Safeguard the courts

Christian Science Monitor ^ | June 19. 1981

[William McKinley]

To be honest, I have not read most of the article (I am about to). I did see a debate on another thread on if Congress could prevent the Supreme Court from having jurisdiction on a law. This article does address that, and even shows that such limitations was challenged in the courts and upheld as Constitutional.

[Petronski]

The Supreme Court makes stuff up all the time, and I do not doubt the depths of their 'creativity' in the queer marriage cases.

[Petronski]

And again, I don't like it, but hey, I'm still flabbergasted over the McCain-Feingold decision, not to mention those golden oldies: privacy, abortion, Miranda, etc.

[Asclepius]

In America's increasingly pluralistic society such consequences should be scrupulously avoided. Imagine, if you will, that each state were given sole authority to decide what the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment meant. It is conceivable that laws in Mormon Utah, Roman Catholic Rhode Island, and Baptist Georgia, say, might well break down the wall of separation of church and state so carefully preserved by the US Supreme Court. Majority rule could prevail in such basically sectarian states and the rights of minorities might be trheatened if not violated.

Correction: the rule of the majorities the left, liberal political establishment does not approve of could prevail, and the rights of minorities the left approves us could be threatened. (Note that Catholics and Baptists and Mormons are singled out as threats to our democracy.)

[Congressman Billybob]

The title is wrong by 180 degrees off. The problem is to defend the Constitution fron the courts.

And the power to remove certain jurisdiction from the courts has not been restricted to once, a century ago. It has been used at least six times that I know of, most recently two years ago when Li'l Tommy Daschle snunk in a provision to knock out the courts in South Dakota only. with respect to fire protection in the feneral forests.

What this writer decries, on the basis of NOT DOING HIS HOMEWORK, I support based on full and accurate information. The Christian Science Monitor is normally a very solid newspaper. It's a shame to see them descending to the status of the New York Times.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[tpaine]

"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor," commented Mr. Cox.


Does this not get to the nub of the controversy -- the protection of minorities against majority rule?

A suppression of minority rights by the majorities of the moment is precisely what the Constitution -- and judicial review -- is meant to limit.
Some militant groups in effect want to force all Americans into accepting a rigid set of beliefs on abortion, school prayer, and other social issues. This is not to argue the substance of the issues one way or the other. It is to say that, where a society is marked by so much social and religious diversity, it would seem prudent to hold to the traditional conservative tenet that government should stay out of people's personal lives as much as possible and let them practice their religious or personal beliefs without state mandate or prohibition.

One final point might be made. The issue of legislation which would limit court jurisdiction cuts across ideological lines.
Today it is the extreme conservatives who seek to restrict the federal courts.

Tomorrow it might be the extreme liberals who try to do so. Today the target is freedom of abortion. Tomorrow it could be the freedom of corporate business or of land ownership.

--[ Or, of our RKBA's ]--


Where, in other words, would Congress stop?


______________________________________


Yep, that indeed is the question.

Many here on FR don't seem to care, as long as their pet peeve is prohibited.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Many here on FR don't seem to care, as long as their pet peeve is prohibited."

Many here on FR are nut cases.
but that hardly rises to "Breaking News."

[William McKinley]

No. In this case the crux of the matter is the protection of the majority from minority rule.

A judge in Utah rules that polygamy bans are unconstitutional. A judge in Transylvania says that bans against marrying the dead are unconstitutional. Bans against marrying cousins, or brothers? Mere old-fashioned whimsey. You want to marry your cat, tpaine? Come on, admit it, we're all modern folk here. If one state says it is so, then that's it! It's a done deal!

[William McKinley]

but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism

And for over 200 years, the entire country has been wrong about marriage. So says that paragon of conservative virtue, tpaine. Some conservative.

[Jaysun]

They could desert such ideas if they'd simply hold judges accountable for rulings that are obviously contrary to the Constitution. They have Constitutional authority to remove activist judges from the bench. It wouldn't take very many impeachments to stop this Judicial Shogunate.

