Posted on 07/06/2003 5:21:30 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
The Supreme Court is not supreme
With the Supreme Court's decision, striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law as an unconstitutional stricture on the liberty of homosexuals, conservatives fear that all state laws banning gay marriages will fall.
They are right to be alarmed. Three-dozen states may have enacted laws defining marriage as solely between a man and woman, but those statutes could be swept away by five justices. Should the court decide that homosexuals have not only a right to engage in consensual sex, but a right to solemnize their unions, what elected legislators decide will not matter.
Why not? Because we no longer live in a constitutional republic.
In a brief brilliant essay, "The 'Happy Convention,'" William Quirk, author of "Judicial Dictatorship," describes how Americans now live under a "convention" that is a fraud upon the Constitution our forefathers crafted.
Our original Constitution divided the powers of the government and put restrictions on those powers, in a Bill of Rights, and in the retention by the states of much of their sovereign power.
Lincoln's War overthrew that Constitution. When 11 "free and independent states" sought peacefully to depart from the Union, they were dragged back in, by invasion and war. By 1884, Woodrow Wilson was writing in his "Congressional Government," "we are really living under a constitution essentially different from that which we have been so long worshiping as our own peculiar and incomparable possession."
The "noble charter" of the Philadelphia Convention is still our Constitution, Wilson continued, but it is now "rather in name than in reality." While the outward form of the Constitution remains one of a nicely adjusted ideal balance, Wilson added, "the actual form of our present government is . . . a scheme of Congressional supremacy."
After World War II, that second Constitution gave way to a third, an unwritten, "Happy Convention," in Quirk's phrase. By the terms of that convention, Congress cedes its power over war, peace and foreign policy to the president, and its power to decide issues of race, gender, religion, culture and morality to the Supreme Court.
Why did Congress cede its powers? For the most basic of reasons: survival. Decisions on war, peace, race, religion, morality, culture and gender, divide us deeply and emotionally. These are issues where one vote could cost scores of congressmen their seats. Why not turn them over to justices, appointed for life, who never face the voters and who relish remaking our society according to their own vision and beliefs?
"Conservatives and liberals fight like cats and dogs and disagree on almost everything," writes Quirk, "but, oddly, agree the Court should have the authoritative role the unwritten constitution provides for. They just disagree on who should control the Court."
Why do conservatives and liberals agree that the court should decide such issues? Because both "share an abiding fear and distrust of American majority culture."
Does he not have a point? Today, we read that George W. Bush and his advisers are terrified of having gay marriage become an issue in 2004, as they will have to oppose such marriages as immoral, in order to secure their political base, while the Big Media lashes them as bigots.
The Bushites are delighted to have questions of race, religion and morality settled by courts. For when courts decide, politicians can throw up their hands and say, "We may not like it, but there is nothing we can do. The court has the final say."
But, as Quirk argues, the court does not, in the true Constitution, have the final say. As Jefferson refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts, President Bush could refuse to take down the Ten Commandments from that Alabama court house, should the Supreme Court order him to do so.
In our written Constitution, the doctrine of judicial supremacy does not exist. Congress has the power to abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court and to limit that court's jurisdiction to "cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party."
"The Court has jurisdiction, in all other cases," writes Quirk, "only if Congress grants it."
Rather than going down the endless road of a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, as we failed to do, in protecting the flag, Congress should re-enact the Defense of Marriage Act, restricting marriage to men and women, and add this provision: "This law is not subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court."
If Congress will not confront the Court, the people should confront the Congress. For our national sovereignty rests with the people, who took it away from King George and Parliament and lodged it in a written Constitution, not in this insiders deal by which we are ruled today
I'm no brigadier-I think Pat is a nutball.
But this piece is exactly on the money. Congress has been furiously abdicating its power and responsibilities ever since they figured out that standing for something could cut you off from the babes, the booze, and the money.
Congress has the right and the responsibility to "regulate, and make exceptions to" the appellate power of the Supreme Court (Art. III, s. 2).
All this talk of Amendments and impeachments is fatuous, and unnecessary.
Congress merely needs, by simple majority, to except state laws pertaining to marriage from judicial review. Period, end of story.
I agree with both of those. I was once enthusiastic about Patrick J., now I am wary of him.
-
Congress merely needs, by simple majority, to except state laws pertaining to marriage from judicial review.
Brilliant.
It is my fundamental contention that "marriage" is based on human reproductive biology and outside of government's authority to regulate.
If marriage is based on human reproductive biology, is outside of government authority to regulate, and is a religious institution - - then only the churches may regulate marriage. Some may not like this idea, however, the churches that venture outside of accepted tradition will ultimately fail, they will not have any congregation to support them.
Furthermore, abolishing non-profit status for religious institutions will keep the institutions alive that people actually actively support. There are too many organizations and false churches kept alive by the non-profit crutch.
I'm not saying I support something by discussing the issue, but it is imperative that a biological basis for marriage is established. This makes the issue of homosexual marriage null and void...
It is also a secular standard based on human biology, not sectarian religious dogma the likes of the ACLU scum can challenge under the false "separation of church and state."
