A federal judge confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution Thursday night in a court ruling which overturned Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriages.
In yet another example of a judge being totally ignorant to the supreme law of the land, U.S. District Court Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrongly attributed the line “all men are created equal” to the Constitution when it in fact appears in the Declaration of Independence.
“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal,’” she wrote in the ruling. “Surely this means all of us.”
One page in and you know this is gonna be a heckuvan opinion. #VA4M
Judge Arenda was referring to the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, which states that:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So in essence, a federal judge who confuses the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is ruling on the constitutionality of laws and treaties of the United States.
It is also interesting but unsurprising to note that President Obama appointed her in 2010.
Arenda is unfortunately not alone when it comes to federal judges who are seemingly clueless on the basics of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and even their own duties.
Back in December, a federal judge in New York ruled that the NSA’s bulk, warrantless collection of phone records and overall abuse of the Fourth Amendment were legal.
“While Americans depended on technology for the conveniences of modernity, al-Qaeda plotted in a seventh-century milieu to use that technology against us,” Judge William H. Pauley III wrote, who was appointed by former President Clinton. “It was a bold jujitsu… The bulk telephony metadata collection program represents the Government’s counter-punch.”
Judge Pauley’s opinion sounded more like a NSA press release than a legal argument.
“Judge Pauley’s role is to decide whether or not the government’s actions are legal,” David Knight wrote in response. “Whether they are effective or not, it is the role of various federal organizations to protect the country (which is not necessarily the same as protecting the government).”
“Those organizations will come up with strategies, tactics and policies to protect the country. The judicial system’s role is to ensure that those strategies, tactics and policies don’t violate the law or violate the rights of the people — the purpose for which the government was created.”
This unfortunate trend of federal judges who are either clueless about the Constitution or are openly hostile towards it reveals the real damage that U.S. presidents can do to the Bill of Rights through their appointments.