If you find the layout at Canada Free Press confusing [they messed up the indentation on one paragraph], the one at my website may be easier to follow: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32004 or http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the...
The Constitution isn't that difficult. With an old dictionary and the Federalist Papers, a Citizen can learn how to find the original intent of most provisions of the Constitution in a few minutes (after he becomes familiar with the Papers).
BUT supreme Court jurisprudence is difficult! People need a law degree and lots of experience with supreme Court cases before they can handle supreme Court jurisprudence. It is the huge body of opinions which the supreme Court has accumulated for the last 200 + years. I have been a lawyer for 40 years, but if I wanted to come up to date on the supreme Court's jurisprudence on many issues, it would take me days & weeks of research: finding and reading and sorting through stacks of supreme Court opinions on the issue and then making sense of them. And even after all that work, I still could only make predictions of what they will do in a given case. They do not go by "the Constitution". They go by their own personal views and write opinions to justify the result they want. And I find it particularly outrageous that they cite their prior decisions AS AUTHORITY!
YES! lawyers and judges are the high priests of our secular culture. With a mumbo-jumbo only they can understand. We are taught in law schools that this is how it is and how it should be and that WE are entering this "high" priesthood.
I have a question on: "3. "Federalism": If the Constitution doesn't bestow authority over an issue to the federal government; and if Art. I, §10 doesn't prohibit the States from exercising that authority, then authority is reserved to the States and the People. Some examples are abortion, homosexual contact, and gay marriage. "
When a right is inalienable doesn't that prohibit authority over that right? For example: the right to Life?
Maureen, you bring up something very profound: The Declaration of Independence recognizes that the purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given rights; and that among the rights which God gave us are the Rights to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.
At the same time, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. With The Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of States which united for the LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. That's about it! Read Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, U.S. Constitution, and you will see for yourself how few are the powers delegated to Congress.
So Congress has no constitutional authority to make laws legalizing or outlawing abortion, or homosexual contact, or passing whatever laws THEY think will advance our "Happiness". Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution does not prohibit those powers to the States.
So! Authority over those areas is retained by the States or the People. Now HERE is where we have the irreconcilable conflict with the so-called "libertarians". Our Framers & Founders looked to the Bible & Natural Law to find our Rights: Nowhere in God's Law or in Natural Law is found a "right" to kill babies, to have homosexual contact, or to marry persons of the same sex, or one's sibling, or one's pets. So the States properly outlaw baby killing, same-sex marriage, etc.
Here is Dr. Alan Keyes' wonderful paper on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=243145 He shows that those who pretend to be seeking to advance the cause of "Liberty", are in fact seeking to FORCE all of us to accept something which many find morally reprehensible.
Here is the paper where I explain - among other things - the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed. I'll update it to reflect the 9th Circuit's opinion:
If it goes to SCOTUS: We have "our 4" (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. However, since Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down a Texas statute outlawing certain homosexual acts), and the trial court judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on Lawrence v. Texas [always a good way to curry favor with an appellate judge], I expect SCOTUS will uphold the 9th Circuit in a 5 to 4 decision.
Ed, my paper explains in detail how the 9th Circuit gets around their lack of constitutional jurisdiction over an Amendment to a State Constitution (Prop 8). I know it is complicated, but the federal courts had to "get complicated" in order to add to the categories of cases enumerated in Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Those are the ONLY cases over which federal courts have constitutional jurisdiction.
In a nutshell, the federal courts take the word, "liberty" at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and say that for a State to prohibit anything which they (federal judges) think should be permitted is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The did the same for the terms, "due process" and "equal protection". Those 3 words & terms are chameleons which they re define as they wish.
NO! Scrap what you said below. It will confuse you and anyone who reads it. "Judicial power" - "jurisdiction" is the authority for courts to preside over a case. See Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1.