That Maybe what the founders believed, but THIS is what the Progressives Believe:
The only real power comes through force.
Posted on 09/04/2015 7:56:32 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Did our founders, after drafting a Declaration of Independence, fighting a war with England, and then sitting down to pen a national governing document (the Constitution) put in that document the right of a majority of federal judges to make laws for the entire nation? Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is testing the claim that five unelected Supreme Justices have the authority to overrule a state constitution that she took an oath to uphold and a federal Constitution that says nothing about same-sex marriage. Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had this to say on the issue in a Facebook post: “Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. I disagree with my friends Maggie Gallagher, Rod Dreher, and Ryan Anderson on this one. The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis's position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.” The states have rolled over on the question of judicial supremacy, and Congress is too busy solidifying its power base to take on a nation-dividing fundamental issue. Governors don’t want to make waves and get involved in a protracted legal battle with the Federal government that has unlimited money to spend and ways to hold back federal funding (money it took from the states in taxes).
(Excerpt) Read more at godfatherpolitics.com ...
Excellent
So not only did the Supremes of the Land violate their oath of office by not standing firm on Our Constitution, but this JUDGE did also....
Very interesting, I hope this Lady sues the heck out of everybody involved and that is EVERYBODY!!!
> she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty
Yes! Absolutely! The religious liberty argument is doomed to failure.
Why this doomed strategy is being pursued rouses suspicion of questionable motives.
I thought of this earlier today. No state is going to fight anything after what happened to Indiana earlier this year. Big business threatening to pull out of the state. This will be just like the abortion ruling in 1973. A good 40 year slog through the muck. We really have not had good government for a long time have we??
The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle, and electing those of another, in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. Over the judiciary department, the constitution had deprived them of their control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system, and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new, and after twenty years’ confirmation of the federal system by the voice of the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we find the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation.It was happening in Jefferson’s latter years.
In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.
For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also. …
— Letter to Spencer Roane, 09/06/1819
You mean like how it was doomed in 1776?
The religious liberty argument is doomed to failure …
Talking about “personal” religious liberty is more coming at the question from too low an angle, than it is wrong.
In a grand sense, “religion” (Christian faith or at least a robust bible ethics belief) gave America its liberty.
The modern view is so often that the bible is at best anachronistic, at worst a malicious busybody, bent on causing everyone needless grief. And that might indeed be the way that selfish religionists have used it, but the Spirit of God is not that way.
When it is styled as a private thing, like one’s choice of vanilla or chocolate ice cream with no further overtones, that makes a lie out of it. That would be the problem here.
Indiana is governed by a RINO with weak character. (Some people thought of this fellow as a strong conservative.) There is a reason why the Founding Fathers emphasized character.
Character does not stand on its own, can not stand on its own. It is based in belief.
The Founding Fathers emphasized private morality. Especially for those who were to govern. Washington described such, along with religion, as “indispensable supports”.
The left knows who its enemy is; it’s right in the preamble to the Communist Manifesto.
That’s its definition indeed.
Well yes as in morality in one’s personal life wherever one went (actually more than morality, the fruits of outright faith).
Private I mean, as in one’s gustatory choices.
The Founders intended no such balance of power. They intended that each branch have some checks and balances on the other, but they intended the Presidency to be a week magisterial office except in the case where the country needed to present a single voice: in foreign policy.
They intended to give the Federal Judiciary almost no power whatsoever. They certainly did not intend the judicial branch would have the right to vacate laws passed by Congress, nor would even the most ardent Federalists have believed the Supreme Court entitled to trample on the prerogatives reserved to the states by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The truth is, the crap about "co-equal branches of government" just like the "living Constitution" is a liberal fabrication. The Founders intended the Congress to be by far the most powerful branch of government, as should always be the case in a government of, by, and for The People.
That Maybe what the founders believed, but THIS is what the Progressives Believe:
The only real power comes through force.
Good. Ask Jefferson. But somewhere along the line, let’s inquire into the Supreme law of the land itself, the Constitution. What does the Constitution say is the law of the land? The Supremacy Clause states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land” (Art VI, Cl 2).
Any unconstitutional federal act or law is NOT the law of the land, but is invalid and should be nullified.
Patriots, please don’t overlook that the Founding States gave Congress the power to impeach and remove corrupt justices from the bench.
The problem is that we’ve now got a corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate in addition to corrupt justices, the Senate not willing to work with the House to remove such justices from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
Bttt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.