Over the Rainbow

I know that this is practically “old news,” but I needed the time to digest it and think about what took place at the Supreme Court last week.

Reading a transcript of the Proposition 8 case being heard by the Supreme Court, I was insulted by the attitude of Judge Scalia, the most arrogant and in my view, sarcastic of all justices.

What offended me the most was when he asked Mr. Olson when did excluding homosexuals from marriage became unconstitutional.

“You’ve led me right into a question I was going to ask. The California Supreme Court decides what the law is. That's what we decide, right? We don't prescribe law for the future. We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn't even raise a substantial Federal question? When did the law become this?” - Justice Scalia

What arrogance! “There's no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.” - was Mr. Olson’s response. I was not satisfied with Mr. Olson’s answer. My answer would have been that it is and it has always been unconstitutional, because the Constitution of the United States clearly states that Privileges should be equal for all citizens in all the States, not just a group of citizens. Article. IV, Section 2 clearly states that all Citizens should be entitled to all the Privileges of the other States.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

That applies to Privileges and Punishments as well… marriage is a privilege and for some is a punishment. Seriously now, marriage and healthcare are privileges, privileges the Republicans and Teabaggers claim to be a State matter. I don’t think so and I am amazed that no one has ever mentioned this to debunk these bogus claims.

If Article IV isn’t enough, Amendment IX should deem the discrimination against homosexuals as unconstitutional: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Again, the Founding Fathers made sure not to differentiate – citizens and people are asexual terms that apply equally to every human being, and that just because a right wasn't written in the Constitution it didn't mean that if people thought it was a right not to be accepted, over 50% of the citizens of this nation approve gay marriage.

If you are not satisfied with the above, then I would have mentioned Amendment XIV, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

None of the Articles or the Amendments defines marriage, not one. None of the Articles or Amendments segregates a group of people by their sexual preference or their religion, not ever. The original Constitution made sure to segregate natives, women and blacks, which thankfully was corrected by future amendments but nowhere, from the original signed back in September 17, 1787 to the present there is mention of homosexuals having different rights to those granted to heterosexuals, much less if they can or cannot get married.

I don't think that I have to remind everyone that homosexuality is not something new. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time; it exists even in other species. If the Founding Fathers were against homosexuality they would have made sure to include some type of rejection, separation or mention just like they did with women, natives and blacks… but they didn’t.

So my answer would have been that it was unconstitutional since September 18th, 1787. The fact that not until today the gay community had the courage to contest it doesn’t mean it was constitutional. Just like it was unconstitutional to exclude women and blacks since the beginning and that was changed when there was someone with the courage to demand a change. Just like inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional until Mr. and Mrs. Loving took their case to the Supreme Court in 1967. The country didn’t collapsed with those changes – which by the way, applied to the whole land and not just a State – actually, the country became a better place simply because harmony and progress can only be attained when everyone, EVERYONE, can enjoy the same privileges, after all no matter who you go to bed with, who you love… we are all the same, we are all humans and a society cannot advance when broken and where one group suffers just to satisfy another group – no matter how big or small the objecting group is.

Gay marriage will not affect one iota the marriage of heterosexuals, it will not make their marriage less valid nor will it make them unhappy. However, the actions and objections of those against gay marriage are sentencing a group of citizens, many of whom are their families, friends, neighbors or co-workers to be a lesser kind of citizens just because they do not agree with whom they love and want share their lives with. If that is not selfishness and senseless discrimination then nothing is!

With so much hate around us, isn't it time we rejoice in people loving each other and let everyone be equal?

The 5 Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The forefathers of this great country wrote the Constitution of the United States as the basis in which this country should be founded, but were smart enough to realize that what they wrote would need to be adapted as time would pass because nothing is unchangeable and what made sense twenty years ago might not be too wise today. That is the beauty of our Constitution and why it has served as a model for democracies all over the world.

During the last 225 years, there have been many amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution is unchangeable (like the Bible) is outrageous and preposterous, only the Tea Party and extreme libertarians can believe that the law that ruled the nation two centuries ago can be applied today as originally intended.

According to Mitt Romney’s website, he believes that the Constitution’s words “have meaning,” as if the Constitution didn’t mean a thing for the rest of us. As usual, Romney has to appease the extreme right that, having no other alternative, is backing up a Mormon they would not even give the time of day if they had a choice. The Tea Party is supporting Mitt Romney in his candidacy for the Presidency regardless of how much they dislike him because they dislike President Obama even more. But Mitt knows that if there were a White, Evangelical, Right-Wing nut that would decide to run at the last minute, those campaigning and donating money for him would reverse their support in a blink of an eye, for that reason he has no alternative but to repeat like a parrot what the Teapers believe and stand for. That is why Mitt Romney is now implying that the Constitution should be kept as it was written in 1787.

Mitt Romney asserts, “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government.” Where does it say that in the original Constitution? The Constitution clearly defines what the roles of the three branches of government are, including the Legislative Branch. There is no mention whatsoever about “restrains on government” but on Article V, there is definitive assertion about the legality of Amendments to the Constitution, but Teapers don’t like that article very much and I am sure that if they could, they would probably erase it.

Mitt continues to say, “At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.” I am very glad Mitt feels that way, to tell you the truth so do I, why on earth these Right-Wing Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) came up with constitutional rights for corporations, rendering to them the same rights of a person? Can corporations (1) create life (2) donate organs (3) be executed (4) get divorced (5) be unfaithful (6) go to church (7) cry (8) laugh (9) get married (10) die for this country? Yet, corporations for the first time in Global history are considered a person and all thanks to the Right-Wing Justices appointed by G. W. Bush and Reagan before him.

On his website, Mitt promises to nominate more judges like the ones that ignored the Constitution and who are enjoying their appointment for life to such lucrative and influential position, which by the way… where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme and Federal Justices are appointed for life? In Article III, Section 1 it reads: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” It seems that “good behaviour” translates into life but why? I truly believe that we have been fooled into believing that we are stuck with the morons that wear the ropes in the Supreme and Federal Court. We must demand their destitution particularly from the Supreme Court on the grounds of "bad behaviour", borderline treason, having stripped our constitutional rights over the rights of corporations, going against the Constitution. No Judge should be serving for a life-term, not a Supreme or a Federal Justice. We have accepted what a bunch of attorneys have said Article III means, but even the Legal Definition of "good behaviour" does not translates into a life term. This is the definition of “GOOD BEHAVIOUR” according to a Legal Dictionary: "Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety. for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution. 1 Binn. 98, n.; 2 Yeates, 437; 14 Vin. Ab. 21; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. As to what is a breach of good behaviour, see 2 Mart. N. S. 683; Hawk. b. 1, c. 61, s. 6 Chit. Pr. 676. Vide @Surdy of the peace."

We already have five Conservative Supreme Justices; they already hold the majority and we can’t afford more of them. We need to change the length of time a Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court; maybe they should serve for the same length as the president, perhaps 10 years but definitively not for a lifetime. No Judge should serve for a lifetime; no one should possess such power!

Note:  I am using the same spelling as that in our Constitution for the word "behavior."