Posted by
David Smith on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:49:28 AM
This is a matter that really has no bearing to me in terms of which way it goes. But it further illustrates the problem with the current political-legal philosophy at play in our nation.
California Governor Arnold "The Terminator, himself" Schwarzenegger signed a State Law in 2005 regulating video games. Now, being a matter not mentioned in the Constitution, video games should logically be a matter left to the States, right?
Enter Federal Judge Ronald Whyte, San Francisco. Judge Whyte stated Tuesday in his opinion that, "At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children," he wrote in his decision. "In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
"Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally accepted study that supports that concern."
OK. Brief review of the Constitution before I deal with this joker in black gown. Do these characters still wear powdered wigs?
First Amendment. Free speech. Got it. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Religion, speech, press, assembly, redress. Got it. First Amendment.
Now, tell me again...where was the part about restricting the States from doing whatever they want to???
Yes, yes--I know. The Judiciary has made it very clear that they feel this Federal matter applies to the States as well. Got it.
But they are dead wrong!!
And how about hypocrisy? What about the part about, "the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
When last I checked, nobody has a problem with children (aka minors) being restricted from buying cigarettes or alcohol. Nobody complains when children are banned from buying pornography at the corner market. Or from buying a ticket to a "dirty," R-rated movie. Then there is Internet pornography!!
The point is, who cares what the justification is for the law? It doesn't matter if you are a Bible-beating Southern Baptist who dislikes and disapproves of pornography and such, or if you are the most Liberal, left-leaning person on the planet, but you disapprove of minors being exposed to violent video games.
Here comes my line--did you see this coming?
It is the State of California's right, not Judge Bob Dumbasses, not the San Francisco Circuit's, not the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal's, not the "supreme Court's," and not the Congress' right to deal with this matter. It is California's right and California's right alone, without the oversight of the Federal Judiciary's "inferior Court's," to deal with this matter as they see fit.
Judge Whyte, if I ever find myself in Congress, I shall have your head on a silver platter of Impeachment for violation of the 10th Amendment, the spirit of the Constitution itself, and the Law of Common Sense, right along with your Dallas Circuit colleague who felt it appropriate to slap down the City of Farmers Branch, TX for passing an ordinance requiring landlords validate residency of residential tenants.
Do you guys see that the Federal Judiciary is just completely out of whack in terms of it's very purpose? These guys are not Legislators--they could never get elected! And what they are doing in the Judiciary is undermining the very concept of our Representative Republic.
Get rid of them all.