Roy Moore was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court for displaying the Ten Commandments several years ago. But he was re-elected as Chief Justice. More recently he was suspended for not going along with same-sex marriage. So he has decided to run for U.S. Senate. This man is a proven statesman and a genuine Christian. While other so called Christian politicians compromise for the sake of advancing their own political careers, Roy Moore has consistently support Christian values throughout his career even in the face of persecution from activist federal judges and wicked organizations like the ACLU. See his campaign website.
Showing posts with label Judicial Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Activism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Support H.R. 973
Support H.R. 973. This is a simple, short bill designed to protect Americans from being forced under laws which we did not enact, but were enacted by foreign powers or foreign peoples. The motivation for this bill is primarily that the sponsors do not want judges to use Sharia law, but this bill would apply to any foreign law which judges might use to subvert the Constitution or the will of the People of the United States. We are sovereign nation. If you agree, contact your congressman and ask for their support!
A BILL To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes.
- Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS.
- Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`CHAPTER 183--USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS
`Sec. 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts
- `In any court created by or under article III of the Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.'.
SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
- The table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Become an Inside Poll Worker
An inside poll worker is someone who is appointed to work at the polls on Election Day to make sure that the election is being conducted fairly. You should become an inside poll worker. Why? Well, the following story will illustrate the point.
There were several races in my county in 2010 which were very close. In one such race, only 23 votes separated the two candidates. The losing candidate claimed that there were some provisional ballots which were not counted, that should have been. So the case ended up in federal court (where it does not belong). The losing candidate claimed that there was some “poll worker error” which resulted in some voters voting in the wrong precinct. She claimed that the federal court had the right to reverse decision not to count these ballots on the basis of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment.
This is really bad for several reasons. Whether or not the initial result of the election is eventually reversed is only a minor part of this story. The real danger is that the Federal court could set a new precedent giving them more authority to get involved in local elections. Imagine unelected, federal judges telling us how we are supposed to conduct our elections, and in some cases telling us who the winner is!
It might be too late to stop this dangerous precedent from being handed down by these corrupt judges. If you become an inside poll worker, you can possibly help to stop future cases from being litigated in similar manner.
Although I believe that the responsibility of finding the proper polling place belongs to the voter, a poll worker may assist a voter. Doing so will save a lot--both in saving money spend on lawsuits and by saving us from the tyranny of heavy-handed federal judges. We want inside poll workers who are fair and unbiased and who will help voters (regardless of their party affiliation) to find their proper polling location if they show up at wrong precinct. We especially need poll workers who are not registered Democrats to work the polls in heavily Democratic precincts so that there is a balance and the Democrats can’t get away with any funny business.
Although I believe that the responsibility of finding the proper polling place belongs to the voter, a poll worker may assist a voter. Doing so will save a lot--both in saving money spend on lawsuits and by saving us from the tyranny of heavy-handed federal judges. We want inside poll workers who are fair and unbiased and who will help voters (regardless of their party affiliation) to find their proper polling location if they show up at wrong precinct. We especially need poll workers who are not registered Democrats to work the polls in heavily Democratic precincts so that there is a balance and the Democrats can’t get away with any funny business.
Being an inside poll worker would basically involve the following:
1. Completing a poll worker training session
2. Working the polls on Election Day for the entire 13 hours that the polls are open
Contact your local board of elections for more information.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Our courts: Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Vaughn Walker is no Texas Ranger. Newest Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan is no ragin’ constitutionalist. No, they are tyrannical, unaccountable radical politically activist judges. Mark Levin wrote about the likes of Walker and Kagan, et al in his book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.” Likewise, did Phyllis Schlafly in her book “The Supremicists, the Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It.” Radical oligarchs reigning and ruling from the bench. This is not what the Founders of America envisioned. This is what they feared, freedom-robbing usurpers of the rights and freedoms of individual Americans.
Yes, elections do have consequences. We have Sonia Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan, unfortunately, who prove that point.
What Judge Walker did was criminal. To overturn in one 138 page pack of lies, 5000 years of civilization and espouse that homosexuality is normal, moral, and natural and on top of that that same sex pairs could claim a right to marriage is beyond outrageous. I agree that this judge should be impeached. See the American Family Association call to impeach this poor excuse for a fair minded and honest jurist,
Time to impeach Judge Vaughn Walker.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Radical Judge David Hamilton – Cloture Vote Today
I previously wrote an article condemning the nomination of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.I called my two Senators today to urge them to vote against confirmation of Judge David Hamilton, who has been nominated to the 7th Circuit Court by the current occupier of the Oval Office. I also sent a fax to Senator Richard Lugar's Washington Office. Lugar said he will vote for this extremist judge.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Still a Liberal and Activist Supreme Court, part 2
Last year, I wrote piece on a Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty is an unconstitutional penalty for the crime of raping a child. Now SCOTUS is considering going even further.
