Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? YES: Otherwise Democracy Will Die, and a Radical Judiciary Will Transform America in Ways That Make It Virtually Unrecognizable

By Feder, Don | Insight on the News, October 14, 2003 | Go to article overview

Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? YES: Otherwise Democracy Will Die, and a Radical Judiciary Will Transform America in Ways That Make It Virtually Unrecognizable


Feder, Don, Insight on the News


Byline: Don Feder, SPECIAL TO INSIGHT

The courts have created a crisis in American government. The usurpations of federal judges have become so subversive to majority rule and the moral order on which our civilization rests that they must be opposed if liberty and Judeo-Christian values are to survive.

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments monument have come to symbolize resistance to a runaway federal judiciary intent on rewriting U.S. history and imposing its will on the American people.

On Aug. 1, 2001, Moore installed his 5,280-pound monument to Mosaic law in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled the monument was "nothing less than an obtrusive, year-round religious display" (supposedly in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause) and ordered it removed. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. When Moore courageously refused to submit, Thompson set a deadline for removal and threatened to fine the state $5,000 for every day this affront to secularist sensibilities remained.

Eventually, Alabama's entire political establishment turned on Moore. The judge was suspended, pending a hearing by the state's judicial-ethics panel, for failure to comply with a federal court order. On Aug. 27, workers hauled the monument away to a storage room. That same week, a Gallup poll showed that 77 percent of Americans opposed Thompson's ruling.

Americans always have been a law-abiding people. Conservatives condemned the anarchy of the New Left in the 1960s. But to defy the unlawful decree of an unelected official isn't civil disobedience. Rather, it is fidelity to the Constitution, which exists independent of judicial whim.

As its victories over representative government mount, the federal judiciary is becoming increasingly brazen. On Sept. 15, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals postponed the recall election for California's governor (a ruling that was reversed by the same court on Sept. 22). In so doing, it abrogated the state's constitution and frustrated the will of the 900,000-plus voters who signed petitions demanding a recall within 90 days, as provided by law. This is the same court that just last year declared it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools because it contains the words "one nation, under God" [see "Rulings From the Rogue Court," March 25, 2002].

For federal courts, nullifying popular sovereignty is nothing new. In 1994, 60 percent of California voters passed Proposition 187, which denied most government services to illegal aliens, to save taxpayers from the Mexican inundation. A federal district-court judge declared the amendment unconstitutional. One man vetoed the democratic decision of 60 percent of voters.

In 1996, in Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Colorado's Amendment 2, a voter-approved amendment to the state's constitution barring municipalities from enacting gay-rights ordinances. The court reasoned that prohibiting local governments from passing these measures violated homosexuals' 14th Amendment equal-protection rights which now apparently include the right of deviants to force their sexual behavior on the normal majority.

Increasingly, the federal bench dispenses with even the pretense of applying constitutional principle. In Lawrence v. Texas, handed down in June, the high court overturned the antihomosexual sodomy laws of 14 states. In his majority opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy invalidated these statutes based on his belief that gays thereby were denied their "dignity as free persons" (thus violating the Constitution's dignity-as-free-persons clause?).

Kennedy quoted himself in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld abortion on demand: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Q: Should More Conservative Officeholders Defy Outrageous Edicts of Federal Courts? YES: Otherwise Democracy Will Die, and a Radical Judiciary Will Transform America in Ways That Make It Virtually Unrecognizable
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.