|
|
| Gays to marry in California | | |
 |  2648306 | May 15, 4:50pm | Today the oligarchy of California - the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people of California and ruled that Prop 22 passed in 2000 by 62% which stated that marriage is one man and one woman only, was unconstitutional and paving the way for the depraved to "marry". Now I know some of you trolls are going to come running in here to tell me I am homophobic (no such thing - can't find homophobia anywhere in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manaual of Mental Disorders) or a bigot (one could say the same to you since you intollerably hold to your beliefs and opinions and have no tolerance for others), or a hater (Some things should be hated) or whatever - save it, as the negative impact you trolls hope it will have does not work here, at least not on me.
More to the point, a ballot measure is in the works as a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman only. The governator in his best RHINO performance said he will do everything he can to oppose the amendment. Now what I am trying to figure out is why he waited for the court to impose this? He has stated he is in support of gay rights and the looney legislature here has passed it twice and he vetoed it! Here is the story if you care to read it:
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,1,4027698.story [latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,1,4027698.story] |
|
| 
Sponsor |  fire75034 | May 16, 9:19am | Undermining the power of the left in californication that is a great start to retaking this Country and setting back on course with strong moral values. Right now this Country would make our forefathers blush in disgust.
The shame of doing what is morally wrong needs to be put back in place.
The support groups and talk shows that lie to people and assure them it is ok to be immoral needs to stop.
Being a Christian I have no choice but to see the blood on the hands of those who teach immoral values. The blood of those who were deceived are on their hands and they are accountable for what they have done. |
|
| 
|  humbleInfidel | May 16, 8:27pm | Pt. 1 Ensuring Judicial Accountability for State Judges
David Barton
The Constitution originally organized the judiciary in a manner providing for appointed judges, serving for the duration of "good behavior" (Art. III, Sec. 1, Par. 1). That appointed system performed admirably while a common value system was embraced by the nation. (For example, even though Declaration signers Benjamin Franklin and the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon held divergent religious views, there were few differences in their governmental philosophy or approach to common cultural values.) The success of the appointed system was further enhanced by the fact that the judiciary did not view itself as a super-legislature; policy-making was anathema to that branch, and it was extremely unusual for the judiciary to strike down any act of the legislature. As a supreme court explained in 1838:
The Court, therefore, from its respect for the Legislature - the immediate representation of that sovereign power [the people] whose will created and can at pleasure change the Constitution itself - will ever strive to sustain and not annul its [the Legislature's] expressed determination. . . . [A]nd whenever the people become dissatisfied with its operation, they have only to will its abrogation or modification and let their voice be heard through the legitimate channel, and it will be done. But until they wish it, let no branch of the government - and least of all the Judiciary - undertake to interfere with it. [1] (emphasis added)
Most judges today no longer embrace this view. Consequently, State policies on issues from education to criminal justice, from religious expressions to moral legislation, from financing to health now stem more frequently from judicial decisions than legislative acts. In fact, in recent years, even the federal court has described itself as "a super board of education for every school district in the nation," [2] "a national theology board," [3] and amateur psychologists on a "psycho-journey." [4] Judges now endorse the declaration of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo that:
I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life. [5]
As a result, there are now two constitutions for most states: the ratified constitution with its explicitly written language, and the unratified living constitution that evolves from decision to decision (or, as explained by Supreme Court Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes: "We are under a Constitution - but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." [6] ) And unfortunately, just as there are now two constitutions, there are also now two public policy-making bodies: the elected legislature and the appointed judiciary.
With two such radically different constitutions and distinctively different public policy bodies, citizens should have the choice of the constitution and public policies under which they must live. Otherwise (as Samuel Adams wisely observed):
[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to [policies] to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them. [7]
While defenders of an activist judiciary often assert that an independent appointed judiciary does not hold political views, such claims are specious and are not confirmed by contemporary experience. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed, it is naΓ―ve to assume that judges do not have political views on most issues before them:
Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible - as the other functionaries are - to the elective control. [8]
Recent months have provided numerous examples of the people expressing a clear will on an issue and the judiciary then abrogating that will. |
|
|
| | humbleInfidel | May 16, 8:31pm | Pt. 2 Most recently, a state judge struck down California's Prop 22 (enacted in 2000) declaring that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That judge unilaterally took the definition of marriage out of the hands of the people and substituted his own - as did judges in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
In Kansas, the legislature recently passed a death penalty statute at the behest of the people but the state supreme court struck it down, chiding both the legislature and the people. And despite the constitutional requirement that all spending originate and reside solely in the legislature, the court ordered additional spending on education lest the court take control of educational funding.
And in Nevada, even though the state constitution requires a 2/3rds majority of the legislature to increase taxes, its supreme court ordered that clause to be ignored and instead directed a tax increase to boost spending on education. Unbelievably, the state court ruled that part of the state constitution was unconstitutional!
Then in New Jersey, a 2002 candidate for U. S. Senate fell far behind in the polls; with 35 days left before the election, that candidate withdrew his name from the ballot. His party sought to place a new name on the ballot but State law stipulated that a candidate's name could be replaced only if the "vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election." Despite the clear wording of the law, the appointed court ordered a new name to be placed on the ballot. That candidate surged in the polls and because the court ignored the law in order to advance a political agenda and gives one party two choices rather than one, his party won a U. S. Senate seat they were destined to lose.
