Dittomonkey911

The American people achieved two important victories today in the fight to protect marriage from redefinition by a radicial minority. In Florida, U.S. District Court Justice James Moody dismissed a Federal Lawsuit seeking to declare the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional. The Opinion was very well researched and written: http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf I write here to point out two portions that are very important, and that confirm what I have been saying for sometime. First, various activists try to make the claim that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution requires all states to recognize the "marriages" performed in MA. This is incorrect. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution does not mandate that one state accept the laws of another that conflict with it's own public policy, in addition it specifically gives Congress the Authority to provide for implementation of the Clause. (Congress has done so with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.) The Supreme Court has ruled on the extent of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first Pacific Employers Ins Co V Industrial Accident Commission of California 306 US 493 (1939) The Court ruled : "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events." The court restated this principle in Sun Oil CO V Wortman 486 US 717 (1988) where it stated "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." The Full Faith and Credit Arguments were expressly rejected by the District Court: This Court disagrees with Plaintiff

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42417

I wrote a bit about this subject on a blog that I write columns for (http://www.poligious.com/blog/categories/11-Dittos-Lockup), I'll reprint it here, hopefully it will be interesting to some. The New Holocaust: 32 years of Roe v. Wade We are on our way to the 32nd Anniversary to one of the most destructive and evil decisions of all time. Roe V Wade. With over 40 million unborn innocent souls The abortion argument rises and falls on the personhood of the unborn. Lets start with scientific facts. The Unborn human being is biologically alive. It is a life. Only the most Uneducated Pro-Aborts will not admit that the Unborn are alive, it has been proven as a scientific fact. The zygote fufills the 4 criteria needed to establish biological life, (1) Metabolism, (2) Growth, (3) reaction to stimuli, (4) reproduction. This life is HUMAN Life. the human conceptus

I'll let Justice Scalia answer this one, The following Comes from his Book "A matter of Interpretation: The Federal Courts and the Law." Perhaps the most glaring defect of a Living Constitutionalism, next to its incompatibility with the whole antievolutionary purpose of a constitution, is that there is no agreement, and no chance of agreement, upon which is to be the guiding principle of the evolution. Panta rei is not a sufficiently informative principle of constitutional interpretation. What is it that the judge must consult to determine when, and in what direction, evolution has occured? Is it the will of the majority, discerned from newspapers, radio talk shows, public opinion polls, and chats at the country club? Is it the philosophy of Hume, or of John Rawls, or of John Stuart Mill, or of Aristotle? As soon as the discussion goes beyond the issue of whether the Constitution is static, the evolutionists divide into as many camps as there are individual views of the good, the true, and the beautiful. I think it is inevitably so, which means that evolutionism is simply not a practical constitutional philosophy. I do not suggest, mind you, that originalists always agree upon their answer. There is plenty of room for disagreement as to what original meaning was, and even more so how that original meaning applies to the situation before the court. But the originalist at least knows what he is looking for: the original meaning of the text. Often-indeed, I dare say usually-that is easy to discern and simply to apply. Seventy Five years ago, we believed firmly enough in a rock-solid, unchanging Constitution that we felt it necessary to adopt the Nineteenth Amendment to give women the vote. The battle was not fought in the courts, and few thought it could be, despite the constitutional guarentee of Equal Protection of the Laws; that provision did not, when it was adopted, and hence not in 1920, guarantee equal access to the ballot but permited distinctions not only of age but of property and of sex. Who can doubt that if the issue had been deferred until today, the Constitution would be (formally) unamended, and the courts would be the instrumentality of change? If the Courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will, by God, write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all.

The felony charges were criminal conspiracy, ethnic intimidation, and riot. The misdemeanor charges were not named, but I looked up some that were probably used. Here are some relevant Pennsylvania Statutes, Let's look at these and break them down: