California Supremes deal lethal blow to Republican Form of Government. - Page 14 - PhillyBlog

Michael Tree · #**131** (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

Wrong. As I have documented, they are inventions of the SCOTUS “used to subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, thereby violating our constitutional system’s most fundamental rule [1], instead of making an attempt to defend the historical legitimacy of “strict scrutiny” in our constitutional system, you cast aside truth and facts and pretend “strict scrutiny” is "law". But, as is usually the case, you are wrong once again.

It is law. You don't like it, but it is the law. It is firmly established precedent, which all courts and all supreme court justices recognize, even the most conservative ones. You seem to be having difficulty separating your opinion of what is valid from what is actually the law.

john w k · #**132** (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

It is law. You don't like it, but it is the law. It is firmly established precedent, which all courts and all supreme court justices recognize, even the most conservative ones. You seem to be having difficulty separating your opinion of what is valid from what is actually the law.

More of your personal and uniformed opinions? It is law? Please provide the section of statutory law you are referencing.

Seems to me you ignore the prescribed remedy to establish public policy which is vested in the legislative branch of government, and, the constitutional amendment process, and you prefer to side with four Justices on the California Court who arrogantly took it upon themselves to speak for the entire population of the State of California in setting public policy, and dictatorially declared there was no “compelling state interest” in differentiation between same sex “marriage“ and marriages of opposite sex, striking down settled public policy, policy I might add was recently confirmed by the People via the State’s ballot initiative process.

In effect, you side with the Court hijacking the public policy making powers of the legislative branch of government, its violation of the separation of powers in our system of government, and you side with the Court overturning what had been constitutionally established as public policy as far back as 150 years. This is what the argument boils down to ___ four citizens in California imposing their own personal whims and fancies on the State's entire population as being public policy, and thus, engaging in judicial tyranny by undermining the separation of powers in a Republican Form of Government which is guaranteed to every State in the Union by Article 4, Section 4.of the United States Constitution!

JWK

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

Michael Tree · #**133** (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 02:20 PM

Google strict scrutiny and you'll find thousands of cases decided based on it. Google compelling state interest or equal protection, and you'll find the same.

As for the rest, you're just restating what you wrote in your very first post, and which was succinctly answered in the very first response, so there's no point in going through it yet again.

I'm curious, if what you're really concerned about is the separation of powers, why aren't you up in arms about the Bush administration's unprecedented expansion of executive powers? It seems to me that you're spending a lot of time and energy on gays and "cripples", and none at all on the most powerful administration in the world.

For a good summary, read this article, by conservative scholar Bruce Fein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Fein

In approximately 800 cases, President Bush has both signed a bill and declared his intent to disregard provisions he believes are unconstitutional, the equivalent of a line-item veto. For instance, he signed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibiting torture while issuing a signing statement declaring his intent to ignore the law in order to gather military or foreign intelligence.

The Presentment Clause of Article I, Section 7 gives the president but two options when presented with a bill passed by Congress: sign or veto the bill in its entirety. That was the holding of the Supreme Court when it found a line-item veto statute unconstitutional in 1998’s Clinton v. City of New York. The president is obligated to veto a bill that he believes to be unconstitutional; Congress may override that judgment by two-thirds majorities. In the 217-year history of the United States under the present Constitution, Congress has overridden only 28 constitutionally based vetoes, and on only one occasion did the override engender a constitutional battle between the president and Congress. Presidential signing statements further usurp the legislative power by resulting in the enforcement of laws that Congress has not passed. Members vote on all the provisions of a law collectively in the expectation that all will be executed if the president approves.

Signing statements also flout the president’s obligation in Article II of the Constitution to execute the laws faithfully. The Founding Fathers were acutely aware of the example of King James II, whose practice of suspending or dispensing with laws he believed encroached on royal prerogatives eventually occasioned his overthrow in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. With such precedents in mind, the framers of the United States Constitution directed the president to execute the laws without fail. The Republican Congress, however, has acted as a disinterested spectator while President Bush has stolen its legislative authority in plain view and exercised the tyrannical power of making, executing, and conclusively interpreting the law and the Constitution.

john w k · #**134** (**permalink**) 05-31-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

Google strict scrutiny and you'll find thousands of cases decided based on it. Google compelling state interest or equal protection, and you'll find the same.

I addressed the issue of strict scrutiny IN THIS POST and explained its origins and the fact that it is an invention of the Court, and you ignore truth and facts when presented to you. I wrote:

Quote:

You keep bringing up “strict scrutiny” as if it supports your silly notions concerning constitutional law. The truth is, your “strict scrutiny” along with other creative phrases are nothing more than an invention of the S.C., used to subjugate and overcome the narrow and documented intentions and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, which was adopted to incorporate the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1865 into the Constitution, and prohibit legislation based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, i..e., the 14th Amendment was intended to put an end to black code laws and insure equality in the application of the law between the races. The 14th Amendment was never intended to allow Roe vs. Wade, allow Martin, a cripple, to ride around in a golf cart during the PGA event, nor was the amendment intended to allow Justice Ginsburg to command VMI to admit females into the Institute.

