Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: Why Judge Reinhardt’s opinion on same sex marriage is dangerous to our Republic!

  1. #1

    Why Judge Reinhardt’s opinion on same sex marriage is dangerous to our Republic!

    . .
    One of the most important provisions in our Constitution is that judges and Justices are bound by the very words of our Constitution to support and defend “this Constitution”! The Court is not given the latitude when deciding upon the constitutionality of a law to base its opinion on its personal judgment call if the law in question furthers any “legitimate purpose” or promotes the values of the State. By contrast, there are a number of constitutions which do give the Court this very despotic authority, e.g., under Israel’s Basic Law: “Human Dignity and Liberty” we find a number of rights listed and secured. But then, under No.8, “Violation of rights” we find:

    ”There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”

    This constitutionally authorized power in effect makes the previous rights listed in Israel’s Basic Law meaningless and subject to the mere discretion and fancies of the court. But that authority, one which intentionally allows Israel's judges to determine if a law promotes the values of the State of Israel and is enacted for a "proper purpose", is not a power granted to our judges and Justices, although they have despotically exercised such power over the years beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s and it is now used by the court to blatantly and with impunity decide what a law should be instead of the court deciding if a law is in harmony with the documented intentions under which our constitution’s, federal and state, were adopted. In effect, the power when exercised by the court today is both arbitrary and capricious and is openly used by the court to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution, while assuming an unaccountable and despotic legislative authority.

    After studying the 9th Circuit Court opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, it becomes alarmingly clear that Judge Reinhardt never demonstrated from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment that it forbids a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. Judge Reinhardt simply asserted “defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” See page 44 of Reinhardt’s opinion. In fact, it is Judge Reinhardt who failed to demonstrate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is in harmony with his personal views and he assumed a despotic power to judge what a law should be.


    But Judge Reinhardt is not clothed with authority by our Constitution to judge if a law passed by a State furthers any legitimate purpose. That authority is placed in the hands of the Legislature or law making body and includes our system’s amendment process in which the people may decide to make necessary changes to their constitution to accommodate changing times __ see Article V of the Constitution of the United States!

    It is not obvious that Judge Reinhardt has ignored a fundamental principle stated by our Supreme Court which wrote:

    ”… we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”___ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

    In fact, Judge Reinhardt failed, or intentionally avoided to substantiate his assertion that a state is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, to make distinctions based upon sex, or sexual orientation when issuing a marriage license. Instead, he took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare ”… defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

    If this ruling is allowed to stand, our Constitution becomes a meaningless document, including the various provisions intended to restrict federal government actions, e.g., see the first ten amendments, which would then be subject to the courts arbitrary predilections, its views of fairness, reasonableness or justice, even when the Court is in direct conflict with the expressed intentions under which the people of the United States adopted a particular provision such as the 14th Amendment which was never, even remotely, intended to forbid state laws which make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license.

    The bottom line is, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion is judicial tyranny at its worst and he ought to be immediately removed from the bench and severely punished to set an example for other judges and Justices who have, and intend to supplant their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as court ordered law while shredding the very document which the people adopted to protect themselves from judicial tyranny.

    JWK


    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
    Last edited by johnwk; 10-20-2014 at 07:26 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

    History is rife with stupid laws that have been struck down by the Court. Now I'm not passing judgment on this topic, but merely commenting that it's a good thing that there are, in fact, limits to the legislative branch.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    . .
    One of the most important provisions in our Constitution is that judges and Justices are bound by the very words of our Constitution to support and defend “this Constitution”! The Court is not given the latitude when deciding upon the constitutionality of a law to base its opinion on its personal judgment call if the law in question furthers any “legitimate purpose” or promotes the values of the State. By contrast, there are a number of constitutions which do give the Court this very despotic authority, e.g., under Israel’s Basic Law: “Human Dignity and Liberty” we find a number of rights listed and secured. But then, under No.8, “Violation of rights” we find:

    ”There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.”

    This constitutionally authorized power in effect makes the previous rights listed in Israel’s Basic Law meaningless and subject to the mere discretion and fancies of the court. But that authority, one which intentionally allows Israel's judges to determine if a law promotes the values of the State of Israel and is enacted for a "proper purpose", is not a power granted to our judges and Justices, although they have despotically exercised such power over the years beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s and it is now used by the court to blatantly and with impunity decide what a law should be instead of the court deciding if a law is in harmony with the documented intentions under which our constitution’s, federal and state, were adopted. In effect, the power when exercised by the court today is both arbitrary and capricious and is openly used by the court to circumvent the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution, while assuming an unaccountable and despotic legislative authority.

