Here is what Thomas Cooley said about interpreting our
Constitution:
A Constitution is not
to be made to mean one thing at one time and another at some subsequent time
when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule
in the case seem more desirable.
And further:
A court or a
legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in
giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of
its founders would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath
and public duty.
No member of the Supreme Court has opined that the people of
the several States who ratified the Constitution in 1789 or the legislatures of
the States that ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended thereby
to forbid the State legislatures to enact laws defining marriage as a contract
between a man and a woman.
None of the lawyers who argued the gay marriage cases said
so. No newspaper, television station, network or web site has ever claimed that
the Framers of our Constitution or the people who ratified it, intended to
legalize gay marriage.
The plain, obvious and undeniable truth is that the
supporters of gay marriage want the Supreme Court to read something into the
Constitution which isn’t there, never has been there, and does not have
sufficient support among the American people to be adopted as an amendment to
the Constitution.
The people of the State of California, have on two
occasions, by a significant majority vote, expressed their wish to restrict
marriage to the traditional relationship between a man and a woman.
In spite of those votes and in spite of the Constitutional
guarantee that California shall have a republican form of government, the 9th
Circuit Federal Court has substituted its will for the will of the people.
It is commonly said that federal judges are appointed for
life. This is not true. Section 1 of Article III of the United States
Constitution says that federal judges shall hold their offices “during good
behavior.”
Federal Judges, including the Justices of the Supreme Court,
have taken an oath to support the Constitution. They are not sworn to do what
is popular, or what they think is best for the people or what they think the
people want. They are not empowered to dictate the cultural mores of the American
people.
When a court announces that it has perceived ‘an emerging
public consensus’ and proceeds to base a decision affecting the rights of
litigants on public opinion rather than the plain words of the Constitution,
the Judges or Justices who subscribe to such a decision are patently guilty of
judicial misbehavior and are subject to removal from office.
The Constitutional standard of “good behavior” differs from
the definition of the grounds for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 spells out
the grounds for impeachment, which include treason, Bribery and other high
crimes and misdemeanors.
Removal from office for failure to maintain ‘good behavior’
is a far stricter standard than an impeachable offence.
I submit that the attempt to deny the people of the states
the right to legislate on the subject of marriage is conclusive evidence of
judicial misbehavior and the Congress of the United States should immediately
take steps to remove from office all those Justices and Judges who have violated
their oaths of office by rendering or concurring in such opinions.
Eustace Mullins says on page 10 of his 1989 book "The Rape of Justice" that "....under the United Nations Treaty, the crime of treason against an individual cannot be successfully prosecuted. Alger Hiss had to be prosecuted for the crime of perjury, rather than the crime of treason, because he was protected by our acceptance of the United Nations Treaty (which he himself had written !)."
ReplyDelete