RSS
Home
Judge in gay divorce ruling publicly admits activist intent
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Tena Callahan apparently taking the oath to violate the Texas Constitution
Finally, a Democrat mentions the strong influence of a father in their development...in the same sentence as saying the 14th Amendment says gay marriage was included.
Tena Callahan, Judge in the gay divorce ruling, also attributed her influences behind issuing the decision as a message on the back of a shopping bag and the anecdotal remembrance of a childhood lesson from her father, not Constitutional Law.
Callahan stated that she has received "millions" of little red bags, typically given out at legal conventions, which she uses to carry groceries in. On the back of one of these bags, a quotation something to the effect of "Do the right thing," inspired her to "rip the band-aid off," and issue her decision.
Unfortunately, Callahan didn't stop and consider the words printed in the Texas Constitution. I took the Liberty to read over the State's Constitution right after this story broke a few weeks back, but being an untrained legal hack, decided not to stick my neck out and comment. I figured with such a prominent issue as this the opportunity would present itself to revisit this again, and I was right.
The State Constitution discusses the jurisdiction of the various levels of the State Judiciary and which has the jurisdiction over Constitutional matters and which ones are simply able to apply Law. And guess which one Callahan's falls under? According to the Texas Constitution:
Sec. 3-c. JURISDICTION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW CERTIFIED FROM FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT. (a) The supreme court and the court of criminal appeals have jurisdiction to answer questions of state law certified from a federal appellate court.(b) The supreme court and the court of criminal appeals shall promulgate rules of procedure relating to the review of those questions.
(Added Nov. 5, 1985.)
No mention of District Courts therein!
Judge Callahan on right with Dallas Library staff member Lucile Dade.
The Constitution continues--ahh...the District Courts!
Sec. 8. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT. District Court jurisdiction consists of exclusive, appellate, and original jurisdiction of all actions, proceedings, and remedies, except in cases where exclusive, appellate, or original jurisdiction may be conferred by this Constitution or other law on some other court, tribunal, or administrative body. District Court judges shall have the power to issue writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction.
The District Court shall have appellate jurisdiction and general supervisory control over the County Commissioners Court, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.
(Amended Aug. 11, 1891, Nov. 6, 1973, and Nov. 5, 1985.)
Perhaps instead of reading the back of grocery sacks or remembering what her daddy said to her as a child, Judge Callahan should remember that she is a Judge, and the Texas Constitution does not delegate her the ability to consider life lessons from daddy or grocery sacks, but a specific jurisdiction that restricts her from doing what she has just done--overturned the State Constitution!
Callahan with 2006 Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell.
Now, given that the Judge and her admirers are now quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and claiming that it negates the Amendment to the Texas Constitution barring gay marriage, let us go down that path that I was leery to go down previously. They like Con Law 101, OK--I can play that game. I like quotes, so here goes. Let us ignore the fact that the 14th Amendment was shoved down Texas' throat when it couldn't vote against it.
Judicial Review is set up under the 1803 decision of Marbury v. Madison in Chief Justice Marshall's opinion. In it he largely quotes Alexander Hamilton's writings on the Judiciary from the Federalist Papers.
Marshall states that "the Will of the Representatives," or Congress, out of line with "the Will of the People," or the Constitution, are invalid, the Constitution being fundamental law and Acts of Congress being ordinary law. Elsewhere, Hamilton also deals with the issue of activist judges, saying that when they engage not in judgment but in Will, what difference is there in the Courts and the Congress?
The Constitution of the United States deals quite bluntly with the jurisdiction of the Federal Judiciary. It lists limited jurisdiction both in number as well as in scope. Further, it delegates the Power to regulate the Courts' jurisdiction and powers to Congress. Remember the TARP bailout? Congress excepted oversight over these funds from the jurisdiction of the Judiciary. Nice, eh?
So the issue becomes--if the Congress cannot violate the Constitution, how can the Courts?
Apply this to the present discussion over jurisdiction to declare the Texas Constitution invalid. The District Court, quite simply stated, lacks jurisdiction in declaring the State Constitution invalid. Period. To do so is wrong and in violation both of the purpose of the District Court and position of District Judge as well as in violation of the State Constitution. Ironic, no? Declare the Texas Constitution unconstitutional and in turn violate that which you are referencing.
To have done so sets up a battle at a higher level, unless Callahan "does the right thing" in the eyes of the Law and reverses herself. She should probably step down next, given that she thusly admits utterly violating the Laws of the State of Texas and the Constitution that sets up her Court, that of the State of Texas.
Now let me shift gears and let us assume that Callahan is right. She still should not have issued the opinion that she did. Again, it is not in the jurisdiction of her Court to do so. She should have ruled according to the State Constitution. She does not answer to the Supreme Court of the United States. She answers to Austin. Period. The parties in the case would then appeal to the appropriate State Appellate Court. Plain and simple.
Until the Courts of our nation, and State, get good and familiar with their true role in our nation they will continue to violate Laws that they actually should follow, picking and choosing instead those that they would like to misinterpret and follow instead.
And, of course, grocery sacks, upbringing and foreign laws as well. Not kidding about the grocery sack. See for yourself. Pages 4 and 13:
http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/archive/10-23-2009.pdf
Callahan will be seeking re-election to the 323rd Family District Court in 2010.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