The fact is, the SC, in the early 1970’s started to ignored the limited intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted and took it upon itself to use the judicial branch of government to impose the personal predilections of its members as court-ordered social reforms, and did so by relying upon creative “tests” which no longer determine the constitutionality of a law, but supposedly determined whether the law was, e.g., “reasonable“, or, whether the law “bears a rational relationship" to the state's objective, allowing the Court to declare laws which did not fit their idea of social justice unconstitutional, while laws fitting their idea of social justice were amazingly found constitutional under these “tests“. And let us not forget these cases were brought under the 14th Amendment charging unequal law and violations of its due process clause when no issue of race was involved, and therefore, the 14th Amendment was not applicable!

Some of the important cases which document the Court’s use of its power to impose its own standards of social justice using creative tests unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution are:

Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971)

Frontiero vs Richardson Secretary of Defense 411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

United States vs. Virginia 518 U.S. 515 (1996)

It is also interesting to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s were very active in these cases and assisted the court in the nurturing of the creative “tests” used to parse words and subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

Bottom line. The strict scrutiny you keep referring to is an invention of the Court used to impose its concept of social justice and subjugate the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Tree

As for the rest, you're just restating what you wrote in your very first post, and which was succinctly answered in the very first response, so there's no point in going through it yet again.

I'm curious, if what you're really concerned about is the separation of powers, why aren't you up in arms about the Bush administration's unprecedented expansion of executive powers? It seems to me that you're spending a lot of time and energy on gays and "cripples", and none at all on the most powerful administration in the world.

For a good summary, read this article, by conservative scholar Bruce Fein.

For another authoritative summary involving the President’s authorized power concerning Bills having passed the House and Senate see: Our Line-Item-Veto con artists in Congress!

JWK

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
_________ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

john w k · #**135** (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 05:18 PM

The more I study the decision of the Court, the more apparent it becomes Justice George knowingly and willingly intended to impose his personal predilections upon the entire state of California and did in fact “legislate from the bench”!

The part of California’s Constitution alleged to be violated and repeatedly referred to by Justice George is Article 1, Declaration of Rights, SEC. 7(a) which states in part that:

Quote:

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws…”

The job of Justice George who authored the Court’s opinion is articulated in the oath of office he took and requires him to support and defend “the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California …” and not one which Justice George makes up as he goes along.

In addition, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which each article, section, clause and amendment of a constitution was adopted as they may be documented from historical records.

In the instant case it is irrefutable that no “person” was denied the equal protection of the law under California’s marriage law and its legally understood definition of marriage as it applied to one male and one female. As a matter of fact, Justice George, in his own words confirmed that under California’s existing law, it

Quote:

…has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex-couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple….pages 2 and 3 of the opinion.

Justice George also asserted:

Quote:

“…assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitution right to marry under the California Constitution.” ___ pages 8 and 9

Justice George’s decision was not about the equal protection of the law as applied to individuals, but rather, his decision was to hijack legislative powers and change existing legislative definitions, erasing the historical definition of marriage as applying to one male and one female which was legally understood in California for over 150 years, and he did so by alleging :

Quote:

“…retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples.” [page 118]

In fact, Justice George violated the federal guarantee to a Republican Form of Government found in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States which recognizes a separation of powers, and he did so by imposing his definition of Marriage upon the entire population of the State of California without the people’s consent nor consent of the Legislature, and, did in fact imposed a definition which the people of California have actually rejected!

If there is any constitutional issue involved in this case, it is the subjugation of the federal guarantee to a Republican Form of Government by Justice George ____ a system in which the people’s elected legislature is to enact law, while the judicial branch is to enforce the protections guaranteed under a written constitution and not legislate from the bench.

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

Valley Twin · #**136** (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 06:02 PM

blah, blah, blah.

It's none of your business if Bob & Bob want to get married. Just because four out of five divorced Baptists want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" doesn't mean that the old "man + woman" definition isn't wrong.

john w k · #**137** (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valley Twin

blah, blah, blah.

It's none of your business if Bob & Bob want to get married. Just because four out of five divorced Baptists want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" doesn't mean that the old "man + woman" definition isn't wrong.

The subject has nothing to do with Baptists or religion. The subject has everything to do with California’s judicial branch of government “legislating from the bench”.

Colin P. Varga · #**138** (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john w k

...The subject has everything to do with California’s judicial branch of government “legislating from the bench”.

If so the voters will have a chance to replace the Supreme Court and the Republican Governor who is upholding the Court's decision. California is not in any kind of a constitutional crisis. People in California are not seriously calling for the ouster of the Supreme Court, or an election to recall the Governor.