They are now trying to find out where to “draw the line” on life sentences without the possibility of parole. In particular, the question at issue is whether or not a juvenile could be given this sentence and if so at what age. There is a lot at stake as SCOTUS hears Graham v. Florida (08-7412) and Sullivan v. Florida (08-7621).
The eighth amendment states:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This amendment is the basis for the argument that sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibly of parole should not be allowed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks that it is hypocritical for the state of
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
Not only is SCOTUS sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong by violating states’ rights, but this also denigrates the Holy Scriptures, our God who wrote it, and further erodes our position as a nation under God. The entire Bible, not just the New Testament, reveals God’s character and sense of justice. Both this current consideration and the previous one regarding the death penalty clearly intimate that God’s choice of punishments is unreasonable, hypocritical and should be held to be unconstitutional. They arrogantly assume that they have the wisdom to determine whether or not someone can be “reformed”. They fail to take into account that it is a person’s soul that is of the utmost importance, and that Our Founding Fathers recognized that the death penalty could sway a lawbreaker to repentance.
When I wrote part 1, seven out of nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. Now it is six out of nine.
To read more about these pending cases, click here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Right Way to Amend the Constitution, part 12
This is part twelve of an ongoing series of articles containing proposals for amendments to the Constitution. For someone who claims so fervently to be a “Constitutionalist”, how is it that I can be so eager to change the Constitution? Well, there are several reasons. For one thing, I believe that after the Bill of Rights, much damage was done by some of the amendments that were added and the legitimacy of some of their ratifications are questionable. Secondly, the Constitution has been violated so much that the necessity of further amendments is needed to resolve the resulting problems. But this should be done extremely cautiously. These amendments are extremely unlikely to ever be introduced, much less ratified, but hey, I can dream, can’t I?
I got this one from a well written article, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions: Guideposts of Limited Government, written by William J. Watkins, Jr. This is a fascinating historical account of the struggle to impose proper restraints on the federal government with particular respect to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which plainly denied Americans their first amendment right to freedom of speech over 200 years ago. It’s well worth the time to read and share with others this lesson from history, which illustrates the need for the following amendment, which was included in the article.
Section 1. The Constitutional Commission shall settle questions presented by the several States concerning the constitutionality of measures or actions taken by the government of the
Section 2. The Constitutional Commission shall be composed of one Commissioner from each State chosen every second year by the people of the several States from two candidates chosen by the State Legislature, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; each Commissioner shall have one vote.
Section 3. No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of Commissioner; nor shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States, and been nine years a resident of that State for which he shall be chosen. No person shall be elected to the office of Commissioner more than four times.
Section 4. When vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall choose two candidates to present to the people to fill the vacancy.
Section 5. The Constitutional Commission shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. The Constitutional Commission shall choose their Chairman and other officers. The Commission shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members, and three-fourths of its members shall constitute a quorum to do business. The Commission may determine the rules of its proceedings. The Commission shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.
Section 6. The Commissioners shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
Section 7. Whenever the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission shall receive petitions from one-fifth of the legislatures of the several States requesting a ruling on the constitutionality of a specific measure or action of the government of the
Section 8. The three sections of the
The Western Section shall be composed of
The Southern Section shall be composed of
The Northern Section shall be composed of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Whenever new States are admitted to the
Section 9. The Constitutional Commission shall not sit as a Convention as prescribed in Article 5 of the Constitution of the
Click here to read the next article in this series.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
"Tell Me It Ain't So" Sotomayor
Hot Topics - A very so so Sotomayor
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch newspaper runs a regular feature called the Hot Issue, where they ask their readers a question of interest and ask them to answer the question and comment on their answer. Here is their question of the day for this past Friday (yesterday) along with my answer.
Hot Issue:
Do you think Sonia Sotomayor will make a good Supreme Court justice?
___ Yes
_X_ No
My Response:
She is a Judicial Activist, who will ignore the original intent of the Constitution and the law and treat it as a ‘living document.’ She will look at international law and not at the Constitution solely. She appears to be a racist, having been affiliated with various racist organizations and her decisions seem to be prejudicial. She will limit first amendment rights of individuals. She opposes an individual’s right to own guns. She will support the expansion of both abortion ‘rights’ and the homosexual agenda. Other than this, she is a perfect candidate!
