DOMA, Homosexual “Marriage”, and the Second Amendment
By Pat Henry / 11 May 2013
The Obama administration is doing all it can to bring about the “change” it promised in 2008. If you consider the continued economic and social devastation that it is wreaking “change”, it is doing a very good job. We had grown pretty complacent having jobs, a stable currency, world leadership, and safety so I guess people were bored and decided to try unemployment, food stamps, poverty, and fear as more exciting alternatives.
Obama did not just promise change, he promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”. Poverty, crime, and insecurity are not fundamental changes; they are simply the result of a complete lack of leadership and applying wrongheaded policies.
Fundamental change is something else again – a complete restructuring of the most basic foundation of American law – the Constitution.
The Constitution embodies the wisdom of the Founders, and has been a hugely successful basis for law that has created more wealth and freedom for more people than any other document in history.
But, like all documents, even the Bible, it cannot answer questions about itself and what it means, so it must be interpreted. Its authors understood this, so they provided the Supreme Court to answer these questions.
This is the way law works. There is salutatory law, the written law, and case law, the body of decisions that past courts have made about how the statutory law is to be applied in specific cases. When a question comes up, courts rely upon the law itself and what past courts have said in similar cases to reach a decision.
Although that sounds pretty simple, it is not, particularly in 2013. Many of us look at the results of court decisions, like the famous elderly lady who successfully sued McDonalds for serving her hot coffee, and say, “Huh?” How could the court come up with a nonsensical decision like that? But then, do you always agree with your family or friends?
The same is true with Supreme Court Justices. You would think that a group of people who are highly educated in a particular field would all agree, but unfortunately that is not usually the case. Even doctors often do not agree, which is why you get a second, and maybe third, opinion. With lawyers it is even less likely that they will agree. Although it is not possible to predict how a Justice will vote, as Chief Justice Roberts recently proved, we can loosely lump them into one of two camps.
The first can be called constructionists, or originalists, a term some prefer. These justices try to understand what the original intent of the Founders was when they wrote the Constitution, and use that interpretation to reach a decision. They view their role as to merely apply that intent, not to create or repeal parts of the Constitution. Justice Scalia has written on what he calls the “original meaning” theory, which is simply what any reasonable person at the time of the writing of the Constitution would have thought it meant. Sounds simple, no?
Strangely enough, however, the concept taught in the overwhelming majority of law schools and embraced by a huge number of judges, and all judges that Obama would consider appointing, as well as the majority of the current Court, is the so-called Living Constitution theory. The notion is that the Constitution is analogous to a person, which is constantly growing and changing, along with society. These justices believe that the Founders actually intended for the Constitution to be “flexible” and deliberately wrote it in broad and flexible terms so that the Supreme Court would have the flexibility to change its interpretation with time, to avoid supporting “outdated views.”
I think you can see the logical conclusion of the “Living Constitution” theory – the words mean nothing, and only the opinion of the Court matters. Indeed, case law means nothing, because it simply reflects “outdated views” and is no longer relevant. We are seeing this at the moment, as the Supreme Court considers DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Since time immemorial, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Yes, there have been societies where polygamy or other heterosexual variants have been allowed, but there has never been a society where homosexual unions were called “marriage” and equated with heterosexual unions. The Congress codified that in the DOMA passed in 1996 and signed into law by Bill Clinton, who said, “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages, and this legislation is consistent with that position.”
In 2011, however, Mr. Clinton had a change of heart, as many Americans have under the relentless pressure of the Left, and now thinks that the Supreme Court should declare this act unconstitutional. So what? Who cares? Let them have their weddings. How does that affect me?
If in 1996 DOMA was Constitutional legislation, then under the originalist or constructionist theory it would STILL be Constitutional. What has changed between 1996 and 2013? A lot has changed. Mr. Clinton, ever the “populist”, was notorious for changing his views, and his governing style, to fit the mood of the people, which was the secret of his successful presidency. His public positions are a good indicator of the mood of the country, and DOMA is now considered by many as an example of an “outdated view”.
The Living Constitution justices, therefore, would not consider themselves inconsistent if they decide that what was OK less than 20 years ago is no longer OK. The 900 pound gorilla in the room is that this sort of thinking means that none of the rights that we were guaranteed by the Founders embodied in the Constitution mean anything. Under the “Living Constitution” theory, we no longer have rule of law, we have rule of judicial fiat, based upon pressure by whatever elements of society are most successful in making their views heard. Since the 1960’s we know what part of society that is – the Left.
So, keep your eye on the Court’s decision on DOMA and homosexual “marriage”. If the Court decides that thousands of years of human history, not to mention hundreds of years of American history, can be overridden with the stroke of a pen, you can expect all your freedoms, religion, assembly, speech, and your right to bear arms, to fall like so many dominoes behind it.
Their immigration problem is like ours, due to government policies, and involvement with the EU, which circumvents their national sovereignty.
