Monday, August 25, 2003

Crazy men and the constitution

Look, it almost seems pointless to mention the guy, but Howard Phillips recently wrote a defense of suspended Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore which includes this squinty-eyed look at the Constitution:

The provisions of the Constitution cannot lawfully be amended by judicial fiat or edicts from the bench.

Indeed, Article V of the Constitution spells out the only authorized procedures for amending the Constitution.

Nowhere does the Constitution authorize Federal judges to change even a single word in the document - or to disregard the plain meaning of its text.

In fact, Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land".

All judicial officials, including Judge Myron Thompson and the judges of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written, not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Clearly, if the words of the framers are honored, Congress has no authority to restrict the establishment of Biblical religion in the State of Alabama - neither has any Federal judge such authority.

So, should we care what a crazy man says? After all, this is a guy who once said that his ideal presidential candidate would support "term limits for broadcast licenses, so that, at last, we can end the corrupt power of the left-wing media, and turn the airwaves over to men and women like Paul Weyrich, Reed Irvine, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, Brent Bozell, and Bev LaHaye." Obviously, he's a nutbag.

But these crazies can't be allowed to rant with impunity, I guess. So, I would simply like to point out that Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution says:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...

And Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist Paper #78:

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. (Italics Nitpicker's)

Odd, he must have forgotten to put in where batshit political sideliners and oath-of-office-violating, publicity-seeking, poets of crap get to overrule anybody with whom they disagree.


Post a Comment

<< Home