Seriously, her appointment and confirmation proves one thing, that elections have serious consequences. We elected a radical President, we get radical results.
The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch newspaper runs a regular feature called the Hot Issue, where they ask their readers a question of interest and ask them to answer the question and comment on their answer. Here is their question of the day for this past Friday (yesterday) along with my answer.
Hot Issue:
Do you think Sonia Sotomayor will make a good Supreme Court justice?
___ Yes
_X_ No
My Response:
She is a Judicial Activist, who will ignore the original intent of the Constitution and the law and treat it as a ‘living document.’ She will look at international law and not at the Constitution solely. She appears to be a racist, having been affiliated with various racist organizations and her decisions seem to be prejudicial. She will limit first amendment rights of individuals. She opposes an individual’s right to own guns. She will support the expansion of both abortion ‘rights’ and the homosexual agenda. Other than this, she is a perfect candidate!
Seriously, her appointment and confirmation proves one thing, that elections have serious consequences. We elected a radical President, we get radical results.
..S
..OCIALIST
..T
..OTALITARIAN
..MARXIST
..ACTIVIST
TYRANNICAL
..OBTRUSIVE
..RACIST
Friday, August 07, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Book on Sonia Sotomayor
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Top Ten Reasons to Reject Sotomayor's Bid for Supreme Court Job
Demise of America
.
I recently posted articles indicating that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is unfit and a racist. Today, I received an email from former military Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, who offers ten reasons why Judge Sophia Sotomayor should not be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
“In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.”
9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
“Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.
“Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed. . .”
8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
“In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. . .”
7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
“ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1. She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'" Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally. But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.”
6) SOTOMAYOR: SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
“NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice." There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.”
5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
“Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision; another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously. She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."”
4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified. She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion. Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.”
3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
“Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity." No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution.”
2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
“Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."”
1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities. No kidding! When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap). Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents. So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance. I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!”
10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
“In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application." As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.”
9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
“Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.
“Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed. . .”
8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
“In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. . .”
7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
“ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1. She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'" Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally. But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.”
6) SOTOMAYOR: SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
“NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice." There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.”
5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
“Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision; another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously. She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."”
4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified. She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion. Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.”
3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
“Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity." No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution.”
2) SOTOMAYOR: EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
“Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."”
1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities. No kidding! When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap). Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents. So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance. I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayer: Racist
What Constitution?
Is Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama choosing nominees for the bench for the right reasons?
Is Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama choosing nominees for the bench for the right reasons?
Americans for Limited Government (ALG) Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org
are a free service of ALG News Bureau.
The following is a portion of an editorial published at GetLiberty.org.
Editorial: Back to the Drawing Board, Mr. Obama
Barack Obama needs to go back to the drawing board and see if he can come up with a Supreme Court nominee who is something other than a self-declared racist termagant.
And while he is at it, maybe he can find one who respects the Constitution, honors the rule of law, and doesn't consider denigrating the Separation of Powers the height of sophisticated wit.
Sonia Sotomayor's rags-to-riches persona—as we have now been told ad infinitum by the mainstream media—is indeed inspiring. Born into relative poverty to Puerto Rican parents, she raised herself up to a preeminent position in mainstream American society. As have tens of millions of other impoverished children born to Italian parents, African parents, Polish parents, Japanese parents, and, in fact, Puerto Rican parents in this land of equal opportunity.
Unfortunately, Ms. Sotomayor seems to have forgotten that the emphasis there is on equal. Which is why it is entirely inappropriate to for someone aspiring to be one of just nine final adjudicators of the Constitution of the United States to unburden herself of such a racist, sexist obloquy as, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." . . .
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Judge David Hamilton Should Not Be Confirmed!
Stop this radically pro-death judicial appointmentBeginning in the following paragraph is part of an email, which I received from the Ohio Christian Alliance, regarding President Barry Soetoro's (a/k/a Barack Obama) first judicial nominee, David Hamilton. Like himself, Soetoro's (alias Obama) and his nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, Hamilton is vehemently and radically pro-death (pro-abortion) as well as being a judicial activist.
"The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing today (Wednesday), on Judge David Hamilton, the abortion advocate who Obama has appointed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as his first judicial pick. The 7th Circuit covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana.
