesn't.

try the 9th amendment, combined with implications of others.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

for example abortion comes from the right to privacy, which was found to be implied by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th,, 14th, and the general message of the bill of rights in a string of court cases.

and banning gay marriage is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the 1st (because marriage in other religions has occassionally allowed same-sex marriages, and there is no non-religious justification for denying it) and the equal protection clause of the 14th. not to mention the full faith and credit clause of article 4 of the constitution.

Because we previously had laws prohibiting abortion and gay marriage, but we never had laws prohibiting you from eating pancakes.

So you are saying that homosexuals do not have the right to marriage because they previously did not have the right to marriage. One could say the same thing about voting for women, of course.

Interesting, but the fact that by your own admission the laws do not stand anymore negates your argument.

I think we can all agree that we have a right to privacy in this country but to infer that it is a Constitutional right is flat out wrong. I have been looking at an online copy throughout this debate and have yet to come across the words right to privacy in the Constitution.

Saying hypothetically I have this religion that says I must present a child sacrifice on an altar every day of the week then thats ok? So banning my child sacrifice because it is a part of my religion is wrong too? To say that there is no non-religious reason to ban gay marriage is wrong as well. It is simply in the best interest of the children to have one mother and father. BUT PLEASE LETS NOT DEBATE THE MERITS OF GAY MARRIAGE IN THIS THREAD, LEAVE THAT TO A SEPERATE THREAD.

Doomduckistan, the right to gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, but the right for women to vote is, see Amendment 24.

The majority of the court decisions over the last 200 years have been based on interpretation and extrapolation of the Constitution. That's the whole basis of being a judge--interpreting the law. To require the Supreme Court to adhere to only the letter of the Constitution and not interpret it in any fashion is ludicrous, and to be quite frank, unworkable.

Doomduckistan, the right to gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, but the right for women to vote is, see Amendment 24.

Exactly, before Amendment 24 was passed, the same argument could apply to Women's Suffrage.


Child Sacrifice is murder. Murder is illegal. Straw Man.

hmmmm

lets think about what's more democratic

on one hand we have elected representitives from all over the union and beyond voting on an issue

on the other we have 5 un-elected men sitting in a courthouse in massacusets who one day wake up and decide they want to force their views on the whole country and there is nothing we can do to stop them


this is a tough one

(by the way, if one state recognizes a marriage all the other states have to do like wise)

Not in this case! Under the DOMA (Defense of Marraige Act) takes out the full faith and credit clause when it deals with Gay Marraige. Thus, the states don't have to recognize the gay marraige if the law of said state outlaws it!

Exactly, before Amendment 24 was passed, the same argument could apply to Women's Suffrage.


Child Sacrifice is murder. Murder is illegal. Straw Man.

However, before this amendment was passed, some women in the western portion of the US like in Wyoming, had limited right to vote. Mostly in local elections. I've read that in a history book.

Also on Women Suffrage, the constitution didn't really say they couldn't vote! Under the US Constitution they had full right as they have mentioned in the rallies. However, they have been told on Constitutional grounds that they didn't! They pushed for their right and it was granted under the 24 amendment to the US Constitution.

Now on to Abortion since that was brought up! Right to privacy isn't in the US Constition. However there is a Privacy Rights Act! This however has sense been abused by abortion activists and gay right activists. This law gives a person the right not to give out specific information to certian people and organization, NOT TO BE USED TO FURTHER ABORTION AND GAY RIGHTS.

Abortion, like gay marraige in my mind, is a states issue. Over 40 states, if I remember history right, had anti-abortion laws. All were struck down as UNCONSTITIONAL! Now I want to know where in the US Constition protects the woman's right to abortion! It doesn't! Not under the 14th amendment, not under the first 10 amendments so where in the US Constitution protects this!

Doomduckistan, you quoted my entire previous post but maybe you didn't read it all because I made this point:

Please point out to me where in the Constitution the issues of abortion and gay marriage are mentioned and if the Constitution takes a stance on either of those issues.

Now I will pose this question back to you, how can you infer a constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage when they are not even mentioned in the constitution?There's also nothing in the Constitution that says corporations should have legal personhood, and yet the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that they have it, albeit in a limited sense, because it inferred that right (in a convoluted and not entirely rational way). Can you imagine the chaos that would result in the business community if your amendment passed? The economic upheaval that would result? It's not so easy as you might think to foresee the results of drastic action.

Brown vs. Board of Education was a great legal victory, but the Constitution clearly states in the 14 Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Preventing two adults from marrying would seem to deprive them of equal protection of the laws.

Doomduckistan, the right to gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, but the right for women to vote is, see Amendment 24.

You're going around and around. Bottom line is, we are getting back to the original idea that all men are created equal. This has been amended twice to recognize officially that women are humans and that people of color are as well.

If there is to be any Amendment to the Constitution, it should be to give rights to adults to marry, not block them -- and we all know how well our "Morality Amendment" of prohibiting the sale and use of alcohol worked, yes?

Not only was it a failure and repealed, but it gave organized crime (Al Capone and others involved in distributing illegal alchohol) its first real foothold in America. Organized crime's influence is still here...

And I return- How can you interpret the lack of a right simply because it is not stated? The constitution doesn't authorize me to eat pancakes, either, but I still can.

It does under Amendment 10, I believe. ;)

I do agree that more sensitive issues, like Gay Marraige, should be left to states. However, let's not accuse the judiciary of destroying our Republic. I'm sure many conservatives would need them if, say, a law is passed considering indecensy on radio to be preaching.

I do agree that more sensitive issues, like Gay Marraige, should be left to states. However, let's not accuse the judiciary of destroying our Republic. I'm sure many conservatives would need them if, say, a law is passed considering indecensy on radio to be preaching.
the only indecency in our media today is the vast amount of censorship of alternative opinions

I think we can all agree that we have a right to privacy in this country but to infer that it is a Constitutional right is flat out wrong. I have been looking at an online copy throughout this debate and have yet to come across the words right to privacy in the Constitution.

What's your pointhere, besides just going in yet another direction that shows me why Christianity can be as scary as other religions?

Saying hypothetically I have this religion that says I must present a child sacrifice on an altar every day of the week then thats ok? So banning my child sacrifice because it is a part of my religion is wrong too? To say that there is no non-religious reason to ban gay marriage is wrong as well. It is simply in the best interest of the children to have one mother and father. BUT PLEASE LETS NOT DEBATE THE MERITS OF GAY MARRIAGE IN THIS THREAD, LEAVE THAT TO A SEPERATE THREAD.

Sorry, no. First off, your example is crap because it involves harming another person. Developmental psychology has found that if one parent is lacking (say, as father) the child will automatically connect to another role-model of that gender (such as an uncle, friend's dad, coach, teacher, etc). There are, of course, non-religious reasons to be cited in light of this: ignorance, which comes in both religious and non-religious flavors.

I don't care what Father Limbaugh tells you, modern child psychology does not hold that not having parents of both genders is damaging.

Doomduckistan, the right to gay marriage is not mentioned in the constitution, but the right for women to vote is, see Amendment 24.

And you still haven't gotten anywhere near the very well made point that only the social conservatives are trying to directly amend the constitution, circumsventing states rights exactly in the way you are so vehemently denouncing. What's the matter - is that fire too hot for you?