So let me get this straight (oops, bad choice of words), the California Supreme Court decided that it was perfectly reasonable for the electorate to vote away civil rights for same sex couples in a state-wide initiative. Then, these bastions of the third branch said that all gay marriages previously legal were still protected. Thus, for one class of citizens, there are now two classes of civil rights in California. Yeah, that makes sense!
I am not a lawyer, but I do teach American Government and I do have a passing knowledge of the US Constitution. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that state judges, like federal judges were required to swear (or affirm) an oath that binds them "to support this Constitution" (see Article VI of above mentioned document). Further, I could swear that there was language in the 14th Amendment (same document) that mandated "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Maybe they don't teach Constitutional law in law school anymore. No, that can't be right, because I believe our newly-elected president used to teach that very course at the University of Chicago Law School. Well then, maybe none of our state judges attended law school. After all we have a governor whose last course in Civics was in a country whose president spent some time in a Nazi SS unit. That might explain this bizarre behavior, but just a year ago, this same august body declared that marriage was indeed a civil right that could not be limited based on sexual preference, so what gives?
As with so much in government the answer can found in a document written over 200 years ago.
At the insistence of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the Framers of our national Constitution created an independent national judiciary. They knew that there were real dangers in establishing democratic governance, especially in the area of protecting individual liberties and rights. Madison called it the wrath of the majority. For those of you not familiar with the Federalist Papers, see The Lord of the Flies and you will get the picture. As Socrates discovered in that other experiment in democracy, the will of the majority is no guarantee against tyranny. I wonder what hemlock tastes like?
And to make sure that our judges would be exempt from majoritarian whim, the Framers granted them almost total insulation from the political process. They do have to be appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, but once in office only criminal behavior can be grounds for their removal. Unlike elected politicians, who take a poll before they use the bathroom, federal judges are free to protect the rights of even the most reviled minority among us. And what a job they have done. Long before politicians got on board, the federal courts were extending civil rights and liberties to racial and ethnic minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed ten full years after the United States Supreme Court abolished racially segregated schools.
So what is up with the California version of that august body? Well, in our state, we do not absolutely guarantee judicial freedom. Many of our judges are elected to office and are subject to voter recall. Thus, every branch of government in the Golden State is responsive first and foremost to majoritarian politics. Ever read our state constitution? It has been revised so many times by the initiative and referendum process that no one ever refers to it with the awe and reverence reserved for its national parent. Don't think that civil right should apply to a certain minority? Easy, just vote it away!
One can only wonder what Thomas Jefferson might have thought about this process while penning the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . . " Hmmm, there must be a footnote somewhere exempting California from this.
I am not a lawyer, but I do teach American Government and I do have a passing knowledge of the US Constitution. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that state judges, like federal judges were required to swear (or affirm) an oath that binds them "to support this Constitution" (see Article VI of above mentioned document). Further, I could swear that there was language in the 14th Amendment (same document) that mandated "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Maybe they don't teach Constitutional law in law school anymore. No, that can't be right, because I believe our newly-elected president used to teach that very course at the University of Chicago Law School. Well then, maybe none of our state judges attended law school. After all we have a governor whose last course in Civics was in a country whose president spent some time in a Nazi SS unit. That might explain this bizarre behavior, but just a year ago, this same august body declared that marriage was indeed a civil right that could not be limited based on sexual preference, so what gives?
As with so much in government the answer can found in a document written over 200 years ago.
At the insistence of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the Framers of our national Constitution created an independent national judiciary. They knew that there were real dangers in establishing democratic governance, especially in the area of protecting individual liberties and rights. Madison called it the wrath of the majority. For those of you not familiar with the Federalist Papers, see The Lord of the Flies and you will get the picture. As Socrates discovered in that other experiment in democracy, the will of the majority is no guarantee against tyranny. I wonder what hemlock tastes like?
And to make sure that our judges would be exempt from majoritarian whim, the Framers granted them almost total insulation from the political process. They do have to be appointed by a president and confirmed by the Senate, but once in office only criminal behavior can be grounds for their removal. Unlike elected politicians, who take a poll before they use the bathroom, federal judges are free to protect the rights of even the most reviled minority among us. And what a job they have done. Long before politicians got on board, the federal courts were extending civil rights and liberties to racial and ethnic minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed ten full years after the United States Supreme Court abolished racially segregated schools.
So what is up with the California version of that august body? Well, in our state, we do not absolutely guarantee judicial freedom. Many of our judges are elected to office and are subject to voter recall. Thus, every branch of government in the Golden State is responsive first and foremost to majoritarian politics. Ever read our state constitution? It has been revised so many times by the initiative and referendum process that no one ever refers to it with the awe and reverence reserved for its national parent. Don't think that civil right should apply to a certain minority? Easy, just vote it away!
One can only wonder what Thomas Jefferson might have thought about this process while penning the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. . . " Hmmm, there must be a footnote somewhere exempting California from this.
NAMBLA will appreciate your support of thier agenda. Since anything goes under unalienable rights, Ted Bundy should be the poster child for social engineering of preditory rights. Is there anything you wouldn't defend as ok in the name of liberal righteousness, or conservative facisim? Or have you already answered that question for all the young heads full of mush you teach?
ReplyDeleteWow, you seem to have a great deal of repressed rage there Anon. I didn't even know what NAMBLA was,so I had to look it up! Unfortunately, with the draconian cuts about to be made in our state's mental health programs, I guess your only options will be continued paranoid rants.
ReplyDeleteAP Dude