    After studying the 9th Circuit Court opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, it becomes alarmingly clear that Judge Reinhardt never demonstrated from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment that it forbids a State to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license. Judge Reinhardt simply asserted “defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” See page 44 of Reinhardt’s opinion. In fact, it is Judge Reinhardt who failed to demonstrate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment is in harmony with his personal views and he assumed a despotic power to judge what a law should be.


    But Judge Reinhardt is not clothed with authority by our Constitution to judge if a law passed by a State furthers any legitimate purpose. That authority is placed in the hands of the Legislature or law making body and includes our system’s amendment process in which the people may decide to make necessary changes to their constitution to accommodate changing times __ see Article V of the Constitution of the United States!

    It is not obvious that Judge Reinhardt has ignored a fundamental principle stated by our Supreme Court which wrote:

    ”… we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”___ ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

    In fact, Judge Reinhardt failed, or intentionally avoided to substantiate his assertion that a state is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, to make distinctions based upon sex, or sexual orientation when issuing a marriage license. Instead, he took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare ”… defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.”

    If this ruling is allowed to stand, our Constitution becomes a meaningless document, including the various provisions intended to restrict federal government actions, e.g., see the first ten amendments, which would then be subject to the courts arbitrary predilections, its views of fairness, reasonableness or justice, even when the Court is in direct conflict with the expressed intentions under which the people of the United States adopted a particular provision such as the 14th Amendment which was never, even remotely, intended to forbid state laws which make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license.

    The bottom line is, Judge Reinhardt’s opinion is judicial tyranny at its worst and he ought to be immediately removed from the bench and severely punished to set an example for other judges and Justices who have, and intend to supplant their personal views of fairness, reasonableness or justice as court ordered law while shredding the very document which the people adopted to protect themselves from judicial tyranny.

    JWK


    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

  4. #3
    I was thinking Judge Reinhold when I read the title of the OP.


  5. #4
    The problem is government in marriage, where it should have NO JURISDICTION.

    Let's start there.
    There is no spoon.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by scottditzen View Post

    History is rife with stupid laws that have been struck down by the Court. .
    We are here talking about the Court ignoring the very intentions under which the 14th amendment was adopted and imposing its personal opinion as to what the Amendment should mean. Why have a constitution of the court can make the constitution mean whatever it wants it to mean?


    JWK

  7. #6
    Maybe by preventing government from restricting marriage the way it wants we will be able to get government out entirely. I could certainly make a case to Christians that they are better off with NO government marriage than they are with government marriage that is contrary to the Bible.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    I was thinking Judge Reinhold when I read the title of the OP.

    Me too!

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    I was thinking Judge Reinhold when I read the title of the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Me too!
    Same here.

    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Me too!
    I thought so as well!

    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  12. #10

    How about sticking to the subject of the thread?

    The primary question to be answered is: Does the 14th Amendment forbid distinctions based upon sex as Judge Reinhardt alleges?

    The fact is, Judge Reinhardt merely asserted but never confirmed with documentation from the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment that it forbids a state to make distinctions based upon sex, or “sexual orientation” when issuing a marriage license. What we do know and cannot be successfully refuted when reading the 39th Congressional debates is that the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid State legislation which made distinctions based upon race, color or previous condition slavery. It was not meant to be a rule to bar every imaginable kind of “discrimination” and certainly not intended to be a rule to forbid distinctions based upon sex or “sexual orientation”. How do I know my above assertions are true aside from reading the Congressional debates? Let us take a look at the very next amendment added to the Constitution, the 15th Amendment.

    Is it not a fact that the 15th Amendment was adopted to prohibit a new type of discrimination? Discrimination at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while sex was not included in the protection?


    The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon sex or “sexual orientation” is proven to be without foundation when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America as authorized under Article V of our Constitution decide to forbid sex discrimination, the discrimination mentioned Judge Reinhardt, but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”!



    Finally, if Judge Reinhardt is correct in asserting the people of American have forbidden state legislation which makes distinctions based upon sex or sexual orientation when issuing a state marriage license, why was there a proposed “Equal Rights Amendment” (ERA) proposed in 1972, specifically stating, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex"?


