Time for the counterrevolution
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 25, 2004
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has given America an object lesson in how
the Left imposes its radical social revolution on a confused majority that
knows not how to fight it.
Out on Sodom by the Bay, Newsom, in defiance of a law enacted by California
voters two-to-one in a referendum, ordered city officials to hand out marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
Newsom says that the law violates the state constitution. For his civil
disobedience, he has become a hero to militant homosexuals all the way to
Provincetown. His defiance has spread to New Mexico and Chicago, where Mayor
Richard Daley has declared his solidarity.
Where did Newsom get his idea? Perhaps from Massachusetts, where the Supreme
Judicial Court has ordered Gov. Romney and the legislature to start handing out
marriage licenses to homosexuals by May.
Civil unions do not meet our demand, the court told Bay State elected leaders.
You must vote homosexuals absolute and equal rights to marry. Now stop
dithering and get on with it.
What is happening here in America is an end run around democracy by an elite
that believes its superior morality places it above the law. First, the Left
engages in defiance and disobedience of a law it detests, then it goes
judge-shopping to find some jurist-ideologue who will agree and overturn the
law. And thus does the minority rule America.
Yet, seeing the smug certitude of Newsom, and the befuddlement of the
authorities, there is no doubt who is winning the culture war and who will
prevail if Middle America does not find leaders of greater fiber. We live in an
age, wrote the poet Yeats, when "the best lack all conviction and the worst are
full of passionate intensity."
Now, no state in the Union has ever provided for homosexual marriages, and most
states have enacted statutes prohibiting such nonsense. However, the people may
now have lost their right to decide. For the judges have stepped in and seized
the issue.
In Massachusetts, it was the state's highest court that ordered the governor
and legislature to license same-sex marriages. In California, the state supreme
court will decide whether Newsom's licenses are valid. In this capital, the
Supreme Court will tell us whether denying homosexuals a right to marry
violates our Constitution, though no one ever imagined such an absurdity until
last year.
While the idiocy underway at San Francisco city hall exposes the moral rot in
America, it also reveals how we are losing the republic that was our patrimony.
Our forefathers overthrew a rule of kings. But we have meekly submitted to a
rule of judges.
The majority no longer rules, and America needs either a counterrevolution or a
second revolution to reclaim the republic born of the first. And there are
weapons within the Constitution we can employ to carry off that revolution.
President Bush has taken a bold first step with the recess appointments of
David Pryor and Charles Pickering to the U.S. appellate court. Both men were
denied a vote by Senate obstructionists. Should Daschle, Kennedy and Co. deny
Bush a vote on his first Supreme Court nominee, he should not hesitate to make
history's first recess appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. He can become as
great a hero to Middle America as Newsom is on Castro Street.
It is time presidents began using their constitutional power to uphold and
defend the Constitution against justices perverting it to impose their cultural
Marxism on a once-Christian republic. We need the spirit of Jefferson, who
refused to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts, of Jackson, who roared: "John
Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"
Yet, the real power to rein in and corral a renegade court lies with our
Congress. Under Article III, as South Carolina law professor William Quirk has
long argued, Congress "determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts."
"Congress has the power to establish or abolish all federal courts except the
Supreme Court and ... the power to abolish includes the power to limit their
jurisdiction."
Congress, writes Quirk, "could re-enact the Defense Of Marriage Act restricting
marriage to men and women with one sentence, 'This law is not subject to review
by the lower federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.' Then the issue would
return to the states, where President Bush and the Democratic candidates say it
should be."
In Boston and Sacramento, Govs. Romney and Schwarzenegger and the legislatures
could reject the Newsom licenses and defy any court order that overturns
validly enacted law, or tells legislators what laws they must enact. What would
the state supreme courts do? Order Schwarzenegger and Romney arrested? Declare
the legislators in contempt?
Let them. Then the legislators can impeach the judges, throw them out, and get
new judges who can read and understand constitutions.
.
|
|
| User: "naming el" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the counterrevolution |
25 Feb 2004 09:47:54 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040225103440.02011.00000394@mb-m19.aol.com>...
Time for the counterrevolution
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 25, 2004
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has given America an object lesson in how
the Left imposes its radical social revolution on a confused majority that
knows not how to fight it.
