Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (R-Surfside, TX), LewRockwell.com, August 12, 2003

It's been a tough summer for social conservatives, thanks to our federal courts. From "gay rights" to affirmative action to Boy Scouts to the Ten Commandments, federal courts recently have issued rulings that conflict with both the Constitution and overwhelming public sentiment. Conservatives and libertarians who once viewed the judiciary as the final bulwark against government tyranny must now accept that no branch of government even remotely performs its constitutional role.

The practice of judicial activism -- legislating from the bench -- is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy." Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights -- rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Similarly, a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts' presence was a violation of the "separation of church and state." The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says "Congress shall make no law" -- a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist "separation" doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

These are but two recent examples. There are many more, including the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was ordered by a federal court to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama courthouse property.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it's gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts -- not over the other branches of government. It's time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

And lille ol Ronny boy just proved what cretinous statists ALL libertarian imbeciles are.No matter how hot and heavy the anti-state foreplay,time and time again they prove that when it comes to being against the state Libertarians just cant get it up.(They are very good at individualist self love though,their pursuit of hapPENIS.)

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/leftlib.html

With enemies like Libertarians the state doesn't need friends.

I am always perplexed by the types of sentiments you just threw out there... why is it that there's this topsy-turvy doublespeak of what "government interference" means? If rugged individualism and self-determination are the American Way, then why do the people who trumpet such values and the government systems supposedly embodying them also seem to the very people enacting various laws governing individuals' conduct? If the vast majority of the public doesn't agree with the kinds of legislation and judicial decrees you speak of, why then do you seem to advocate simply making other legislation? People can act in their own interests in any field, moral or otherwise, without the government coercing them via the institution of the legal system.

Much as the silliness of both the "liberal" and "conservative" ends of the US political mainstream, it does strike me as absurd the way the right-wing's idea of guaranteeing the people's freedom from government interference is to legislate their morality and ensure their dependence on economic institutions beyond their control, among other things... the left, meanwhile, is overall associated with increasing government bulk in the forms of free-for-everyone medicine, education, and economic survival assurances (welfare et al.), which -- despite creating an undesirable increase in the size and scope of the governmental bureaucracies -- allow people to be more liberated from the pressing concerns of short- and long-term survival, and thus freer to live their lives and continue the "pursuit of happiness"...

...which I beleive *is* guarenteed to Americans in SOME old document or another...

Funny how libertarians always whine about big government and getting the government out of their lives, yet are all too eager to give their approval to laws that trample an individual's privacy. Show me a libertarian, and I'll show you a conservative whiner who doesn't want to pay ANY taxes. Fortunately, I've never seen a libertarian stand up and act on his beliefs beyond shooting off his big mouth.

Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul...

The idiot misunderstands the constitution. We were born with a right to privacy, as well as all other rights. We granted the federal government limited powers to protect us and promote our welfare, but kept the rest to ourselves. There is not, and never has been, a requirement of an explicit grant of a right to the people in order for the courts to protect it.

Granted, before the 14th Amendment, the federal government had only limited powers to restrict the powers of the States. But the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment, put an end to the theory of "states' rights", at least for people who pay any attention to history and law.

It is bigots and boobs who trot out these arguments to convince themselves they're right. Don't fall for this bullshit. These people want to reverse the result of the Civil War.

Ipikac for treatment++++
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Iit had to be financially productive and fawn upon the shoes of wealth and favor.

Follow the call to war(s) harmonizing with the various corrupt schemes the banking intrests let us call 'our government in pursuit of new resources and/or markets'

Supply many combat priests, ministers and rabbi, who are
mostly nice folk and try to help within rigid walls of regulations and political favor while their flock gets shot at...

Time for the light.
hail Light Giver! The Beautiful One, Morningstar.
balance, you know.

King James says it is Lucifer -

Isa 14:12-15

"How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer, son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
'I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

NKJV

hows things with Him?
What are You doing down here alone without Gabriel? Been awhile.