Tuesday, July 11, 2006

High Court Allows Constitution To Function

Citizen Link reported yesterday that the High Court of the People's Republic of Massachusetts has unanimously voted that a "resident-initiated state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and woman" was in fact legal. So now let us all bow down to the mighty court and give thanks that the people who reside in that state are still allowed to follow the legal means of amending the Constitution.

The arrogance of the left and the courts is quite troubling. Whether you agree with the initiative or not, you should be quite alarmed that such a case would ever arrive to the High Court. Were not this case so important to the Left, this decision would never have passed go or collected two hundred dollars. Would the normal means of amending a state constitution in any other matter have been so heavily fought over? Certainly not!

What is troubling about this case is that it reveals most clearly what conservatives have been shouting about for a looooooooong time. The Left in this country HATE our constitutional form of government. You know. Things like voting and debating ideas and electing representatives and (God forbid) passing "resident initiated amendments" are certainly to be disdained and looked down upon. The average person is much to stupid to participate in our republic.

The idea that a High Court must decide whether or not the legal means people have used for hundreds of years is itself legal makes me wonder if our precious republic is still here. What if they change their minds tomorrow? Who will stop the Court? It is painfully obvious the legislature won't. Perhaps this time the High Court feared the people's retribution. Will they fear them tomorrow?


the forester said...

"Perhaps this time the High Court feared the people's retribution. Will they fear them tomorrow?"

Is there a reason for a court to fear the people's retribution? Judges are appointed for life, aren't they? It's not like they can be elected out of office.

Immunity from electoral retribution is an important principle -- otherwise it's doubtful our nation would ever have risen above gross injustices like slavery and separate-but-equal education.

But we also need term limits on judges, in order for their opinions to become a little more reflective of our social virtues. I say fifteen years tops. That ensures that every fifteen years a judge's seat will be infused with new blood that is hopefully closer in touch with pervading American virtues.

Something that always cracks me up, by the way, is when people argue that a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage would be unconstitutional. Duh -- why do they think it's called an "amendment"? If passed, it would be the Constitution.

Howard Fisher said...

I think Robert Bork's suggestion in Slouching Toward Gomorrah may be helpful. He says that every social decision that the High Court makes should automatically come before Congress.

I really don't see how to stop a runaway court system than restoring to Congress the Constitutional power that is already theirs by an amendment. But then if the Constitution already says Congress has that power, would Congress ever act on it?