I want to cram the phony church-state separation right back down their throats. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion.
I am not normally a Buchannan cheerleader. But, except for his snide "This law is not subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court" comment, he is spot on with this analysis. The Congress has, indeed, moved way away from their original charter.Jim Noble commented on the babes, the booze, and the money. Absolutely right. I get the distinct feeling that politicos, especially Senators, feel they belong to an exclusive club that makes them better than the rest of us. Term limits anyone?
They have the power, but if they use it, the babes, the booze, and the money are all at risk.
Your question, "why do we need Congress" is rhetorical, but it presages the fall of the Republic, for when a man with the power to say to Congress, "Begone!" asks the question, it will all be over in an hour.
Why? Jefferson et al. are the ones who put the current system into place.
Oh, but sir, you mistake those perceptive gentlemen. They DID limit the power, in exactly the way that I'm sure you would approve of:
Article III, section 2, paragraph 2
The Supreme Court's power to do the things to which you so rightly object is already subject to Congress's grant of authority, which can be modified at any time by simple majority, or by amending the Judiciary Act.
No, they want some legitimacy for their cult of perversion...
An Infidel's Conclusion
Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.
Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.
There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs.
Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).
The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...
They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'
Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.
Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.
This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the bedrock at the Dome of the Rock and the meteorite at the Kaaba as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.
There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)
Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s).
Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.
It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.
The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).
The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'
The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...
Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]
Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.
To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...
To bolster some of my assertions:
What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.
Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.
The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.
In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...
The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.
The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.
Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.]
One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.
This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered. The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.
An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.
Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils (yet another example of religious ceremony) for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child?
Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." The idolatry of "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.
But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.
Sarcasm ON The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. Sarcasm OFF
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
They have a cult of perversion...
I would date the current form of unconstitutional government to slightly before WWII--to 1933, the start of FDR's administration. This was the beginning of Big Government as we know it: the federal government usurping powers not delegated to it in the Constitution, e.g., health, welfare, pensions, education, wealth redistribution, etc.
But of course I heartily agree with Buchanan's main point: that this latest SCOTUS decision is just another nail in the coffin of the Constitution, which was intended to limit the powers of the federal government (viz. the states) and to balance the powers of its main branches.
Already done, by Pres Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that state laws could not be applied to Indians. This ruling, in essence, denied that the state of Georgia had the power to remove the Cherokee from their land in Georgia...President Jackson opposed the Supreme CourtÌs ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and refused to enforce it, saying, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." In the end, the Cherokee were removed by gun point to the Indian Territory of Oklahoma. Thousands of Cherokee died in transit; the event is now known as the Trial of Tears.
The Supreme Court used to be dependent upon the cooperation of the President and Congress for enforcement of its decisions. If they came out with something that was obviously out-to-lunch WRT the Constitution, the Prez could publicly say so, tell the US that the Supremes are going senile, and that he's not gonna pay attention to them any more. And the prez could fire any bureaucrat who DID want to pay attention to them. This made the Supremes loath to make visible how essentially powerless they were. Fear of embarrassment kept them in check.
That was before Civil Service laws. Now the Prez has little control over his own Branch, if the Supremes can give the bureaucrats cover for defying a direct Presidential order.
And the President and Congress are damned grateful to be taken off the hook, too.
From the time of the creation of the Fourth Branch in the 1930s until now, Congress has been progressively abandoning its fundamental responsibilities-the power over war and peace, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, the power over immigration and the borders, and the power to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and inferior Federal Courts.
This has created a situation where Congressthings can claim credit for things that are popular, and avoid blame for things that are not, thereby continuing in the best job any of them have ever had.
Even if they aren't going to Gary Condit's sex parties (and who is running those parties now, anyway?), they can stay as long as they like and retire fabulously wealthy.
Such a deal!
I don't think so. It would only prevent lower court rulings from being appealed to the SCOTUS. IOW, the lower court rulings would stand.
Of course, since the lower ('inferior') courts exist only because the Congress created them, I'm sure Congress wouldn't allow them to hear any case that they prohibited the Supremes from hearing as well.
While I agree that Congress has the constitutional authority to limit the appellate jurisidiction of the Supremes, I wonder: if they could exercise this authority in the ad hoc manner suggested by PJB above, in what manner could the Judicial Branch be considered a "check" on the power of the Legislative branch?
Certainly, the president could serve as that constitutional "check", but few presidents have had the sense or the courage to do so. We would be back to the scenario written about by Wilson (quoted in PJB's essay), namely, an era of 'Congressional supremacy'.
Then again, it makes no sense to presume that Congress would have the political courage to resume the powers it SHOULD exercise, but which were unconstitutionally ceded to the other branches of the fedgov.
Ending Judicial Dictatorship January 29, 1996 - Patrick J. Buchanan, Heritage Lecture #553
In these areas, as in all others, the majority can pass a law or make a proposal, but it is always up to the Court to make the final decision. It may find a "constitutional right" and decide the majority's plan violates it: End of majority plan.
To revise Lincoln's words, we today have a government of the judiciary, by the judiciary, and for the judiciary.
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.