    The truth is, the American People, as provided in Article V of our Constitution, intentionally rejected the ERA amendment, and one of the reasons was, if adopted it would force the States to embrace homosexual marriage!


    And so, instead of Judge Reinhardt abiding by its oath to support and defend “this Constitution” he took it upon himself to falsely assert a state law making a distinction based upon sex when issuing a marriage license was a “violation of the Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.

    If those who support requiring the States to issue homosexual marriage licenses, and you also support our constitutionally limited system of government, then why not work within our Constitution’s framework and promote an amendment to our Constitution to achieve your purported goals?

    For example, why not work to have the following amendment adopted and denounce federal judges and Justices who ignore our Constitution and impose their arbitrary sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice as court ordered law which is nothing less than judicial tyranny?


    AMENDMENT _ _ _

    SECTION 1


    No state shall make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license nor deny the equal protection of its laws within its jurisdiction to married couples.

    SECTION 2

    The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation



    Why do homosexuals think they are better than Blacks who struggled to end state laws which made distinctions based upon race by having amendments added to our Constitution? Why do homosexuals constantly complain but refuse to work within the four walls of our Constitution to achieve their goal by amending our Constitutions? Instead of following the constitutional rout, why do homosexuals rejoice when judges and Justices engage in judicial tyranny as did Judge Reinhardt who decided to ignore the very Constitution he took an oath to support and defend?

    JWK


    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

  13. #11
    How does an institution remain in power? It does so by dividing those they hold power over from ever coming together. How do they hold power? They grant special privilege to one group and not another. Voila. Division. They know that in the heart of most individuals there is a petty tyrant. Give some a bit of power and an enemy to fight against and they know that those without privilege will fight those that have privilege. In this way they will be safe in their halls while those they hold power over fight for the bones and dinner scraps from their dinner plate.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Maybe by preventing government from restricting marriage the way it wants we will be able to get government out entirely. I could certainly make a case to Christians that they are better off with NO government marriage than they are with government marriage that is contrary to the Bible.
    I guess the pragmatic question would be whether government sanctioned gay marriage would lead to what we want (which is no govt. involvement in marriage) or if it would just lead to more slavery and tyranny. I oppose "gay marriage" because I fear the latter is the case.

  15. #13
    Yup, this circuit court opinion is the ONE that's a threat to the Republic. Before letting the gays marry, there was never a court decision on this level or higher that ever expanded protections to positive rights/privileges. Everything just just fine before this decision, Constitutionally. Sure, there may have been some issues at the edges, but the core structure of the Republic has been secure all along.

    /sarcasm

    Seriously, if you think that this decision threatens the stability of "your Republic" - then I hope that it falls. Quickly.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I guess the pragmatic question would be whether government sanctioned gay marriage would lead to what we want (which is no govt. involvement in marriage) or if it would just lead to more slavery and tyranny. I oppose "gay marriage" because I fear the latter is the case.
    Case 1: no gay marriage. There's marginally extra bureaucrats employed in every county in the country to make sure that each marriage certificate doesn't have same-sex couples on it. There's more investigations into insurance fraud for same-sex couples trying to get spousal benefits. There are more un-adopted kids on the state dole because two people of the same sex can't be trusted to raise them to not be pedophiles or serial killers. There are "legitimate state reasons" to inquire about every person seeking a marriage, granting them continued legitimacy in micro-managing the population. There are continued protests, court cases, and general civil unrest over "inequality" in the laws. Also, you're placing yourself with a minority of people and activists who are shrinking as a percent of the population, making it harder to find people who sympathize with your positions on other issues.

    Case 2: Gay Marriage allowed: Marriage licenses are largely a formality. More kids can be adopted into private care. State tax law and employment benefits turn into a basic "+ 1" policy. The state's role in marriage is limited by society to a strictly epidemiological role (this is still too large, I think we'll agree). And those upset over this policy either lead more focused, productive lives, or turn to protesting more egregious violations (maybe they'll start supporting higher minimum wage protests, but they may also become more active in the anti-war mission). Also, if you support gay marriage, you may influence more to form coalitions with you on your issues in the future.