Out on Sodom by the Bay, Newsom, in defiance of a law enacted by California
voters two-to-one in a referendum, ordered city officials to hand out marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
So what does Jesus say about gays and/or gay marriages?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the counterrevolution |
27 Feb 2004 04:29:26 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040225103440.02011.00000394@mb-m19.aol.com>...
Time for the counterrevolution
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 25, 2004
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has given America an object lesson in how
the Left imposes its radical social revolution on a confused majority that
knows not how to fight it.
Out on Sodom by the Bay, Newsom, in defiance of a law enacted by California
voters two-to-one in a referendum, ordered city officials to hand out marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
Newsom says that the law violates the state constitution. For his civil
disobedience, he has become a hero to militant homosexuals all the way to
Provincetown. His defiance has spread to New Mexico and Chicago, where Mayor
Richard Daley has declared his solidarity.
SNIP>
Let them. Then the legislators can impeach the judges, throw them out, and get
new judges who can read and understand constitutions.
It never ceases to amaze me of the goings on in such places as
California!
I wonder if is the water or the substances these folk imbibe, anyway
it is hilarious, imagine what the fundies on the other side would make
of it!
When are they going to make it compulsory?
LB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the counterrevolution |
25 Feb 2004 06:11:09 PM |
|
|
In article <20040225103440.02011.00000394@mb-m19.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Time for the counterrevolution
By Patrick J. Buchanan
February 25, 2004
2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco, has given America an object lesson in how
the Left imposes its radical social revolution on a confused majority that
knows not how to fight it.
Out on Sodom by the Bay, Newsom, in defiance of a law enacted by California
voters two-to-one in a referendum, ordered city officials to hand out marriage
licenses to same-sex couples.
Newsom says that the law violates the state constitution. For his civil
disobedience, he has become a hero to militant homosexuals all the way to
Provincetown. His defiance has spread to New Mexico and Chicago, where Mayor
Richard Daley has declared his solidarity.
Where did Newsom get his idea? Perhaps from Massachusetts, where the Supreme
Judicial Court has ordered Gov. Romney and the legislature to start handing out
marriage licenses to homosexuals by May.
Civil unions do not meet our demand, the court told Bay State elected leaders.
You must vote homosexuals absolute and equal rights to marry. Now stop
dithering and get on with it.
What is happening here in America is an end run around democracy by an elite
that believes its superior morality places it above the law. First, the Left
engages in defiance and disobedience of a law it detests, then it goes
judge-shopping to find some jurist-ideologue who will agree and overturn the
law. And thus does the minority rule America.
Buchanan seems to be confusing majority/minority rule and rights. *If* the
constitution forbids discrimination based on gender, then this is a matter for
the courts to decide, and it is perfectly appropriate to test every law for
constitutionality. He seems to have a problem with the Constitution
guaranteeing "rights" to anyone he doesn't want to have them.
Yet, seeing the smug certitude of Newsom, and the befuddlement of the
authorities, there is no doubt who is winning the culture war and who will
prevail if Middle America does not find leaders of greater fiber. We live in an
age, wrote the poet Yeats, when "the best lack all conviction and the worst are
full of passionate intensity."
Now, no state in the Union has ever provided for homosexual marriages, and most
states have enacted statutes prohibiting such nonsense. However, the people may
now have lost their right to decide. For the judges have stepped in and seized
the issue.
There was a time when no state in the union provided for women voting, and that
was also decried by the Conservatives as bringing about the downfall of society.
In Massachusetts, it was the state's highest court that ordered the governor
and legislature to license same-sex marriages. In California, the state supreme
court will decide whether Newsom's licenses are valid. In this capital, the
Supreme Court will tell us whether denying homosexuals a right to marry
violates our Constitution, though no one ever imagined such an absurdity until
last year.
While the idiocy underway at San Francisco city hall exposes the moral rot in
America, it also reveals how we are losing the republic that was our patrimony.
Our forefathers overthrew a rule of kings. But we have meekly submitted to a
rule of judges.
How does he construe a group of people who embrace a monagamous relationship in
marriage to make for "moral rot", while he is advocating they live "in sin"
without the benefit of marriage? It would seem that his stance makes for "moral
rot" more than those who are looking to embrace marriage.
The majority no longer rules, and America needs either a counterrevolution or a
second revolution to reclaim the republic born of the first. And there are
weapons within the Constitution we can employ to carry off that revolution.
The majority has *never* ruled when it comes to protection of Rights. that is
the entire point of the Constitution - to ~prevent~ the majority rule when an
individual's, or group's, rights will be infringed by the majority!
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
