Wednesday, August 13, 2003

Judges are warping our democratic system

By MONROE ROARK
mroark@TheCitizenNews.com

How many people are actually paying attention to where the law is going in this country?

In this space today, I'm going to refer to several social issues of major importance to many Americans. I will not, however, be emphasizing one side or the other as far as morality is concerned. Most of you already have your minds made up on that. But no matter where you stand, it is paramount that you notice what is happening in the courts of the land.

About a month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law, ruling it unconstitutional. In essence, the court said that it was a privacy issue, and a citizen's right to privacy makes it illegal to prosecute consenting adults in that situation.

People from coast to coast either hailed that decision as a victory for all of America or condemned it as the beginning of the end of civilization. Regardless of where it sits on the moral barometer, however, as a matter of law it is a joke.

As with Roe v. Wade 30 years ago, any personal opinion on the sodomy ruling is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court had no business even looking at either case, because the Constitution does not even begin to address anything remotely connected to either issue.

Right to privacy? Maybe it's a great idea, but it's not a constitutional one. As our laws are set up now, it's a matter for each state's legislature as to whether it should exist. It is not a matter for the federal government.

The Constitution is filled with repeated references to this phrase: "Congress shall make no law." The founders of this country went out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for the federal government to regulate our lives. More and more, however, an activist judiciary has decided to make its own laws rather than simply interpret what has been legislated by those with the proper authority to do so.

As for the "right to privacy," consider the possibilities:

If it is legal for a woman to control her body with regard to her unborn child, how can it be illegal for her to have that same control when it comes to hiring herself out for sex as a prostitute?

If two consenting male adults can have sex in their own bedroom within the law, what logic would prevent them from sharing some heroin in their own living room?

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that some interesting precedents have been set. These possibilities could be delightful or terrifying to you, depending upon your own personal beliefs.

It is a simple fact that every one of these issues is likely to find hard-core support or severe opposition, with relatively few people in the middle. It is testament to the greatness of our nation that people with such opposing views can live together in some semblance of harmony.

But the course charted by the Supreme Court and many federal courts in the United States has warped the entire system. The people making these laws have no business doing so, and the proper procedure that allows for the people's voice to be heard through their elected representatives has become moot.

So we will continue to hear ridiculous babbling about hot-button topics such abortion and gay rights in judicial confirmation hearings, when as a matter of law those issues should not even be in the picture. Candidates for the U.S. Congress in 2004 will likewise see their feet held to the fire over what should be a federal non-issue.

As for the biggest prize in next year's campaigns, however, one thing will remain unchanged. Perhaps the most influential aspect of the presidency is the power to appoint federal judges who serve for life. People who are truly concerned about the judicial direction of the country, whether on the left or the right politically, will carefully consider their choices for the president who makes judicial nominations and the senators who would confirm them.

[Monroe Roark's Web address is www.mroark.com.]