Judicial Tyranny Continues
Well they have done it again; and we might as well say, again , and again, and again and you might as well just keep repeating this because this IS the wave of the new democracy in America. A Federal Judge overturned Nebraska’s constitutional amendment which banned same-sex marriage.
How many of Nebraska’s citizens voted this into law through the proper legislative channels? Seventy percent of the state’s voting citizenry exercised their constitutional right to craft their own laws and yet one unelected man with a black robe imposed his ideology, his will, his morals, and his beliefs on the entire state.
Honestly, I thought activist judges were a recent phenomenon in the history of jurisprudence but apparently I was wrong.
In the famed Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1856 Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority decision stating that when the constitution was ratified, citizenship was understood to be confined to the white race alone and thus blacks were not citizens; hence, Scott did not have standing in the case.
With the crafty use of legalese, Taney ignored Abraham Lincoln’s address on June 26, 1857 wherein he cited the dissenting opinion of Justice Benjamin Curtis who showed “that in five of the then thirteen states, free Negroes were voters and had the same part in making the constitution as whites.”
Meaning what? Meaning Chief justice Taney used absolutely fallacious, dare I say contrived information to suit his own views.
Justice Curtis also wrote dissenting, “When strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men who…have the power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”
So you see, this has been a problem for 150 years anyway.
Once again, we need to be praying for the appointment of Supreme Court judges who are originalists, (men who believe the Constitution is not a fluid document to be changed at whim by the opinions of a person with a black robe) who are men of integrity and who are men of law. And we must pray the defeat of obstructionist men and women whose bankruptcy compels them to scurrilous tactics blocking the appointment of such afore mentioned people.
How many of Nebraska’s citizens voted this into law through the proper legislative channels? Seventy percent of the state’s voting citizenry exercised their constitutional right to craft their own laws and yet one unelected man with a black robe imposed his ideology, his will, his morals, and his beliefs on the entire state.
Honestly, I thought activist judges were a recent phenomenon in the history of jurisprudence but apparently I was wrong.
In the famed Dred Scott vs. Sandford decision of 1856 Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority decision stating that when the constitution was ratified, citizenship was understood to be confined to the white race alone and thus blacks were not citizens; hence, Scott did not have standing in the case.
With the crafty use of legalese, Taney ignored Abraham Lincoln’s address on June 26, 1857 wherein he cited the dissenting opinion of Justice Benjamin Curtis who showed “that in five of the then thirteen states, free Negroes were voters and had the same part in making the constitution as whites.”
Meaning what? Meaning Chief justice Taney used absolutely fallacious, dare I say contrived information to suit his own views.
Justice Curtis also wrote dissenting, “When strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men who…have the power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”
So you see, this has been a problem for 150 years anyway.
Once again, we need to be praying for the appointment of Supreme Court judges who are originalists, (men who believe the Constitution is not a fluid document to be changed at whim by the opinions of a person with a black robe) who are men of integrity and who are men of law. And we must pray the defeat of obstructionist men and women whose bankruptcy compels them to scurrilous tactics blocking the appointment of such afore mentioned people.
posted by PB at 9:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home