    Supporting gay marriage seems to be the better pragmatic option if you're concerned about gov't overreach, growing the private sector, freeing up people to discuss and focus on more important political battles, and growing the number of people that are willing to work with you on those other battles.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    Case 1: no gay marriage. There's marginally extra bureaucrats employed in every county in the country to make sure that each marriage certificate doesn't have same-sex couples on it. There's more investigations into insurance fraud for same-sex couples trying to get spousal benefits. There are more un-adopted kids on the state dole because two people of the same sex can't be trusted to raise them to not be pedophiles or serial killers. There are "legitimate state reasons" to inquire about every person seeking a marriage, granting them continued legitimacy in micro-managing the population. There are continued protests, court cases, and general civil unrest over "inequality" in the laws. Also, you're placing yourself with a minority of people and activists who are shrinking as a percent of the population, making it harder to find people who sympathize with your positions on other issues.

    Case 2: Gay Marriage allowed: Marriage licenses are largely a formality. More kids can be adopted into private care. State tax law and employment benefits turn into a basic "+ 1" policy. The state's role in marriage is limited by society to a strictly epidemiological role (this is still too large, I think we'll agree). And those upset over this policy either lead more focused, productive lives, or turn to protesting more egregious violations (maybe they'll start supporting higher minimum wage protests, but they may also become more active in the anti-war mission). Also, if you support gay marriage, you may influence more to form coalitions with you on your issues in the future.

    Supporting gay marriage seems to be the better pragmatic option if you're concerned about gov't overreach, growing the private sector, freeing up people to discuss and focus on more important political battles, and growing the number of people that are willing to work with you on those other battles.
    Great points.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    How does an institution remain in power? It does so by dividing those they hold power over from ever coming together. How do they hold power? They grant special privilege to one group and not another. Voila. Division. They know that in the heart of most individuals there is a petty tyrant. Give some a bit of power and an enemy to fight against and they know that those without privilege will fight those that have privilege. In this way they will be safe in their halls while those they hold power over fight for the bones and dinner scraps from their dinner plate.
    What does all that have to do with the subject of the thread?


    JWK



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I guess the pragmatic question would be whether government sanctioned gay marriage would lead to what we want (which is no govt. involvement in marriage) or if it would just lead to more slavery and tyranny. I oppose "gay marriage" because I fear the latter is the case.
    What does that have to do with the subject of the thread which is a despotic opinion written by Judge Reinhardt. If you are not interested in the subject, why post in the thread?


    JWK

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    Yup, this circuit court opinion is the ONE that's a threat to the Republic. Before letting the gays marry, there was never a court decision on this level or higher that ever expanded protections to positive rights/privileges. Everything just just fine before this decision, Constitutionally. Sure, there may have been some issues at the edges, but the core structure of the Republic has been secure all along.

    /sarcasm

    Seriously, if you think that this decision threatens the stability of "your Republic" - then I hope that it falls. Quickly.
    So, you have no problem with our courts ignoring the Constitution and imposing their personal opinions as the rule of law?


    JWK

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Antischism View Post
    Great points.
    Only for those who have little minds and are incapable of focusing on the subject of the thread.


    I didn't not this forum was taken over by trolls.


    JWK

  23. #20
    You're worried about a "republic's" fate over 140 years after the 14th amendment. How cute.

    You don't live in a republic.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, you have no problem with our courts ignoring the Constitution and imposing their personal opinions as the rule of law?


    JWK
    You just noticed?
    There is no spoon.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, you have no problem with our courts ignoring the Constitution and imposing their personal opinions as the rule of law?


    JWK
    Did you comprehend my post?

    Marbury v. Madison (211 years ago), McCulloch v. Maryland (195 years ago), Texas v. White (145 years ago), Missouri v. Holland (94 years ago), West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (77 years ago, overturning Lochner), Wickard v. Filburn (72 years ago), and Kelo v. New London (9 years ago) are all examples of court over-reach from a libertarian perspective. And this list is not exhaustive; I'm sure I could find examples from EVERY term of the SCOTUS and most terms of the various Circuit courts.

    And these examples are only the ones where the outcome was unreasonable. Taking into account the justification actually used in the opinions of otherwise tolerable opinions (like the one in this thread, IMO), NEARLY EVERY Court decision violates a libertarian view of the constitution.

    I have a problem with the wording in this case, but not as much as some other decisions. For instance, in the recent Heller decision (6 years ago), Scalia said that, in that case, the right to have a firearm was okay, but rights can be attenuated generally. This just said that the 2nd amendment is open to the interpretation of the courts, and your "constitutional rights" are left to be bounded, regulated, and made into state-granted privileges by the personal opinions of the judges and legislatures.