"Hamilton served in leadership with the ACLU and as a fundraiser for ACORN. . .
"Hamilton served in leadership with the ACLU and as a fundraiser for ACORN. . .
. .
"Hamilton was initially appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994. ABA gave him a “not qualified” rating. Over a period of 7 years Hamilton proceeded to issue a series of rulings preventing Indiana from implementing its informed consent law which would have given women information about abortion's risks and alternatives. The 7th Circuit Court, (the very court to which he has now been nominated), overturned Hamilton's rulings and issued a statement rebuking him for holding up the law.
“For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. Although Salerno does not foreclose all pre-enforcement challenges to abortion laws, it is an abuse of discretion for a district judge to issue a pre-enforcement injunction while the effects of the law (and reasons for those effects) are open to debate. What happened in Mississippi and Utah does not imply that the effects in Indiana are bound to be unconstitutional, so Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put its law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.”
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.684.01-2107.html
TAKE ACTION
Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on the confirmation of David Hamilton. Click on the link below for their contact information.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Here is a sample email that you can use as you email your Senators. This wording was suggested by Liberty Council. You can chose, as I did, to also send faxes to your Senators as well as some or all the members of the judiciary committee. Or you can email your senators at the email address given in the link above.
Senator _______________:
I urge you to vote against the confirmation of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.
Hamilton’s views are far outside the legal mainstream. In 2005, he ruled that prayers to Jesus were sectarian and unconstitutional while stating that prayers to "Allah" were acceptable. In addition, Hamilton is also ardently pro-abortion. This former ACLU attorney blocked an informed consent abortion law in Indiana that is nearly identical to a law approved by the Supreme Court. In fact, the 7th Circuit called Hamilton’s obstruction of the informed consent law "an abuse of discretion."
Hamilton should not be confirmed. The President cannot be allowed to politicize our courts with partisan, ideological appointments.
"Hamilton was initially appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994. ABA gave him a “not qualified” rating. Over a period of 7 years Hamilton proceeded to issue a series of rulings preventing Indiana from implementing its informed consent law which would have given women information about abortion's risks and alternatives. The 7th Circuit Court, (the very court to which he has now been nominated), overturned Hamilton's rulings and issued a statement rebuking him for holding up the law.
“For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. Although Salerno does not foreclose all pre-enforcement challenges to abortion laws, it is an abuse of discretion for a district judge to issue a pre-enforcement injunction while the effects of the law (and reasons for those effects) are open to debate. What happened in Mississippi and Utah does not imply that the effects in Indiana are bound to be unconstitutional, so Indiana (like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) is entitled to put its law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.”
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/305/305.F3d.684.01-2107.html
TAKE ACTION
Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on the confirmation of David Hamilton. Click on the link below for their contact information.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Here is a sample email that you can use as you email your Senators. This wording was suggested by Liberty Council. You can chose, as I did, to also send faxes to your Senators as well as some or all the members of the judiciary committee. Or you can email your senators at the email address given in the link above.
Senator _______________:
I urge you to vote against the confirmation of David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit.
Hamilton’s views are far outside the legal mainstream. In 2005, he ruled that prayers to Jesus were sectarian and unconstitutional while stating that prayers to "Allah" were acceptable. In addition, Hamilton is also ardently pro-abortion. This former ACLU attorney blocked an informed consent abortion law in Indiana that is nearly identical to a law approved by the Supreme Court. In fact, the 7th Circuit called Hamilton’s obstruction of the informed consent law "an abuse of discretion."
Hamilton should not be confirmed. The President cannot be allowed to politicize our courts with partisan, ideological appointments.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Time to Stop Black-Robed Tyranny!
Taking Back the RainbowMore and more, from California to Connecticut to Florida, black-robed tyrants are exceeding their powers, forcing their personal ideas and agendas on America. They are acting like lawmakers instead of law enforcers and law interpreters.
OneNewsNow.com posted the following polling question today on its website. The question was based on one of its recent articles, “Christian lawyer calls for ouster of 'activist' judge.” Here is the poll question and my response.
Do you think activist judges should be voted out of office?
1. __X__ Yes
2. _____ No
3. _____ Unsure
According to the OneNewsNow.com article cited above, Mat Staver, a Christian lawyer and Dean of Liberty University Law School, contends that the Miami-Dade Circuit Judge, Cindy Lederman, who recently ruled against Florida's ban on homosexual adoption, should run for the legislature if she wants to practice activism.
