If your answer to last week’s question was that federal judges do not have the authority to rule on marriage issues? That is correct. If they did have that authority then the federal courts would be handling divorces and other family issues. The Constitution gives the states the authority to set their definition of marriage and how marriage is to be regulated.
Today’s Judicial Activism
In the last sixty years, many federal judges have subscribed to an activist mentality believing they have the power to tax and make laws based upon their own personal political/philosophical beliefs, regardless of whether they line up with the Constitution. This makes me wonder if I make decisions in a similar way without regard for God’s Word without realizing I am doing so.
The Constitution is the book of the law for America just as the Bible is the book of God’s law for us. Many of the Judges of today have little regard for the Constitution – our laws – and feel it is their job to change our laws to agree with their opinion on how things should be done according to their own personal beliefs. Thomas Jefferson voiced his concern regarding the judicial branch and what they might do in a letter to a friend writing: “The Constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” He was a man with great insight into human nature.
The Constitution makes it clear the powers to tax and make laws are duties of the Congress and not the courts. Because of this, many special interest groups in this country have used the courts to make laws that they knew would be unpopular and therefore, would not get passed through the Congress. In the last few years there was even a judge in Kansas who levied a tax on the people which was clearly a violation of the separation of powers.
Our Constitution is a document that defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you (The Bill of Rights). These are sometimes referred to as “negative rights”. Those who have been using judicial activism are eroding the negative rights (the rights that protect us from the government) into “positive rights” wherein the Constitution is used to define what government ‘must’ do on your behalf. These would be rights to housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care; rights that require the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for all these “new” positive rights.
Thomas Jefferson said, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” In other words, judges should not invent ideas from the Constitution that simply are not there, but should adhere to the spirit in which the Constitution was originally written.
Next Week: Black History Month special article
Dinner Table Discussion: Discuss the differences between negative rights and positive rights and how they affect individuals.