Archive for November 6th, 2008
The Conservative Underground: Day 2
…deep within the liberal-proof bunker…
Well folks, it would seem that the homosexuals and their supporters in California have already begun their new round of legal battles to disembowel Prop 8.
Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution, bans gay marriage. Six months ago, by judicial fiat by the California Supreme Court, law that was passed by voters to restrict marriage to one man and one woman was overturned. So, the people against gay marriage did the only thing left to them to do – amend the constitution to overturn the Supremes decision. Voters spoke out and passed the measure. The supreme law of California has been written and no one can change it.
Leave it to the American Crazy Liberals Union (ACLU) and some homosexual group Equality California to file suit saying the amendment violates the constitution, that a basic right accorded to all Californians is now removed from one particular group, which violates the intents of the constitution, and therefore is unconstitutional.
Where were these lawsuits when Prop 8 was put on the ballot? Where were these lawsuits during the campaign. Instead, we go through the point of suing AFTER it’s passed. (probably done out of the cost of a lawsuit). But that’s not the real issue. Read on.
Jenny Pizer of the Lambda Legal group says, “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”
This woman, for all her legal experience, is certifiably out of her mind. What she is saying here is that, “Yeah, the majority won, but that’s not good enough to change the constitution in this matter.”
What’s ridiculous about all this is what we define as the highest law of the land. In this case, the California Constitution. Instead, now the liberals are citing the *intents* of the constitutional framers, intents that are not codified anywhere, except in the actual text of the constitution. Liberals cannot accept what’s actually written, but rather, have to now hide behind this obfuscation of intentions – an obfuscation that can be easily manipulated – which is what the liberals want to do.
(Notwithstanding liberals don’t bother to listen to that argument when it comes to free speech issues)
The issue is, the will of the people does not matter to the extremes of the left wing. These people are crying like a 2-year-old who didn’t get his way. Remember, liberals are relativistic, believing that anything can be changed, including what the majority says. All they need is some judge who is willing to set law from the bench and they are golden.
Liberals believe in democracy, only when it works for them. Yes, Obama won the presidency democratically (and suddenly the electoral college works with liberals), but democracy got hijacked in the passage of Prop 8. The majority is somehow wrong.
In democracy, the MAJORITY RULES no matter how thin that majority is…and it is never wrong. If the people by majority, decreed that a circus bear is a viable candidate for governor, then that’s the law. To speak against this precept violates everything for which we stand in America.
Relativistic and utterly ridiculous.
I can only see an uproar by the people if the California Supreme Court renders the a constitutional amendment unconstitutional by fiat. In my mind, if a supreme court justice tampers with the constitution in this matter, they themselves should be tried for seditious conspiracy, (USC Title 18 Section 2384) , because the constitution is high law of the land and it is the irrevocable right of the people to amend it any way they want to.
Folks, this is a serious assault of our law if this goes through.
-R
Update: I reviewed my interpretation of Title 18 USC Section 2384 since sedition requires the use of force and such an act has to be committed against the Government of the United States. However, the lesser offense of Rebellion and Insurrection can be applied under Title 18 USC Section 2383, since a justice would be assisting in the rebellion of the authority of the United States by undermining the text of the amended state constitution (which, under the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution is protected by federal law). Since the authority of the United States is provided “by the people” and the people have spoken through democratic process, such an act by a supreme court justice can be construed as an act of rebellion against the people of the State of California, who give the authority for the state.
I just remember some of the text of the old Sedition Act of 1918, which was later repealed by Congress in 1920 out of abuses during World War I.
-R