As important as this is, (in America we ought to be paying close attention)…
I was astonished to find a series of videos that echo the internal problems America faces: Our -now supposed- checks and balances, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government; while supposed to obey the will of the people, have in fact gone their own way. Having trampled the Constitution, Obama has rammed down our throats ever increasing socialist programs. Our deficit remains at over 17 Trillion, while they haggle over a miniscule half-billion in cuts. If NDAA passes, hello official police state. Hillary Clinton has pushed a U.N. small arms treaty -illegal by our constitution- that would destroy the 2nd amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. We’d better not sign over ANYTHING to the damned U.N.
Congress colludes, despite their outward protests, and the Judicial branch is in Obamas pocket. Rarely do they support our rule of law.
In Britain, this series of videos, made in 2007, reveals the stealthy path government took to get them to where they are now.
With their self government under imminent threat of being usurped by the EU within two years , their only practical course of action was to organize the public, and repeal an earlier treaty that would mean quitting the EU.
Britain failed to use this avenue; now here in America, our warning is served. Act, or our “free country” is FORFEIT.
Map The European Union presently consists of 27 countries and has a total population of nearly 500 million citizens (497,198,740).
Here are the URL’s parts 1 through 4.
Britain on the brink:
This first video is with Judge Napalatino. NOTE: Was searching for another post, and found this draft I thought I had posted. “X”
This is strange – the author does state “to do your own research”
“WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTION”
Uploaded on Dec 28, 2010
A STORY ABOUT A CORPORATE TAKE OVER HISTORY FORGOT TO TELL YOU ABOUT. THE TRUTH FOX NEWS WILL NOT TELL YOU
This presentation will explain some of the issues the American People face in this country today and why. It will show a clear path of destruction of your rights over the last 150 years. This is not everything that is wrong, but it will get you looking at the real facts we are facing. The reason I did this video is I wanted to show the people the proof of what has happened and it will show you the right places to start looking so you can educate yourself. One thing I promise you is this, if you go in search of what has taken us to where we are today you will find an amazing story that goes back thousands of years.
The other thing I want to tell you is this and though it may be hard for people to understand it’s not Washington D.C.’s fault. The people have failed to take responsibility for themselves and their government, so when you fail to take responsibility for your actions someone else will and you will not like how that ends up.
Here you will find the Documents in this presentation. http://www.mediafire.com/view/?gjtxhbhrv8mmion
News & Politics
posted on January 30, 2013 by Michael Minkoff
I know what Scalia means, but part of me couldn’t help but think there was a little irony in the Justice’s recent pronouncement: “[The Constiution’s] not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead!” Speaking to a group at Southern Methodist University, Scalia was promoting what he considers a “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution.
The debate on how to interpret the Constitution is older than the Constitution.
Most of the Founding Fathers were strict constructionists (as you would imagine… since they drafted the document. Of course they wanted it interpreted as it was written). Over time, as high technology and low morals altered the nature of American society and politics, the question started to arise more and more: “Isn’t this document a little outdated? But rather than re-write it, why not just interpret it freshly for our modern circumstances?” Which basically meant, “Why not just ignore the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and just draw from the Constitution whatever we want it to say…”
The question of how to interpret the Constitution is similar to the question of how to translate a book out of one language into another. There are really two basic approaches: metaphrase (concerned only with the literal words) or paraphrase (concerned with intent or overall effect). Both methods are problematic for one reason or another. The problem with literal translations (which we can liken to strict constructionist models of interpretation) is that sometimes they render the original ridiculous or meaningless to a modern reader. Idioms and ideas may not mean the same thing today as they once did, or as they do in other languages. The problem with paraphrase is obvious: unless the translator is extremely careful, knowledgeable, and conscientious, he might twist the original meaning of a text in an attempt to make it accessible.
The Constitution has been abused by both strict constructionists and loose constructionists. Take, for example, the discussion of gun control and gun rights. On one hand, a strict constructionist could say that since the Founding Fathers were protecting the right to muskets, it is only the right to muskets that is currently protected. Not modern muskets (think AR-15 or M-16), mind you. Literal muskets. This is why Scalia, a purported strict constructionist, has not been the greatest champion of your gun rights. He doesn’t think the Constitution allows you to have whatever arms you can afford. Of course, loose constructionists make the Constitution say whatever is convenient. They pretend, in contradiction to all reason and evidence, that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect only their right to hunting rifles. Both approaches fall into error because Justices and Executors have a vested interest in reading the Constitution in their own way.
Probably the most insightful thing Scalia said was, “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” This is like saying, “A translator should not correct the text he’s translating even if he doesn’t like how the original was written.” Unfortunately, that one’s also up for interpretation, and Scalia spoke more truly than he knew when he said the Constitution was “dead.” All we can hope for is that the Constitution writes in to the Supreme Court: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/justice-scalia-the-constitution-is-dead/#ixzz2K1gC4oO0