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.
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.