Clearing the Fog
in the
War of Words


  logomachy--1. A dispute about words. 2. A dispute carried on in words only; a battle of words.
logomachon--1. One who argues about words. 2. A word warrior.



Hanging Judges

The Patriot Post reports that a U.S. District Judge has ordered the City of San Diego to cut down the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Cross. The city will face $5,000 per day fines if the Cross is not destroyed, or a settlement reached with the atheist plaintiff. The PP reports that the people of San Diego have voted several times to transfer the Cross as a war monument together with surrounding memorial plaques into private hands, but the judges involved in the matter have refused to allow such a settlement, instead insisting the monument be destroyed.

“A cross”, says the PP, “ has stood on the site for decades as a veterans' memorial,
honoring their sacrifice and displaying the religious freedom our nation's veterans fight to preserve.

…Moreover, in the last go-round over maintaining the War Memorial intact, Congress on 20 November 2004 passed HR 4818, which was then signed into law by President Bush, authorizing the federal government to acquire the entire war memorial should the City of San Diego deed over the property. Last July, San Diego voters overwhelmingly approved this transfer by a 76 percent majority, but a Superior Court judge (who, a week before the election, declared a need for a two-thirds majority vote) prevented its finalization in yet another stunning despotic refusal to obey voter-enacted law.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has indicated he'll represent the will of the voters—and the rule of the voters' law—by pursuing appeals.
I think appeals to the judiciary that is the cause of the problem are too weak a response. These California federal judges have interfered with the lawful democratic process. San Diego, or California, should arrest them for violating the Constitution, perpetrating insurrection, malfeasance, and general abuse of office. A raid by the police SWAT team, a perp walk before the press, and a long time in jail with an exorbitant bail would clear the air.

Too harsh? Un-Constitutional? Not at all.

Several years ago, a federal judge set aside a California referendum that limited social services for illegal immigrants. I suggested that under Art. IV, Sect. 4 of the Constitution, which requires that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them . . . against domestic Violence", governor Pete Wilson should arrest the judge for violating California’s Constitutional rights. A few days later, a relative happened to sit next to a US Supreme Court justice at a Washington, DC, dinner. She mentioned my proposal to the justice. He broke into a big grin, nodded, and said “I like that!”.

Our national discourse has become seriously distorted. All the civics class talk of checks and balances among three coequal branches of government is forgotten when enforcing the liberal agenda is a stake. We have come to talk and act as though the judiciary were a board of celestial eminences, an all-wise and all-beneficent super Legislature and super Executive.

This is not the way it is supposed to be.

The Court is the least branch of government; the civics class cliché is wrong right there. It does not have a positive or active rôle. The legislative and executive branches make the law and other decisions about governance and the executive enforces the law. The courts should just react and adjudicate disputes brought under the law. Instead, courts make up the law under a “living Constitution” that the people never approved, run school districts and direct the operations of corporations, and as in San Diego, simply impose a political-ideological agenda on a city. They get away with this for two reasons. Liberals in the executive and legislature are happy to achieve through judicial fiat what they could never do through electoral politics, and other officials are too brainwashed or spineless to assert their institutional rights vis-à-vis the courts.

Interestingly, the Executive and Legislature take oaths of office to defend and protect the constitution. The Judiciary does not.


  This page is powered by Blogger, the easy way to update your web site.
My Profile

Home  |  Archives