The article quotes Staver, “In the short-term, this judge's ruling is merely a tempest in a teapot, but in the long-term, it means nothing. The courts will clearly overturn this judge's ruling on appeal. This law has previously been challenged and upheld by both the state and federal appeals courts."
According to the article cited above, the judge’s ruling will permit 47 year-old homosexual Frank Martin Gill, to adopt two young brothers who have been his foster children since 2004. I do not think that Gill should have even been permitted to serve as a foster parent for these boys. The homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy, immoral, unnatural and abnormal. This is not the ideal situation to raise children. Actually, children need a loving mother and father to have the greatest opportunity to grow into a wholesome, well-adjusted persons.
According to an article in the New York Times, “The state (of Florida) presented experts who argued that there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among same-sex couples, that their relationships were less stable than those of heterosexuals, and that their children suffered a societal stigma.” Obviously Judge Lederman didn’t buy that argument.
I agree with Staver that this judge is an “ideological activist.” Judges should enforce the law, not change it. This particular judge is an elected office and should be voted out of office at the next opportunity, if not impeached sooner.
This ruling is being appealed. The ban against homosexual marriage has been effect since 1977. Staver advises Lederman and other “activist judges” to run for the legislature if they are bent on being activists and wanting to create new laws. I agree. It is time to put an end to judicial tyranny across the board, from Judge Ledermans to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg and all they tyrant in between . . .
Friday, November 14, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Still a Liberal and Activist Supreme Court
This isn’t my usual blogging day, but I just had to comment on this story.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-death-penalty-options-narrow/#more-7553
Even with seven out of nine justices having been appointed by Republican presidents, justice was dealt another blow today. The Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for child rapists. In the majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that he didn’t feel that death penalty was appropriate for a child rapist. It does not matter how you FEEL, Mr. Stevens. It’s what the law says. There is nothing in the constitution which limits the use of the death penalty ANY way as long as the defendant is given the right to jury trial, due process is followed, and all people are given equal protection under the law. This is a classic case of judicial activism and violation of states’ rights if there ever was one. The extent of the ruling goes further than this, even to the point of banning (by fiat) all executions except for murder.
We have just enough Republican justices to let Exxon off easy for the environmental disaster they caused, but not enough conservatives to even allow states to protect the unborn or to even protect children from filthy perverts as they see fit. The usual culprits are responsible for this--John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/commentary-death-penalty-options-narrow/#more-7553
Even with seven out of nine justices having been appointed by Republican presidents, justice was dealt another blow today. The Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional for child rapists. In the majority opinion Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that he didn’t feel that death penalty was appropriate for a child rapist. It does not matter how you FEEL, Mr. Stevens. It’s what the law says. There is nothing in the constitution which limits the use of the death penalty ANY way as long as the defendant is given the right to jury trial, due process is followed, and all people are given equal protection under the law. This is a classic case of judicial activism and violation of states’ rights if there ever was one. The extent of the ruling goes further than this, even to the point of banning (by fiat) all executions except for murder.
We have just enough Republican justices to let Exxon off easy for the environmental disaster they caused, but not enough conservatives to even allow states to protect the unborn or to even protect children from filthy perverts as they see fit. The usual culprits are responsible for this--John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, and Anthony Kennedy.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Eight Changes If Under Obama America Trusts
Change? You Better Believe It!!!Obama’s Changes = Curtains for America
Obamaland is what we get if the empty-suited Obama takes residence in the White House bringing with him a cadre of liberal corpses. I say corpses because he and his cronies are all dead to the idea of supporting or protecting the traditional values on which America has stood for these many years. In this article we will enumerate what change Obama will bring to the table.
On Friday, June 13, 2008 the Browns, Floyd and Mary Beth, wrote an article posted on TownHall.com entitled, “Six Ways Obama Wants to Change America.” Their six changes are included below. I have added a seventh and an eighth. These are what America gets with an Obama presidency. He is very sly and evasive in not really spelling out what he means by change. We give some detail to fill in the gap. I hope and pray that his policy and his changes will be rejected by the nation this fall.
Change No. 1 will mean increased and wholehearted support for unfettered abortions including rejecting any parental notification in respect to minors, overturning all bans on the insidious late-term partial birth abortion procedure, and he even opposes allowing the surviving babies of botched abortions to live. In other words, he will undo the word of pro-life advocates the last decades or so. That is one change America can look forward to under an Obama administration.