And recall the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 presidential election? State law explicitly declared that all election vote tallies were to be submitted to the Secretary of State's office by 5 PM on the 7th day following the election, and that results turned in past that time were to be ignored; yet those judges ruled that 5 PM on the 7th day really meant 5 PM on the 19th day, and that the word "ignored" really meant just the opposite - that the Secretary of State must accept all results, even those that did not comply with the law.
There are many other similar examples demonstrating that in States with an appointed judiciary, judges are quite comfortable in exerting political influence rather than simply upholding and applying State laws.
Given the growing proclivities now evident throughout appointed judiciaries, it is time for States with appointed judges to move toward elected judges - as Texas, New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Alabama and more than half the States already have. And any argument that what occurred in New Jersey, California, Nevada, et. al, will not occur in other States ignores the fact that the current trend is not the result of demographics; rather, it is the result of what has been taught in law schools in recent decades. Consequently, the instances of judges acting as super-legislators will continue to increase. |
|
|
|
| | humbleInfidel | May 16, 8:33pm | Pt. 4
The notion of independence as now applied to the judiciary was repugnant to the Framers of American government - as confirmed by Constitution signer John Dickinson:
What innumerable acts of injustice may be committed, and how fatally may the principles of liberty be sapped, by a succession of judges utterly independent of the people? [16]
In short, the modern notions of judicial independence are glaringly absent from the constitutional organization of the branches. No branch is to be unaccountable to the people, and judicial elections ensure accountability.
Principle #3: The Judiciary is to be Accountable to the People, and Election of Judges Currently Accomplishes what Impeachment Did During the First Century of American Government
Originally, every appointed judge was made accountable to the people through impeachment; and literally dozens of impeachment proceedings were conducted during the first century of the nation. [17] Judges were removed from the bench for everything from cursing in the courtroom to rudeness to witnesses, from drunkenness in private life to any other conduct or behavior that was unacceptable to the public at large. (Only in the past half century has the level for an impeachable offense been erroneously redefined to be the commission of a major felony; with this incorrect standard, the people's ability to hold judges accountable has been greatly diminished.) The election of judges will now ensure a level of judicial accountability that impeachments once provided. It is instructive to examine the original grounds for removal of judges through impeachment and to note that these would be the very same grounds used today for removal of judges through elections.
What were the offenses that allowed for the removal of judges during America's early years? According to Justice Joseph Story, those offenses included "political offenses growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests." [18] And Alexander Hamilton explained that judges could be removed for "the abuse or violation of some public trust. . . . [or for] injuries done immediately to the society itself." [19] Constitutional Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry considered "mal-administration" [20] as grounds for a judge's removal, and early constitutional scholar William Rawle also included "the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice" [21] as well as attempts to "infringe the rights of the people." [22] Very simply, judges could be removed whenever they disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker.
But would not a system of judicial elections be unfair to judges, or become a deterrent to good judges serving? Certainly not. As explained by Justice Story:
If he [a judge] should choose to accept office, he would voluntarily incur all the additional responsibility growing out of it. If [removed] for his conduct while in office, he could not justly complain since he was placed in that predicament by his own choice; and in accepting office he submitted to all the consequences. [23]
In fact, rather than keeping good judges from serving, the election of judges would do just the opposite: it would will help remove the most incompetent from office and - in the words of John Randolph Tucker (a constitutional law professor and early president of the American Bar Association) - it would "protect the government from the present or future incumbency of a man whose conduct has proved him unworthy to fill it." [24]
Very simply, judicial elections guard the principle of judicial accountability set forth by Justice James Iredell (placed on the U. S. Supreme Court by George Washington), who asserted:
Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct. . . . It will be not only the means of punishing misconduct but it will prevent misconduct. A man in public office who knows that there is no tribunal to punish him may be ready to deviate from his duty; but if he knows there is a tribunal for that purpose, although he may be a man of no principle, the very terror of punishment will perhaps deter him. [25]
Election of judges is nothing more than a tool to protect the rights of the people collectively. It once again makes the judiciary an accountable branch (as was originally intended), holding individual judges responsible for their decisions and thus preventing their usurping, misusing, or abusing power.
Summary
In this day of rampant judicial agendas, proposals that judges should be protected from citizens are untenable. History is too instructive on the necessity of direct judicial accountability for its lessons to be ignored today; and while judicial accountability through the use of impeachment on the federal level appears to be a thing of the past, judicial accountability through the direct election of State judges should not be. Elected judges should know that if they make agenda-driven decisions, they not only may face a plethora of opponents in their next race who will remind voters of their demonstrated contempt for State law but they will also have to face the voters themselves. Election of judges restores the original vision that:
All power residing originally in the people and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government vested with authority - whether legislative, executive, or judicial - are their substitutes and agents and are at all times accountable to them [the people]. [26]
wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp [wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp] |
|
| Gays to marry in California | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Neocons United → Discussion