[Unam Sanctam]

"The very function of Constitution and court is to put individual liberties beyond the reach of both congressional majorities and popular clamor," commented Mr. Cox.

They're certainly failing this mission when it comes to protecting the rights of preborn human life.

[tpaine]

Why do you want the government involved in the sacrament of marriage, McKinley?

You get married according to your faith, I to mine. Anything wrong with that?

[StonyBurk]

The Legislature has been put in a position where just such
constitutional limitations on an out of control judiciary
must take place if any of our system of Law is to remain.
Lawrence v.Texas should have shaken everyone in the nation
to the realizaiton that the third branch of our govt. is
diseased and dying, and if not pruned or cut off they shall
destroy the whole body of American government.

[tpaine]

McKinley wrote:

And for over 200 years, the entire country has been wrong about marriage.
So says that paragon of conservative virtue, tpaine. Some conservative.

______________________________________


Nope, you invented that 'saying', Willy.
-- And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway.. Put your big mouth on the line. Make your accusation.

[William McKinley]

I'll make my accusation simple.

You are not conservative.

[William McKinley]

Since the founding of the country, marriage here has been one man, one woman. Anything wrong with that?

If there is a constitutional reason why it shouldn't be just that, then spell it out, and while doing explain how that same rationale could not be used to legalize polygamy, adult incest, or beastiality.

Since the founding of our country, the government has been involved in the sacrament of marriage. Why do you, who claims the mantle of conservatism, want to change that?

[tpaine]

And for over 200 years, the entire country has been wrong about marriage.
So says that paragon of conservative virtue, tpaine. Some conservative.

______________________________________

Nope, you invented that 'saying', Willy.
-- And I'll match my constitutional conservatism against yours anyday, anyway.. Put your big mouth on the line. Make your accusation.
14 tpaine

______________________________________


I'll make my accusation simple.
You are not conservative.
15 -willy-


______________________________________


Yep, that's 'simple' in the idiotic sense .
Backatcha, -- you don't honor our constitution, - as you want to change it.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...it is harder for judges to stand independently and rule strictly on the basis of conscience

I quit reading when I got to this.

They are to rule on the basis of law, not concience.

That is the problem that calls for attempts to limit their jurisdiction. They ignore law and rule on what they think it should be, by their "concience".

[William McKinley]

Sorry tpaine, too cute by half.

I want to follow the proscribed method for enacting a change to the standards of our society- following the constitution as written by the founders.

You want to revel in the changes 'interpreted' by the SCOTUS in Lawrence and the Massachusettes Supreme Court.

I want to conserve what has been for over 200 years.

You want what you always want, which is the erosion of society in the name of a sort of liberty which is really the lack of freedom for people to arrange their communities as they see fit.

When you get around to it, you still owe an answer to this:

Since the founding of the country, marriage here has been one man, one woman. Anything wrong with that?

If there is a constitutional reason why it shouldn't be just that, then spell it out, and while doing explain how that same rationale could not be used to legalize polygamy, adult incest, or beastiality.

[tpaine]

Why do you want the government involved in the sacrament of marriage, McKinley?
You get married according to your faith, I to mine. Anything wrong with that?

Since the founding of the country, marriage here has been one man, one woman. Anything wrong with that?

I've been married to the same woman for 42 years.. Suits me fine.

If there is a constitutional reason why it shouldn't be just that, then spell it out, and while doing explain how that same rationale could not be used to legalize polygamy, adult incest, or beastiality.

Our constitution has nothing to do with the religious practices of marriage. We should keep it that way. -- As to your list of sexual fetishes, I think you should let the States write criminal law about them, bearing in mind the restrictions put upon states/localities by our BOR's..

Since the founding of our country, the government has been involved in the sacrament of marriage. Why do you, who claims the mantle of conservatism, want to change that?

I don't want marriage amendments or more laws on the subject.. And I disagree with the present income tax 'laws', and government insurance benefits that favor 'significant others'..
Fair's fair. Every person should be treated equally under constitutional law.