Our friend John Haskins, at Article 8 and Parents' Rights Coalition, just
published a provocative piece in The American Spectator online. His analysis of judicial tyranny and activism really lays it on the line. Here are excerpts from "No More Striking Down Constitutions":
Absurd though it is, only "constitutional" conservatives honor precedent. The Liberal "mainstream" savors precedents they've shot down -- or will next chance. Their favorite rulings violate centuries of precedent.... Even "all star" conservative constitutionalists steer a careful course between the Constitution and what the establishment will tolerate.
Righteous refinement obliges conservatives (holy and secular) to treat these points as uncouth. They are not. They address why Republicans are winning elections and "conservatives" are losing the Culture War, waiting for strict constructionists to fix everything. If we want to preserve for our children what was handed to us we'll need to stop describing things in grays that are actually black and white.
Let's drop the talking points about "conservative," "constructionist" and "originalist" nominees. Such language obscures what's going on. These nuances are a polite way of pretending that the mainstream in law and government interprets the Constitution differently than we do. No. They are oblivious to the actual content of the Constitution, or they are anti-constitutional. A polite term would be "post-constitutional." ...
If constitutions count, homosexual marriage remains illegal in Massachusetts. John Adams's constitution says explicitly the people are "not bound" by any law not ratified by their Legislature. Four Boston judges struck down a constitution that stood in their way -- one they've sworn to uphold. The word "treason" comes to mind -- a strong word that Liberals would use lustily if they could, but then the Left is all about winning and conservatives are about slowing them down.
Has "conservative" governor Mitt Romney refused to enforce a ruling dissenting justices and Harvard law professors say is bogus? His oath compels him to refuse the court its pleasure. He pleads impotence. Do constitutionalists demand that the outlaw justices resign? Silence. Or Romney? No, they fancy him in the White House. At what point will "constitutionalists" stop siding with the establishment against the Constitution?
CONSERVATIVES JUST don't get it. In a republic judges don't get to make laws and others are sworn to stop them when they try. Yet we speak as if this is splitting hairs. Jefferson wrote that an unconstitutional ruling is null and void. What part of "void" can't we understand? Why are "conservative" presidents, governors, legislatures, mayors, sheriffs and school committees siding with Laurence Tribe against Jefferson and Lincoln?
Law schools haven't taught the Constitution for years. They teach precedent. Conservatives dignify mockery of the Constitution by pretending it's a matter of dueling legal theories. "We respectfully disagree with the court's interpretation..."
No. That ain't interpretation. "Impeachable" is what it is -- prestigious degrees notwithstanding. Respect swindlers in high places? ...
Read the complete article...
