Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
Philip Lewis
Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
October 1, 2003
by Jonathan Strong
"The rule of law - 'a government of laws and not of men' -
implies rules known in advance, applied generally, and
constraining the rulers as well as the ruled."
-Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice
On June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
the decision Lawrence v. Texas, declaring homosexual sodomy laws
unconstitutional. Despite the debatable effects of the immediate
changes regarding the specific laws in question, some things were
utterly clear from Lawrence. The decision in Lawrence illustrated
a reckless pattern of disregard for the Constitution-which in
turn is subversive to the rule of law.
The ideal of the "rule of law" began 3,000 years ago with the
writings of Plato and Aristotle consisting of government
operating by written and predetermined laws. The particular laws
of a government do not reflect upon the rule of law; it is
whether a government follows those laws in a general and
consistent way. Justice in a society following the rule of law
can be considered a fair decision based on the given law relevant
to the matter being decided upon. Thus, it is eminently
important for the laws to be established and documented
beforehand for the rule of law to be administered. This way the
law can be an essentially objective standard from which a judge
can decide upon. Citizens will in turn be able to know this
objective standard and plan their behavior accordingly.
Aristotle suggested a judge should "be allowed to decide as
little as possible," limiting decision to "such points as the
lawgiver has not already defined for him." This too is important
to the rule of law: the designation of laws is not intended to be
decided upon by a judge who must also weigh the particular
circumstances of a case. Rule of law strives for non-arbitrary
implementation of laws which have been pre-determined.
The United States is a nation that has, throughout its history,
sought and accomplished the rule of law to one of the highest
degrees of any nation. The U.S. Constitution is a governing
document that has outlasted any other in the history of the
world, and has only been amended 27 times in its 216 year tenure.
Its protections of liberty and equality under the law have been
the framework for unprecedented prosperity and freedom. That our
nation strives for the rule of law has been a fundamental part of
its success.
Yet, in the last 50 years, there have been judicial decisions
acutely subversive to the rule of law. These decisions involve an
"inherent right to privacy," found primarily in the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution. The first decision to find this
"right to privacy" was Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, nearly
100 years after the 14th amendment was ratified. To put it
simply, a "right to privacy" does not exist in the U.S.
Constitution. Those words do not appear in that document. The
justices argued in Griswold that one could derive a "right to
privacy" from "penumbras" of other constitutional rights, that
these "penumbras" form a "zone of privacy."
The reasoning in this decision may have been politically
expedient, it may have knocked an "uncommonly silly" law out of
existence, but it was contradictory to the rule of law. There is
simply no way for a citizen to deduce, beforehand, a "zone of
privacy" from "penumbras" in the Constitution. The very language
used to describe this "right to privacy" is inherently (and
perhaps purposefully) vague and ambiguous. It does not lend
itself well to providing an objective standard to weigh against.
The application of laws will always be somewhat subjective, but
the goal is to clearly define a law to reduce the arbitrary
nature of application.
The justices tried in Griswold to limit the "right to privacy" to
the bedroom of a married couple. Yet, the concept of finding
extra-Constitutional rights proved too subversive to the rule of
law for that limitation to last. The "right to privacy" has
continued to be used for politically expedient means since its
invention, notably in Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade, Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, and Stenberg v.
Carhart.
And so, nearly 40 years later, we now arrive at Lawrence v.
Texas, a decision that effectively found a "right" to homosexual
sodomy in the Constitution. This may seem like a bold claim,
especially in light of the majority decision expressly decrying
this statement as a simplistic view of the "liberty at stake."
In reality, though, Lawrence did find a constitutional right to
homosexual sodomy-any law against it has now been ruled
unconstitutional. How else might we describe it?
Now, finding a "right" to homosexual sodomy in the text of the
U.S. Constitution would be ridiculous without the 40 year ladder
built by the Court upon the "right to privacy." But in context
of the logical framework of extra-Constitutional rights being
added, the decision was predictable. In fact, the majority
decision in Lawrence takes great pains to document the logical
heritage of such a ruling. It is ironic that after tracing that
history, the Lawrence decision tries to put illogical limits on
the implications of the ruling. Just as Griswold attempted to
limit its scope to the marital bedroom, Lawrence expressly states
that the Court is not ruling on the issue of homosexual
"marriage."
It is difficult to believe that the Court will not continue to
forge ahead; there isn't evidence to suggest they won't. There
is no longer any logical ground for the Court to stand upon in
ruling against homosexual "marriage." There is no democratic
process to remove justices from the Court. As our president
nominates judges to lesser courts they are held from even a floor
vote by a partisan Senate.
There is one method to stop the specific issue of homosexual
"marriage" being imposed upon the nation by our Court: the
Federal Marriage Amendment. This would explicitly define marriage
as between a man and a woman in a clearly worded constitutional
amendment. It is not a glamorous option, but it is a better
option than allowing our bankrupt Court to continue imposing
their elitist whims upon us.