Change No. 2 will result in a severely weakened national security. Not only does he advocate sitting down and negotiating with recalcitrant terrorists. He vacillates in his policy statements about our only friends in the Middle East, Israel. First he is for an undivided Jerusalem, and then he wants to be able to divide it as part of future negotiations. He gives a good impersonation of the wishy-washy John Kerry. He wants the military to leave Iraq without insuring that nation’s stability, making both Iraq and America vulnerable. A weakened national defense is another change we can expect if Obama becomes president. That is another change that American can look forward to.
Change No. 3 is in true form of a good liberal politician Obama will raise taxes significantly for a multitude of leftist causes including ratcheting up welfare payments, pouring more money into a failed education system in payback for the teacher union loyal support of the Democratic party. This change means putting an ever increasing burden on the backs of all taxpayers. More taxes will worsen, not improve economic conditions. America are you ready for this change?
Change No. 4 is nationalizing healthcare, which is what socialized medicine or universal health care accomplishes. This change means killing the best health care service delivery system in the world, which is based on free enterprise. You can expect a health care system fashioned in a way Karl Marx would be proud – totally government controlled. Anytime that the government sticks its bumbling hand into any enterprise it diminishes quality and customer service and increases the cost. Are you ready, America, for some change?
Change No. 5 will bring mandated and expanded comprehensive sex education in government schools from pre-school through high school. Count on the elimination of all abstinence sex education programs. It doesn’t matter one iota to Obama that abstinence works. It’s payback to the abortion industry here. Heinous corrupt groups like Planned Parenthood will have free reign to teach our children all manner of filth and pornography in our schools; all under the guise of “comprehensive sex ed.” Now that is another change America gets with Obama.
Change No. 6 will be a further weakened economy ending free trade agreements (doing away with NAFTA), increased trade deficits, increased debt will result in the unprecedented spending that Obama will push for to fulfill all of his lavish promises. Expect more, not less burdonsome laws to be placed on what is left of American industry. Don't expect any domestic oil drilling, production or refinement to take place, that would strengthen America. China and Mexico will continue to make money at our expense. A change is coming if we elect Obama.
Change No. 7 will expand and advance the same-sex agenda bringing to full fruition the work of homosexual activists. Obama panders to the homosexual and lesbian groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, where he claimed he was more pro-same-sex than Hillary Rodham-Clinton. The change will be same-sex marriage, elevating the status of this abominable behavior to special protected class status. Business will be mandated to pay for the so-called “partners” of these partakers in deviant behavior. Wow, America can hardly wait for this change to take place.
Finally, change No. 8 involves the very close cooperation with the growing tyrannical jurists, which will fully support all the changes a President Obama would try to implement. Instead of impeaching the radical former ACLU attorney, and anti-American Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Obama will clone her in the judges that he nominates. This is more good news for America. That is a change that will insure America’s continued deterioration well into the future. Another change you can expect from an Obama in charge.
Obamaland is what we get if the empty-suited Obama takes residence in the White House bringing with him a cadre of liberal corpses. I say corpses because he and his cronies are all dead to the idea of supporting or protecting the traditional values on which America has stood for these many years. In this article we will enumerate what change Obama will bring to the table.
On Friday, June 13, 2008 the Browns, Floyd and Mary Beth, wrote an article posted on TownHall.com entitled, “Six Ways Obama Wants to Change America.” Their six changes are included below. I have added a seventh and an eighth. These are what America gets with an Obama presidency. He is very sly and evasive in not really spelling out what he means by change. We give some detail to fill in the gap. I hope and pray that his policy and his changes will be rejected by the nation this fall.
Change No. 1 will mean increased and wholehearted support for unfettered abortions including rejecting any parental notification in respect to minors, overturning all bans on the insidious late-term partial birth abortion procedure, and he even opposes allowing the surviving babies of botched abortions to live. In other words, he will undo the word of pro-life advocates the last decades or so. That is one change America can look forward to under an Obama administration.
Change No. 2 will result in a severely weakened national security. Not only does he advocate sitting down and negotiating with recalcitrant terrorists. He vacillates in his policy statements about our only friends in the Middle East, Israel. First he is for an undivided Jerusalem, and then he wants to be able to divide it as part of future negotiations. He gives a good impersonation of the wishy-washy John Kerry. He wants the military to leave Iraq without insuring that nation’s stability, making both Iraq and America vulnerable. A weakened national defense is another change we can expect if Obama becomes president. That is another change that American can look forward to.
