A Nation of Laws No More

This used to be a nation of laws. No more. Now, it's a nation of judges. In California, it is legal to have sex for money if the act is done in front of a camera. Nobody voted for that. It was never debated in the legislature. It never appeared on a referendum. Prostitution in front of a camera is legal because one liberal judge who wanted to save the porn industry declared laws against pornography unconstitutional. Suddenly, with a sweep of his hand, this judge struck those laws from the books. What a magical nation this is when a wizard in a black robe can just pronounce laws illegal and turn the world upside down. It's straight out of Harry Potter. This judge was kinda sorta right. At least kinda sorta right enough for those who are incapable of rational thought (liberals). The Constitution does not prohibit pornography. But it also does not legalize it. In fact, the Constitution does not address pornography at all. So what does that mean? It means pornography is a matter to be handled by the states. I refer you to Amendment 10 of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's pretty straightforward. If the Constitution of the United States doesn't address it and if the Constitution of the state doesn't address it, then it falls to the people to address it. And address it they did, when they made their will known to their representatives in the state legislature and the legislature of California outlawed pornography. But then a single black-robed, amoral judge came along and with a single ruling, struck down the will of the people. Magical. Here's one that's in the headlines now: San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before." Ummm, what? California's constitution does not legalize homosexual marriage. Nor does it prohibit it. Once again, it is up to the will of the people. And the people voted in a majority of 62% in a recent referendum that marriage should be between a male and a female. But again, the will of the people matters not to this judge. The people are obviously wrong, since they don't agree with Judge Kramer's world view, so the will of the people be damned. And then we come to the recent Supreme Court decision that it is "unconstitutional" to execute minors. We're not talking about real minors. We're talking about people who committed the most heinous of crimes when they WERE minors. Nobody is strapping 10-year-olds into electric chairs. But if you're 17 and you kill four people in a drive-by shooting, you cannot be executed when you reach 21. If you are under 18 when you kill your parents, you will undoubtedly live longer than they did. All of a sudden, it's unconstitutional to execute these monsters. Was it unconstitutional to execute minors in the 18th century, when the drafters and signers of the Constitution were alive? No. So why is it unconstitutional now? Were laws against abortion unconstitutional in the 18th century? No. So why is it unconstitutional to prohibit the abortion of an unborn baby now? Because between the time the Founders drafted the Constitution and today, it has become a "living document." It started with FDR, who stacked the Supreme Court with judges he knew would not strike down any part of his New Deal as unconstitutional. And many parts were, because it was a socialist plan and this is not a socialist country. The Constitution IS a living document. But that does not mean any judge with a screw loose can interpret it any way he wants. It means that if the PEOPLE want to change it, they can amend it with a two-thirds majority of the states. The Constitution is meant to be rigid to prevent this country from changing in whatever direction the wind blows. Liberals know they can't win at the polls. The people of this country reject their programs time after time. So they foist their agenda on us through the courts. It's why they are so insane about blocking President Bush's judicial appointments. They want "moderate" judges. What does that mean? As Justice Scalia so intelligently put it this week, does that mean judges should come down somewhere between what the Constitution means and what people want? Liberals consider judges who rule on the exact meaning of the Constitution to be "radical." So now it's radical to hold our politicians and courts to the exact meaning of the Constitution? That's just nuts. Nobody voted for Johnson's War on Poverty, nobody voted for busing to achieve racial balance in schools, nobody voted for abortion. Judges did it all. Why are we allowing lawyers to run this country? If President Bush does nothing else in his second term, he needs to somehow reform the judicial system. If we can't get activist judges under control, our democracy will be totally lost. Democrats are misnamed. They hate democracy.