Jonathan Strong
Jonathan Strong is a sophomore political science major at Wheaton
College. He
is editor in chief of Right Magazine, located at
http://right-magazine.com.
plainavy
Thanks for the post! When the Supremes start citing *European* social
precedent to defend rulings, as they did in Lawrence v. Texas, one has
to wonder what's up and how far it *can't* go. We might as well be
having the most liberal Swedes or most anti-Puritan Danes interpreting
what Americans' Constitution means.
Plainavy
Hyerdahl1
>From: "Philip Lewis" NotTe...@hotmail.com
>Date: 10/1/2003 2:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <ble7r8$b9anb$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>
>
>
>Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
>October 1, 2003
>
>
>by Jonathan Strong
>
>Yet, in the last 50 years, there have been judicial decisions acutely
subversive to the rule of law.
[The Constitution and rule of law considered that judges might need to review
issues that were NOT issues at the time, like the advent of the internet.]
These decisions involve an>"inherent right to privacy," found primarily in the
14th
>Amendment to the Constitution.]
When the founders drafted the Constitution women decided the issues of abortion
for themselves. Surely they meant to continue that. AND as to the penubral
right, those are easy to infer from the other amendments UNLESS women are
chattel.]
(edit)
There is>simply no way for a citizen to deduce, beforehand, a "zone of
>privacy" from "penumbras" in the Constitution.
The court and I disagree with you, and even if there were no "penumbras" women
would still abort without your permission just as they did when the founders
drafted the document.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
Giant Attitude
>>Subject: Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>>From: "Philip Lewis" NotTe...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 10/1/2003 2:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <ble7r8$b9anb$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>
>>
>>Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>>http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
>>October 1, 2003
>>
>>
>>by Jonathan Strong
>>
>(edit)
>
>>Yet, in the last 50 years, there have been judicial decisions acutely
>subversive to the rule of law.
>
>[The Constitution and rule of law considered that judges might need to review
>issues that were NOT issues at the time, like the advent of the internet.]
>
> These decisions involve an>"inherent right to privacy," found primarily in the
>14th
>>Amendment to the Constitution.]
Where is there an "inherent right to privacy" found in the 14th
Amendment, Puke?
Cut and paste the 14th amendment and show where that is.
>When the founders drafted the Constitution women decided the issues of abortion
>for themselves. Surely they meant to continue that.
Surely the founders meant to sanction female lawbreaking? Is that
your argument?
> AND as to the penubral
>right, those are easy to infer from the other amendments
Why are they easy to infer? Example?
> UNLESS women are
>chattel.]
As a matter of fact, Puke, women ARE chattel.
>(edit)
> There is>simply no way for a citizen to deduce, beforehand, a "zone of
>>privacy" from "penumbras" in the Constitution.
>
>The court and I disagree with you,
The court also says that George W. Bush is the lawfully elected
President of the United States, but I have a feeling that that didn't
go down as easily.
> and even if there were no "penumbras" women
>would still abort without your permission just as they did when the founders
>drafted the document.
And, if they wanted to, men would continue to put women in stocks for
offenses much less onerous than abortions, just as they once did in
the good old days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got the split-fingered fastball; I got the suicide squeeze; I got the double up the middle and the homer in the breeze; I got a GIANT...I got a GIANT ATTITUDE".
- San Francisco Giants theme song, 1991
"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh
at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the
geldings be fruitful" - C.S.Lewis
"The history of women is the history of the worst tyranny the world has ever
known; the tyranny of the weak over the strong. It is the only tyranny that ever
lasts." - Oscar Wilde
"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"- Friedrich Nietzsche
Hyerdahl1
>issues. wasRe: Destroying the Constitution
>From: Giant Attitude gianta...@earthlink.net
>Date: 10/2/2003 8:03 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4pppnvkse64m0mupm...@4ax.com>
>
>On 03 Oct 2003 02:30:20 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>>>From: "Philip Lewis" NotTe...@hotmail.com
>>>Date: 10/1/2003 2:46 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <ble7r8$b9anb$1...@ID-59530.news.uni-berlin.de>
>>>
>>>
>>>Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>>>http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
>>>October 1, 2003
>>>
>>>
>>>by Jonathan Strong
>>>
>>(edit)
>>
>>>Yet, in the last 50 years, there have been judicial decisions acutely
>>subversive to the rule of law.
Like what?
>>
>>[The Constitution and rule of law considered that judges might need to
>review>>issues that were NOT issues at the time, like the advent of the
internet.]
>>
>> These decisions involve an>"inherent right to privacy," found primarily in
>the>>14th>>Amendment to the Constitution.]
>
>
>Where is there an "inherent right to privacy" found in the 14th
>Amendment, Puke?
>
Within the penumbra of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. The Justices
found it there even if you can't.
>Cut and paste the 14th amendment and show where that is.
The court cases that ruled on the penumbra found it there; it doesn't really
matter if you can't. Bitter boys have no 'hand'.
Grizzlie Antagonist
I'm asking for YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, not theirs.
>>Cut and paste the 14th amendment and show where that is.
