Friday, February 14, 2014

Judging Judges

It's often said, especially by libertarians, that we're not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. And this is sort of true, the idea being that no matter what the people or their elected representatives vote for, the Constitution can strike down anything that is unConstitutional. And that is a good thing, at least in theory. People used to think that way, even politicians. But hardly anybody thinks that way any more, although they say they do. I mean, even Obama talks about the Constitution, just as whores prattle on about chastity.

So the effect is that we have politicians and judges — especially judges — who quite frankly consider things they like Constitutional and things they don't like unConstitutional. One current trendy idea is that the Constitution requires that males be permitted to marry males, and females females. This is because, as the judge in Vox Day's post below asserts, the Constitution says that all men are created equal. In the first place, if that were the case, all men being created equal doesn't require that everybody is therefore permitted to marry any other person. One can't marry one's parent, or someone under age, or someone who is already married.  It's hard to imagine that the Founding Fathers intended for such things to be allowed.  Oh, and in the second place, the Constitutions doesn't say that all men are created equal. That's in the Declaration of Independence, and the courts' job isn't to decide whether things are Declarational or unDeclarational.  Vox Day compares us to Switzerland, from his blog HERE.

Anti-democracy in America

It's hard to deny that the Swiss people are considerably more free and democratic than the American people when one compares the results of two referendums. In Switzerland, the entire national government is forced to bow to the will of the people. In the USA, a single judge can completely and unilaterally override it:
A federal judge on Thursday evening declared that Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, in the strongest legal reversal yet of restrictive marriage amendments that exist throughout the South.

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,” wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, in Norfolk. “Surely this means all of us.”

The ruling, which overturned a constitutional amendment adopted by Virginia voters in 2006 as well as previous laws, also said that Virginia must respect same-sex marriages that were carried out legally in other states.
I look forward to men stepping forward and mounting legal challenges to women's bathrooms, the Selective Service, female preferences in the family law, high school sports for girls, and the WNBA. After all, if equality means all of us, all of these outdated sexual distinctions are clearly unconstitutional, not merely those related to marriage.

An update HERE.


  1. “Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,”
    The Constitution does mot say this. The declaration of Independence says this. The "Right" to same sex marriage may be protected by the Ninth Amendment in Federal law, the Supremacy Clause and the 14th Amendment may require the several states to respect such unions. However, the Constitution does not declare anywhere that any man, woman, hermaphrodite, or sexless person is equal to anybody. If anything, the courts seem to work on the theory that in certain circumstances some people are more equal than others or at least must be treated in such wise to guarantee their right to "equal protection under the law"
    as per the 14th Amendment.

  2. American law seems to lack the concept that judges can act 'ultra vires' - outside their powers? At any rate US judges seem to act as if their power were unlimited. What matters of course is whether the men with guns enforce the judgement, no matter how illegal it is.