Change No. 3 is in true form of a good liberal politician Obama will raise taxes significantly for a multitude of leftist causes including ratcheting up welfare payments, pouring more money into a failed education system in payback for the teacher union loyal support of the Democratic party. This change means putting an ever increasing burden on the backs of all taxpayers. More taxes will worsen, not improve economic conditions. America are you ready for this change?
Change No. 4 is nationalizing healthcare, which is what socialized medicine or universal health care accomplishes. This change means killing the best health care service delivery system in the world, which is based on free enterprise. You can expect a health care system fashioned in a way Karl Marx would be proud – totally government controlled. Anytime that the government sticks its bumbling hand into any enterprise it diminishes quality and customer service and increases the cost. Are you ready, America, for some change?
Change No. 5 will bring mandated and expanded comprehensive sex education in government schools from pre-school through high school. Count on the elimination of all abstinence sex education programs. It doesn’t matter one iota to Obama that abstinence works. It’s payback to the abortion industry here. Heinous corrupt groups like Planned Parenthood will have free reign to teach our children all manner of filth and pornography in our schools; all under the guise of “comprehensive sex ed.” Now that is another change America gets with Obama.
Change No. 6 will be a further weakened economy ending free trade agreements (doing away with NAFTA), increased trade deficits, increased debt will result in the unprecedented spending that Obama will push for to fulfill all of his lavish promises. Expect more, not less burdonsome laws to be placed on what is left of American industry. Don't expect any domestic oil drilling, production or refinement to take place, that would strengthen America. China and Mexico will continue to make money at our expense. A change is coming if we elect Obama.
Change No. 7 will expand and advance the same-sex agenda bringing to full fruition the work of homosexual activists. Obama panders to the homosexual and lesbian groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, where he claimed he was more pro-same-sex than Hillary Rodham-Clinton. The change will be same-sex marriage, elevating the status of this abominable behavior to special protected class status. Business will be mandated to pay for the so-called “partners” of these partakers in deviant behavior. Wow, America can hardly wait for this change to take place.
Finally, change No. 8 involves the very close cooperation with the growing tyrannical jurists, which will fully support all the changes a President Obama would try to implement. Instead of impeaching the radical former ACLU attorney, and anti-American Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Obama will clone her in the judges that he nominates. This is more good news for America. That is a change that will insure America’s continued deterioration well into the future. Another change you can expect from an Obama in charge.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Coach Marcus Borden: He can’t even pray silently . . .
I read in an email I received from Roberta Combs, President of the Christian Coalition this morning, that a New Jersey high school football coach is also being denied his right to freely exercise his faith. Read the following troublesome anti-Christian freedom-stifling ruling made by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Combs wrote in her email, “Last week, a radical majority of judicial tyrants on the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled t
hat New Jersey football coach, Marcus Borden, at East Brunswick High School, may not participate in the prayers his team conducts before their football games, nor can he participate in silent acts. The judicial tyranny by judges appointed by Jimmy ‘The Islamic-Fascist Appeaser” Carter and Bill “What an Example” Clinton continues in full force in America month after month.
“Coach Borden's attorneys vow to appeal the decision by these judicial dictators, including an appeal to the full 3rd circuit court, and they believe that the case will eventually end up before the United States Supreme Court. Coach Borden's school district had instituted the policy in October 2005 prohibiting any school representative from participating in student-initiated prayer.
“For 23 years, Coach Borden had led his football team in pre-game prayer until some atheist parents began complaining. Thankfully, the football team voted to continue their pre-game prayers. Coach Borden only wanted to bow his head and silently "take a knee' but the radical atheists would not even allow that and federal judge agreed he could do that, but the 3rd circuit court panel overruled that judge last week.”
These judges are domestic terrorists. Like the communist politburo, they dictate their own beliefs and carry out their own perverse agendas even they unconstitutionally act as lawmakers denying the rights of American citizens to exercise their faith. They cause great damage to the foundations upon which this country was built. Once the foundation goes the destruction or collapse of the country is inevitable.
Combs wrote in her email, “Last week, a radical majority of judicial tyrants on the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled t
hat New Jersey football coach, Marcus Borden, at East Brunswick High School, may not participate in the prayers his team conducts before their football games, nor can he participate in silent acts. The judicial tyranny by judges appointed by Jimmy ‘The Islamic-Fascist Appeaser” Carter and Bill “What an Example” Clinton continues in full force in America month after month.“Coach Borden's attorneys vow to appeal the decision by these judicial dictators, including an appeal to the full 3rd circuit court, and they believe that the case will eventually end up before the United States Supreme Court. Coach Borden's school district had instituted the policy in October 2005 prohibiting any school representative from participating in student-initiated prayer.