    I was just wondering why it took you so long to notice that the very nature of the state is to "impose their personal opinions as the rule of law."
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  26. #23
    What republic? I live in a fascist State called teh USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    You just noticed?
    What does your insulting remark have to do with judge Reinhardt's written opinion?


    JWK



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    Did you comprehend my post?

    Marbury v. Madison (211 years ago), McCulloch v. Maryland (195 years ago), Texas v. White (145 years ago), Missouri v. Holland (94 years ago), West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (77 years ago, overturning Lochner), Wickard v. Filburn (72 years ago), and Kelo v. New London (9 years ago) are all examples of court over-reach from a libertarian perspective. And this list is not exhaustive; I'm sure I could find examples from EVERY term of the SCOTUS and most terms of the various Circuit courts.

    And these examples are only the ones where the outcome was unreasonable. Taking into account the justification actually used in the opinions of otherwise tolerable opinions (like the one in this thread, IMO), NEARLY EVERY Court decision violates a libertarian view of the constitution.

    I have a problem with the wording in this case, but not as much as some other decisions. For instance, in the recent Heller decision (6 years ago), Scalia said that, in that case, the right to have a firearm was okay, but rights can be attenuated generally. This just said that the 2nd amendment is open to the interpretation of the courts, and your "constitutional rights" are left to be bounded, regulated, and made into state-granted privileges by the personal opinions of the judges and legislatures.

    I was just wondering why it took you so long to notice that the very nature of the state is to "impose their personal opinions as the rule of law."

    What does your insulting remark and post have to do with Judge Reinhardt's written opinion?


    JWK




    At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What does your insulting remark and post have to do with Judge Reinhardt's written opinion?


    JWK




    At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.
    I didn't insult you, but if this trolling continues, I might not be able to restrain myself.

    Notice that I cited actual Constitutional case law, and your opinions are based on (1) a non-binding lecture by one of the worst justices from a libertarian perspective, and (2) an apocryphal quote from someone who was never a judge or any other type of representative of the Constitution.

    Further, I agreed that this was a bad decision.

    So my questions to you are: (1) How were ANY of the other opinions I cited not based on personal notions of fairness rather than strict obedience to the text of the Constitution? (2) What's the value in preserving a "republic" that has turned out the way that this one has? And (3) are you sure your protestations aren't just because the decision was about homosexual people?
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  31. #27
    I'm not sure how Marbury is necessarily anti-libertarian or anti-textual. After all, the Constitution explicitly bestows the "judicial power" upon the federal courts, and it's not beyond reason to argue that this authority includes the power of judicial review.

    Several of the cases you cited involved legislative overreach (Parrish, Wickard, Kelo), which the Court upheld. But without the power of judicial review the overreaching legislation would have stood anyway. Are you suggesting the Court should have overturned the statutes in these cases?

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    I was thinking Judge Reinhold when I read the title of the OP.

    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I'm not sure how Marbury is necessarily anti-libertarian or anti-textual. After all, the Constitution explicitly bestows the "judicial power" upon the federal courts, and it's not beyond reason to argue that this authority includes the power of judicial review.

    Several of the cases you cited involved legislative overreach (Parrish, Wickard, Kelo), which the Court upheld. But without the power of judicial review the overreaching legislation would have stood anyway. Are you suggesting the Court should have overturned the statutes in these cases?
    I would suggest that it is WAY beyond reason to assume the SCOTUS was meant to have the final word on what the Constitution means. It doesn't make sense that the framers of the Constitution, who were trying very hard to restrain the power of the Federal government would grant to that government the power to decide beyond appeal the limits of its own power. Both Jefferson and Madison opposed that doctrine.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, you have no problem with our courts ignoring the Constitution and imposing their personal opinions as the rule of law?


    JWK
    The courts drained almost any substantive content from the US Constitution before I was even born, and that was a long time ago.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Judge strikes down Michigan ban on gay marriage
    By Cabal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-22-2014, 07:39 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 11:11 PM
  3. Judge weighs merits of Utah's gay marriage ban
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 12:42 PM
  4. What is Baldwin's opinion on marriage?
    By acroso in forum Other Presidential Candidates
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 03:40 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •