The Games People Play

from newsmax.com: 'Cardinal Dolan, Catholic Bishops Blast Gay Marriage Ruling' - June 26

• 
  
• 
  
  TimSPC • 11 hours ago
• −
• 
  
• The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 
• 
  How is holding up the very core value of states' rights an injustice to the American people?
• 21   2
• •
• Reply
• 
  
• 
  
  kibitzer TimSPC • a few seconds ago  [now into June 27]
• −
• 
  
• That's what has me curious, TimSPC. I have read that the main argument in the SCOTUS's "striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act" was that it was a states' rights issue. Which would make sense; the federal govt. being one of limited and delegated powers, with all other powers being "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". And, of course, is why Roe v. Wade was, and is, unconstitutional - it wasn't a federal issue to begin with. But what has me puzzled is when the SCOTUS then also decides to let the federal court decision against California's Proposition 8 stand. Certainly the people of California have a right to make such a decision for themselves. This is NOT a central republic; one size does NOT fit all, in this federal constitutional republic. So what gives on the Prop. 8 decision??? 
• 
  Obviously I need to read further in these decisions, to see if the SCOTUS isn't - as it appears - talking out of both sides of its mouth.
• --

Two things.  One: Roe v. Wade.  If there were any federal factor involved in that decision, it should have fallen on the side of the protection of the fetus - a citizen - by the state; or at the very least, there should have been a very deep and comprehensive discussion regarding whose rights trumped: the pregnant females, in terms of her "life" and "liberty", or the fetus's, as a viable entity and so deserving the protection of the state.  But that's not where the debate went; it seems to have gone mostly to the so-called 'right of privacy' of the pregnant woman - a right that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, rather merely in the liberal minds of a majority of the justices at the time.  

Secondly.  I understand, in reading further among my e-newsletters today, that one of the arguments by the SCOTUS majority was that their decision was based on the so-called 'bigotry' of those opposed to single-sex marriage - as if the only argument against it were the religious bias of Christians, which should hold no water in a court of law.  When what should hold no water in a court of law is this very sort of politically-correct thinking: making decisions on the 'morality' of the issue, rather than the legal facts.  The SCOTUS succumbing here to the very sort of argument that was in part used by it to strike down the DOMA: that the courts should not be in the business of making moral determinations.  

If DOMA was being, in the minds of the majority of the SCOTUS, at least in part a 'moral' law, and thus susceptible of being struck down - for not having purely legal merit - then surely the Court's choice of reason for its decision to strike it down - because it was offensive to (the far-fetched perceived 'liberty rights' of) gays - is itself subject to censure, for that very reason.  

And its refusal to strike down the federal court ruling against California's Proposition 8 would lend credence to that supposition of their position; i.e., that in their minds, it was not really a states' rights decision after all.  It was an 'anti-bigot' decision.

And the SCOTUS was, then - as I suspected - talking out of both sides of its mouth.  Trying to have it both ways.

In which case, the law is an ass.  And need not be followed, by a citizenry awakening to the threats to their freedom in a federal republic whose central government is trying to make of it a centralized republic, where the central government can control everything, every aspect of the eco-politico-social life in the nation, from 'Central Control'. 

Enhanced by the likes of the NSA's Total Surveillance technology, and reach... 

Fortunately, The People are waking up.

And just in time, it would appear. Before the darkness of totalitarian slavery descends on them.  And they find out, the hard way, what happens when a people who are supposed to govern themselves - take on that responsibility - deed it over to others; who are delighted to take the job on.  In exchange for all the goodies they get out of it. Not the least of which is the sense of ultimate power over people.

Rather than power with.  Which is, really, the name of the game - the end of the incarnational line, of lessons to be learnt in the 3D matrix that we have inhabited, for long enough, now.   

There's still time, Citizen.

Let's see what you are really made of.

---