Activist judges should "barr" Bob from running for election.
Posted on 05/16/2008 6:46:02 AM PDT by melt
Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr says that when it comes to gay marriage, what happens in California is California’s own business. He’s a states’ rights man.
Here’s the statement Barr’s issued, which — one week before the Libertarian national convention in Denver — is likely to generate some talk:
“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).
The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Activist judges should "barr" Bob from running for election.
Strange that libertarian Barr made no mention of black-robed judiciary thugs overturning the will of the electorate.
Good, if he keeps moving to the left perhaps he can steal more votes away from Obama.
Try running that gay marriage crap by the people of California with a vote instead of through an activist court and see what the people really want.
"States rights" is a poor argument here.
Bob, you just screwed up.
Does the California constitution allow the courts to overturn laws?
Yea, oh well, thanks for playing Bob.
That was my question, too. I heard a libertarian radio host touting the "state's right" issue and he said it'd be good for county revenues due to marriage license fees and court costs from divorce. But I can't see it as a state's right issue because it impacts other Federal programs like taxes and SS (survivor benefits), etc.
And I can understand the need for some kind of judicial review BUT it would be reasonable to require that it be a unanimous vote in order to overturn a law (certainly any ballot initiative which reflects the direct will of the people.)
His argument doesn’t make sense. An ammendment to the Constituion is the LEGAL way to fix something in America that needs to be common across the states. That’s why we used it to make alcohol illegal and abolish slavery. Gay Marraige is certainly in that category.
As a former board member of the ACLU I would expect Barr to support ammending the constitution as the legitimate way to legislate important issues. Afer all the ACLU is founded to protect the First Ammendment, which is NOT a state bill, but a federal encombrance on all the states.
Also, the fact that the judicial over-reach doens’t bother him says a lot about where his heart is.
I hope the Libertarians reject him and find another candidate. I do not think he recent conversion is sincere, and I think they have better spokespeople for their cause.
Wow - up to the states to decide. We did decide, marriage between one man and one woman.
And one judge in California said the will of the people is sh*t and we (I) will over turn their will.
Barr is nuttier than a fruitcake.
Paging Bob Barr...Ron Paul is looking for you.
They're a modern court of appeals. If they say they have the power, then they have the power.
What am I missing here?
or the various states with reciprocity laws forced to accept the sins of another.
Never liked Barr, always thought he was a little kookie.
The case against Barr, so far:
1. Supports liberals over conservatives in elections.
2. Useful idiot/paid flunky for the communists at the ACLU.
3. Doesn’t think we need a fence on the southern border.
4. Can’t tell the difference between judicial activism/tyranny and states’ rights.
Of course, this all pretty overwhelmingly applies to John McCain as well.
He is right on federalism, wrong on the role of the judiciary.
IMO, a DOMA-inspired Amendment to the US constitution is the best course of action - we need to prevent a future SCOTUS from federalizing yet another function of state government.
There are some states that were only allowed into the Union on the condition that they would forever swear off plural marriage.
Congress has always had the power to decide this question.
Bob Barr’s statement is spoken less like a Libertarian and more like a proud member of the ACLU. I have said it once and I will say it again, Barr is the Libertarian’s McCain. To hell with the will of the people, to hell with other states having the right to decide since a California couple moving in will have a claim that they are “married” oh no, it is suddenly couched as “State’s Rights.” Amazing use of a core belief to mask another agenda. For example, McCain couching amnesty as “comprehensive immigration reform.”
(2) Barr clearly doesn't understand the Constitution, especially its reciprocity language.
(3) Barr never seemed to be the most masculine fellow in the world.
And, of course, the whole concept of “states’ rights” is an oxymoron.
Like the other presidential candidates, a real winner.
Leni
He is absolutely correct in this statement and this is exactly what many(say most)FReepers have been saying all along concerning abortion, so they must support states rights when it comes to gays, or they are being two faced.
The only thing missing from Mr. Barr's statement is the fact that the state had already spoken in the form of a mandate by the people of CA, it was called Prop. 22 and definately decided against same sex marriages.
Notice, he does not support the decision, only states that this is up to individual states and I agree with him.
In Nov. Californians will again have the choice to vote on this matter, this time in the form of a state constitutional amendment, which I am sure will pass in favor of banning same sex marriages.
I admire Mr. Barr in telling the truth and pointing out the obvious, and before some idiot(and their are many idiots on FR)accuses me of being for gay marriages let me be on the record for saying I am against them, I am against teaching school children that homosexuality is great, I am all for homos keeping their sexual preferences to themselves and leaving me to mine. None the less, I do believe Mr. Barr spoke the truth, marriage, and what is allowed to be marriage, is up to each state, not a fed issue, not is abortion a fed issue, you can't pick and choose states rights issues, discarding the ones you don't like and embracing the ones you do.
Call me prejudiced, but anyone who switches spouses and parties three times has an unstable personality.
