Archive for religious freedom

Stuff Going on Today

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2017 by cavalier973

One policeman killed and two wounded in an attack in Paris. The shooter was reported to have arrived by train from Belgium. There is an election on Sunday in France, which is closely contested, according to some reports. Update: Two policemen are now dead from the shooting.

♣ The FBI is investigating to determine which CIA traitor gave the most recent batch of intelligence leaks to WikiLeaks.

Georgia Gwinnett College says that the Gospel is “Fightin’ Words“, and won’t allow it. Eventually, the First Amendment, which supposedly prevents the FedGov from interfering in religious worship, will be determined by the Supreme Court to actually mean that people can’t be Christians.

Not many people are filing unemployment claims right now. The rate is, in fact, at a 17 year low.

Same sex marriage is now officially doomed

Posted in For God with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2013 by cavalier973

And I express my sympathy for my esteemed opponents on this issue, who worked so hard for “marriage equality”.  But, now that the Federal Government has involved itself in same-sex marriage, the only reasonable conclusion one can come to is that same-sex marriage is doomed.

Here’s the decision.  The dissent begins on page 31.

Some observations:  The lower District Court already ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, and ordered the IRS to refund the taxes paid.  Who wouldn’t love that?  The case should have ended there.

Also, it seems that Justice Roberts denies that the Constitutionality of DOMA was even addressed in this decision:

“I write only to highlight the limits of the majority’s holding and reasoning today, lest its opinion be taken to resolve not only a question that I believe is not properly before us—DOMA’s constitutionality—but also a question that all agree, and the Court explicitly acknowledges, is not at issue.”

Justice Scalia was a little more vituperative:

“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion
aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the
Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the
role of this institution in America.

The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies.” Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” (at least one that “has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ”) would “become only secondary to the President’s.” Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.

This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of “primary” power, and so created branches of government that would be “perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission,” none of which branches could “pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of “greater intrinsic value” or “stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty” than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No.  47, at 301.

For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today’s opinion asserts) “‘an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.’” Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The “judicial Power” is not, as the majority believes, the power “‘to say what the law is,’” ibid., giving the Supreme Court the “primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws.” The majority must have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit. See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons. Sometimes (though not always) the parties before the court disagree not with regard to the facts of their case (or not only with regard to the facts) but with regard to the applicable law—in which event (and only in which event) it becomes the “‘province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’” Ante, at 12.”  [Emphasis mine]

One other thing I’d like to add:  same-sex couples can’t, technically speaking, even have genuine sexual intercourse.  This refutes the argument that procreation cannot be used as part of the definition of marriage.  A married couple who are barren (or choose not to have children) can still engage in the procreative act and have genuine sexual intercourse.  Same-sex couples are only capable of engaging in mutal masturbation sessions.  A same-sex couple cannot consummate the marriage!!!