Posted on 05/10/2015 9:59:34 AM PDT by Olog-hai
If marriage were only about God’s law, you’d have a point. Unfortunately, the State got involved. The only way to save marriage would have been to have every mention of it stripped from the law books.
IMO, Judge Gibson was in the ditch on the other side of the road. Instead of being a judicial supremacist, it appears to me that he was instead more than a bit of a legislative supremacist.
Neither is correct. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and everybody, at every level of government - judges, legislators, executives - are morally BOUND to support and defend it. Period.
Interesting link though. Thanks for posting it.
Perfect.
The “state got involved” because the God-defined, God-created institution of marriage is the fundamental building block of self-government in liberty. The state has an existential interest.
A strong argument can be made that not a single clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution can possibly be fulfilled without the natural family and natural marriage.
If Obama wants to do that, he does. Already.
I’m very wary of Carson due to his recent liberal statements, but the way things are worded here, it looks more like he is saying the POTUS has no right nor power to enforce liberal legislation from the bench.
True, social engineering is one of the government’s central roles.
Marriage is not social engineering. It is the most fundamental basis for any civilization, for civil law, for contract law, for inheritance law, for the protection of women and children, for the creation of posterity, for economy.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention overlooked making passing a Founding States’ constitutional proficiency test mandatory before you could even be a candidate for public office.
For example note, that Congress wrongly passed the Alien Friends Act of 1798, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison indicating that they had no constitutional authority to make that act.
Also, note that James Madison as president vetoed the federal public works act of 1817, likewise noting that Congress had no constitutional justification for that making that bill.
He’s referring to judicial law-making - which is very prevalent these days.
Says you. But any president could use such a premise to disregard any law he didn’t want to follow. Terrible precedent.
The ability of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws, or to rule on concepts such as gay marriage, was never granted by the Constitution. It was a power the Court “assumed”.
Constitutionally, laws originate with the legislative branch.
The judicial branch is supposed to review their constitutionality. An ACTIVE judiciary imposes their interpretation of legislation as law. (My example: Freepers went ballistic when the Roberts court decided that obummercare was a tax therefore legal.)
In fact a reviewing judiciary should have said that obummercare as written can be interpreted as a tax and sent it all back to the legislative branch for rewrite.
It’s impossible to keep an oath to support and defend a document that you can’t interpret, that you have to rely on some other officer of government to interpret. That idea, in fact, makes a mockery of the oath.
The only “review” they’re authorized to do is as it concerns the individual case that comes before them. That’s it.
The real issue isn't "judicial review"---which, despite Marshall, was not cited again for almost 40 years---but is the reliance on "stare decisis" whereby new courts refuse to overrule previous crap.
The Constitution granted the Supreme Court the power over lower court decisions, not legislative. The entire federal judiciary structure is not in the Constitution.
That’s not what Madison said. He said that eventually the Court would be the aribiter. Nevertheless, I do NOT want the president the final arbiter. Thank God he’s not or we’d be finished already.
“That’s not what Madison said. He said that eventually the Court would be the aribiter.”
I was referring to what was written into the Constitution.
From the guy who wrote it. Original intent.
Original intent has to be divined from what is written in the contract, which is what the Constitution is. The fact that the Supreme Court has been assigned legitimacy to rule on the institution of marriage is proof that the Constitutional limits on government and the mandated separation of powers have been abandoned. I would have no problem with the Federalist Papers being dusted off and consulted. It would stop all the nonsense.
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.