Is Barr supposed to be some kind of conservative guru?
No, he is absolutely wrong.
The Constitution mandates that all states recognize the acts of their fellow states, which include marriages that are contracted in accordance with the laws of a state.
And abortion is unconstitutional because the XIVth Amendment guarantees every person in the United States his right to life.
States cannot unilaterally decide to murder unborn children, and states cannot unilaterally decide to destroy marriage.
“How it’s supposed to work” is that the state, that works for its citizens, is supposed to uphold the law. In this case Prop 22, which outlawed gay marriage, was voted on in 2000 and overwhelmingly approved by the majority of Californians.
This decision was made by a bunch of Gavin Newsom like lawbreaking activist judges who basically said, “Screw what the citizens of California want for the state. We’re pushing this morally corrupt idea on the people whether they like it or not.
These judges broke the law!!! Plain and simple.
If you want to protect and uphold traditional marriage and live in the state of California see this site and vote:
www.protectmarriage.com
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Just goes to show that Bob is a closet liberal. He’s no conversative.
Barr is only half right, in a perfect world the states themsleves would not even address the issue, leaving it to private citizens and churches. Once government is out of marriage, it will stop discracing the sacred institution.
Federalism is one thing, activist judges overturning the will of the people is another.
That's entirely true, but that seems to be the business of the people of California, the governors they elect, and the judges that are appointed.
agreed. Power is corrupting to ideologies as well.
The States were to hold the general government power and functions while the Federal government was to be quite limited.
The Federal was to hold the overall BOR guarantees and the States could function as small general governments with a republic structure, always, but also with the ability for regional and cultural differences.
If by Constitution and legislative modification, California was to choose to structure marriage with a new definition, then at least, it would be a form of self government.
Legislation by Judicial fiat, however, is not how it is supposed to work in self government.
With a law enforcement background, Barr is limited by looking at only his experience and lacks the broad scope of understanding, as is shown by this comment. He has spent his life with Judicial outcomes as the final say, even with the Senate as a body of judges.
As long as the nation tolerates judicial activism where the very words of our existence are redefined for the satisfaction of transitory sentiment, we are not a fully self governing republic.
BINGO!
Libertarians are being infected with them....
Even have a truther runing for congress...
Kevin Barrett says he’ll challenge Ron Kind
By The ASsociated Press
Friday, May 9, 2008
A former University of Wisconsin-Madison lecturer who taught that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is running for Congress.
Kevin Barrett says he will officially announce his challenge to Democratic U.S. Rep. Ron Kind on Monday. Barrett says he will make the announcement before a Kind town hall meeting and then ask the congressman “some pointed questions.”
Barrett says he is running as a Libertarian and will be calling for an investigation into the terrorist attacks. He calls the official version of what happened a “load of hooey.”
Barrett is also urging voters to throw all Democrats and Republicans out of office.
Kind has represented western Wisconsin’s 3rd District in Congress since 1996
Had enough abuse yet?
Somebody needs to tell this asshole about separation of powers.
I wonder what Barr thinks about Catholic Charities not being allowed to continue it’s adoption ministry because they wouldn’t put children in Gay households? But there’s no “Slippery Slope”. Right?
“Federalism is one thing, activist judges overturning the will of the people is another.”
Yes. This is about the will of the people who are in favor of traditional marriage according to Prop 22. For Bob Barr to try and make it appear right according to “state’s rights” (its citizens are the state) shows him to be either uneducated about California’s state laws and history or he may be in favor of homosexual marriage along with the activist Court and just doesn’t have the cajones to say it directly.
If Ellen & her partner marry is anyone here any less married because of it? Why not worry about making your own marriage good there are a lot of straight marriages that could use half the focus we are spending trying to stop gay marriage
Bob Barr is an anarchist !He does not believe in our Republic nor does he believe in democracy !
“I wonder what Barr thinks about Catholic Charities not being allowed to continue it’s adoption ministry because they wouldn’t put children in Gay households? But there’s no “Slippery Slope”. Right?”
The slppery slope has been replaced by greased rails...
You must have missed the memo...
*grin*
Marraige is between one man..and one woman...has been for thousands of years (unless your a moonworshiping Islamic cultist) inalienable truth so self evident..our founders didnt even consider the possiblity.
Not once has the ever been a King..and a co-king.
While a king may have “consorts”...there was only one queen.
Now the queens run amuk...
Seems to me we did vote on this crap a few years ago, and gay marriage went down faster than a porn star.
The real lesson here is that the initiative process in Cali-phony-a doesn't work. Whenever we pass an initiative with some sense (definition of marriage, no state funds for illegals, etc.), the activist liars (er, lawyers) judge shop until they find some activist judge who agrees with their position, and the will of the people is overturned.
The point here is that, at some point, the populace will just ignore these initiatives knowing that some a$$hole in a black robe will just invalidate it, and we'll be back to good old days of "smoke-filled back-room" politics.
There, fixed your comment.
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.