Tag Archives: unalienable right

Supreme Court Casts Yet Another Spell

With regard to the Courts Same-Sex decision there are, indeed, a great many points to find offensive, but none greater than the following two:
(1) The Courts application of the 14th Amendment has now been given a meaning never imagined by those who wrote it. Have we now created a third sex or is it now an entirely new race?
(2) The Constitutional Principal of Unalienable Right has been completely upset. Where once, prior to today’s decision, an Unalienable Right was of an Omniscient Source and/or expressed by the representative will of the people, it is now only to be selectively awarded by the Judicial process.
Carving out wildly exotic interpretations to suit an agendized temporal impulse may be a titillating form of entertainment for the fanatical secularist however, in the practice of Constitutional Law the mortar that binds its structure is in the consistency of both interpretation and application.
What the Court has done is craft a bitter brew that will ferment an intense divide. The matter should have been left to the domain of the States which is and was always the appropriate course of action. Now you’ve been blessed with National Divide; the marriage of ignorance and arrogance.
The following are a select group of responses to question/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: MJ: Unfortunately yours is a far too common a response by far too many people. What the Court did was issue a decision that is in complete conflict with The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. This is what “get over it” disposition breeds. What no one seems to want to grasp is this decision tramples on, at the very least, 3 specific Constitutional principals which, by the way, are the very supports by which the Same Sex Marriage Argument rode on its way to the Supreme Court. It was and continues to be a state issue. One step deeper into the realm of autocratic rule and the answer is to “get over it?” 
MJ: Not, necessarily, an improper approach. The challenge though is that if the Court acts consistent with “a beginning” approach then there are no boundaries, for those who are subject to their decisions, whereby their actions might be contained. I don’t believe, and I suspect you’d agree, that the Court should ever be permitted to be a substitute for Individual/Personal Discretion. To force acceptance of another choice, one that is completely discretionary, on another is a supreme example of tyranny. As Abraham Lincoln said in response to the question of slavery: “As I would not be a slave, I would not be a slave master.” The Constitution is, at its best, the mechanism by which different parties of different interests can be kept from oppressing the other. It is not nor was it ever intended to be a tool to be used, government process (the Law), to affect the opposing interests of one to the detrimental effect of the one made to kneel. Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to post!
#2: The “Why” rests in “Understanding.” Whether you know it or not you are at the nascent aperture of an issue that is going to be hotly contested and primarily so due to the fact that many will soon discover a similarity in the manner in which the Supreme Court dealt with the current decision, that of the Roe vs. Wade. A lapse in the publics interest or the miss-characterization, qualitatively speaking, of the same was deemed a revolutionary change in public sentiment when clearly that was and remains never to have been the case. When the public speaks in terms of (sentiment) “live and let live” it is not nor has it ever been the domain or rightful discretion of the Court to enforce an individuals concept of what defines their notion of “live and let live” upon or over another. Most particularly thru the force of interpretation by another man whether clocked in a robe, from a pulpit, from the legislative floor or from the Office of the Nation or any States Chief Executive.
#3: Its 27 pages, but I can think of no better use of ones time than to read at least one of the Courts Dissenting (Robert, C.J.) Opinions. The following is a link to an online PDF which contains all of the opinions however, I suggest, for pure and acute Constitutional reference, that you begin with page 40 (pdf page mind you and not the individual “brief” pages) with Roberts dissenting opinion and then, if you’ve the stomach for it, go to the plurality of Kennedy’s contrasting expose. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Religious Freedom

Let’s see if I have this nonsense refined to a point of order: We, individually, possess an unalienable right of free speech, association and religion (among others). One, of the We, party chooses to express their unalienable right in the form of an objection or protest which is then met with the swift retribution of the virulently vocal minority challenging the very unalienable right upon which their soapbox stands. Then, to make certain that the public is not left wanting for a display of political conviction, a movement is leased for passing legislation aimed solely at codifying what is ALREADY an unalienable right.
Apparently, it would seem, that the purpose of all this is to serve as some form of defense mechanism. Apparently if your so-called and once-unalienable right is ever challenged you will be able to point to a statute as testimony for how ignorantly civil and perfectly benign our unique form of malignancy has become.
The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.
#1: DNC Buying Time:  You know it was only a matter of time before some slothful form of social anarchy arrived to announce, formally, that 2016 election season has begun.  As a reminder of your unworthiness, the pursuit of a populists finer points of issue and concern are set aside in favor of debasing the process to the lowest possible point; after all, the process does favor debauchery.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
Posted in Poli-Philos | Tagged , | Leave a comment