>
>The court cases that ruled on the penumbra found it there; it doesn't really
>matter if you can't. Bitter boys have no 'hand'.
"The court cases that ruled on the penumbra found it there".
Puke, do you even know what a "penumbra" is or is that a new word that
you picked up from the street like a discarded cigarette butt?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Giants have betrayed me for the last time" - The artist who was formerly known as "Giant Attitude"
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Jonathan Strong is an idiot who doesn't seem to understand that one of
the rightful duties of the courts is to determine whether the
legislative branch of government has exceeded the limits of the
authority granted to it by the people under the constitution. If Mr
strong has difficulty with a court striking down a law which exceeds the
legislative authority of the government enacting that law, I would
suggest that he address the issue of FURTHER empowering the legislative
branch with GREATER powers under the constitution...not attack the
courts for only carrying out their CONSTITUTIONALLY assigned duties...
...Ken
Society
news:Sr3hb.90117$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> Philip Lewis quoted...
> >
> > Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
> > http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
> > October 1, 2003
> > by Jonathan Strong
> >
> > Jonathan Strong is a sophomore political science major
> > at Wheaton College. He is editor in chief of Right Magazine,
> > located at http://right-magazine.com.
>
I'm underwhelmed by a counter-argument with such
paucity of persuasion, Ken. This is out of character
for you.
Oh, btw, Ken, muttering mumbo-jumbo about the U.S.
courts being a bulwark against "the government" exceeding
its authority is only good for a touch of that "it hurts to laugh"
sort of humor. "Emanations and penumbras" are not in the
U.S. Constitution -- they are the stuff of medieval alchemists
and practitioners of voodoo. Sheesh!
Ken, point to the clause in the U.S. Constitution that
assigns any "duty" or authority to second-guess the
legislature to the federal courts.
wd
This was pretty much my reaction also. The courts are another part of the
checks and balances and not necessarly the last word an issue at times.
And when push comes to shove, the legislators can always change the law in
the name of the people.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> "Ken&Laura Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
> news:Sr3hb.90117$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
>>Philip Lewis quoted...
>>
>>>Destroying the Constitution one decision at a time
>>>http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/strong/03/strong100103.htm
>>>October 1, 2003
>>>by Jonathan Strong
>>>[article deleted for space; see URL above or go up-thread]
>>>
>>>Jonathan Strong is a sophomore political science major
>>>at Wheaton College. He is editor in chief of Right Magazine,
>>>located at http://right-magazine.com.
>>
>>Jonathan Strong is an idiot [...]
>
>
> I'm underwhelmed by a counter-argument with such
> paucity of persuasion, Ken. This is out of character
> for you.
The US Constitution lays out quite clearly the duties and powers of the
Judiciary (specifically the Supreme Court) which was (according to
Benjamin Franklin amoung others, the "the second last safe guard against
tyranny" (and armed citizenry being the last...) The intent of the
framers of the constitution was to provide a nonpartisan body with the
power to review (amoung other things) laws to determine whether a
legislature had over stepped it's constitutional authority...personally
I think you got something better, a body capable of changing with the
public mood but slowly so that it reflects *real* societal change rather
than the political "mood swings" of the elected, politically partisan
legislative and executive branches...
> Oh, btw, Ken, muttering mumbo-jumbo about the U.S.
> courts being a bulwark against "the government" exceeding
> its authority is only good for a touch of that "it hurts to laugh"
> sort of humor. "Emanations and penumbras" are not in the
> U.S. Constitution -- they are the stuff of medieval alchemists
> and practitioners of voodoo. Sheesh!
I just don't understand this paragraph at all...
>
> Ken, point to the clause in the U.S. Constitution that
> assigns any "duty" or authority to second-guess the
> legislature to the federal courts.
Article III pretty much says it all, to whit...
Constitution Of The United States Of America; Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in
one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from
time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and
inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and
shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation,
which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,
and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to
all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to
all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to
which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two
or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between
citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state
claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or
the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the
Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress
shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the
trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have
directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in
open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but
no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture
except during the life of the person attainted.
>
>
Ken&Laura Chaddock
Only within the bounds of the constitution. The final authority rests
with the people in the form of a constitutional congress to amend the
constitution when it becomes necessary to either further restrict the
legislative branch or to assign more specific powers and authority.
Canada has a similar set up with one (I feel) superior (in "theory")
feature, the federal or provincial Governments can use the "Not With
Standing" Clause to over ride certain sections of our Charter Of Rights
And Freedoms on a temporary basis, the intent being to allow Governments
to act when it is absolutely necessary for them to do so but to suffer
the political consequences of doing so and to allow them time to seek
Constitutional amendment where necessary. The failure of the NWC is that
the only governments to use it have *NOT* subsequently sought
constitutional amendment but have simply re-applied the NWC after it's 5
year limit expired...apparently it was a mistake to allow NWC laws to be
renewable on several levels, not the least being that it has discredited
the NWC in the eyes of the general public to the extent that most
governments would never think of using it...
...Ken