“For 23 years, Coach Borden had led his football team in pre-game prayer until some atheist parents began complaining. Thankfully, the football team voted to continue their pre-game prayers. Coach Borden only wanted to bow his head and silently "take a knee' but the radical atheists would not even allow that and federal judge agreed he could do that, but the 3rd circuit court panel overruled that judge last week.”
These judges are domestic terrorists. Like the communist politburo, they dictate their own beliefs and carry out their own perverse agendas even they unconstitutionally act as lawmakers denying the rights of American citizens to exercise their faith. They cause great damage to the foundations upon which this country was built. Once the foundation goes the destruction or collapse of the country is inevitable.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Ron Paul on Abortion Amendment
GregJaye asked this question in response to my comment on a recent post:My question about Congressman Paul is: why is he not in favor of federal amendments on either the protection of human life or [sic] the protection of marriage? It is my understanding that he and Thompson preferred that the states deal with these issues. I don't agree. We must protect these traditional values from the runaway judiciary.
First I will answer the question about abortion.
I have never heard anyone say that Ron Paul would vote against a Constitutional Amendment to protect the unborn. On his website he says this:
The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/81/pro-life-action-must-originate-from-principle/
This suggests the he would vote for a Constitutional amendment if it was properly worded. But it also implies that he thinks that this is not the best way. He prefers his Sanctity of Life Act. Here is why:
It would be easier to accomplish than a Constitutional amendment. We would only have to have a simple majority in the House and Senate and the President’s signature. A Constitutional amendment would additionally require approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
The Supreme Court does not really have the power that people think that it has. But Congress refuses to exert its authority over it as the Founding Fathers intended. This is the root of the problem of judicial activism. Judges become corrupt because they are unchecked as they are supposed to be.
The Constitution clearly says, “In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Article III, section 2). If you read the whole section you can see that this applies to everything except things like interstate crimes, ambassadors, and some other public officials.
RP wants the Congress to use this provision of the Constitution to give us back our power that we have over the Supreme Court so that we don’t have to keep going through the arduous process of amending the constitution every time an activist Supreme Court takes away our God-given rights. It is also important to dispel the myth of Supreme Court power in the minds of the populace.
Duncan Hunter made this statement:
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
This suggests the he would vote for a Constitutional amendment if it was properly worded. But it also implies that he thinks that this is not the best way. He prefers his Sanctity of Life Act. Here is why:
It would be easier to accomplish than a Constitutional amendment. We would only have to have a simple majority in the House and Senate and the President’s signature. A Constitutional amendment would additionally require approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
The Supreme Court does not really have the power that people think that it has. But Congress refuses to exert its authority over it as the Founding Fathers intended. This is the root of the problem of judicial activism. Judges become corrupt because they are unchecked as they are supposed to be.
The Constitution clearly says, “In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Article III, section 2). If you read the whole section you can see that this applies to everything except things like interstate crimes, ambassadors, and some other public officials.
RP wants the Congress to use this provision of the Constitution to give us back our power that we have over the Supreme Court so that we don’t have to keep going through the arduous process of amending the constitution every time an activist Supreme Court takes away our God-given rights. It is also important to dispel the myth of Supreme Court power in the minds of the populace.
Duncan Hunter made this statement:
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
I don’t see that anything Ron Paul has said would be inconsistent with this. Laws against murder have always been state laws. RP just wants to keep things as they had always been before all this judicial activism. Just because someone says they believe in a constitutional amendment does not mean they have taken the most conservative position on the issue. One could conceive of different ways that a Constitutional Amendment could be worded. It could only allow the states to pass laws against abortion. It could ban all abortion outright. Mitt Romney supports such an amendment that would contain exceptions in cases of rape and incest. Mike Huckabee says the same thing as RP about leaving this issue up to the states. Maybe RPs strong beliefs in states' rights could inhibit his ability to act to protect the unborn in some situtuations (but he has voted for some federal legislation which criminalizes some abortions). And I must admit that RPs approach has one disadvantage--a Constitutional Amendment would be more permanent. You could rightly argue that Duncan Hunter is better on this issue, but that definately cannot be said of Mike Huckabee.
The reasoning behind not prefering a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage are similar, but I’ll have much more to say about this next week.
The reasoning behind not prefering a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage are similar, but I’ll have much more to say about this next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
