"Judge" Roberts:
"Your Constitution and Laws mean nothing
except what your King and I want them to be ... at that moment.
Now, bow before us Blackrobes and your King."
Posted on 09/07/2015 8:51:55 AM PDT by dvan
The distinctive mark of the American political experiment is that we are a nation of laws, not men. And what we mean by a “law” is something enacted by the elected representatives of the people or by the people themselves, whether at the state level or federal level. A corollary to the maxim that we are a nation of laws is that we are decidedly NOT a nation of “rulings.”
A court ruling is not a “law,” it is a “ruling.” It may have the force of law due to the abject acquiescence of a meekly compliant people, but it is not a law. A “law” is not a “law” unless it is enacted according to constitutional procedure. Under our Constitution, courts have no power to make or change law, none whatsoever.
A second mark of American jurisprudence is that no one is above the law. No one. This means the president of the United States is not above the law, as both Richard Nixon and the disbarred Bill Clinton discovered. But it also means that the Supreme Court of the United States is not above the law either.
In Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is refusing to issue licenses to individuals wishing to enter into a sodomy-based marriage. She has every legal and constitutional right to do so, even though an activist judge is threatening to frog march her to jail in handcuffs for having the effrontery to follow both the law and her own conscience.
The Constitution could not be any clearer. The very first words, after the Preamble, are these (emphasis mine throughout): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If ALL legislative powers have been vested in Congress, how many legislative powers does that leave for the Supreme Court? None, zip, nada, zilch. The Supreme Court has not one ounce of legitimate authority to write law, to overturn law, or to amend law. None.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., an unjust ruling is no ruling at all.
So the Court had precisely zero authority to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by overwhelming and bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton. DOMA makes it expressly clear that the business of defining marriage is an issue that belongs exclusively to the states. That is the LAW, passed by the elected representatives of the people in the constitutionally prescribed manner.
If DOMA is to be amended or overturned, there is only one body on earth which has the legitimate power to do so, and that is Congress. The Supreme Court has absolutely no moral or constitutional authority to tamper with it at all.
So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote. Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. Thus, in Kentucky, according to the rule of law, marriage licenses can only permissibly be extended to couples consisting of one man and one woman. A “marriage” between two people of the same sex is “not valid or recognized.” Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses. Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution. When she took her oath of office, it was an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. She did not take an oath to uphold the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially when submitting to such rulings would require her to violate her oath to uphold the Constitution. The federal judge who is threatening to throw her in jail is certainly not following the law. The braying hounds of the homosexual lobby who are threatening her life for obeying the law most certainly are not. Is Mrs. Davis guilty of fomenting anarchy? Hardly. The lawless ones in this sorry business are the five members of the Supreme Court who imposed their moral views about sexual deviancy on the entire nation. Anarchy already exists, because of an out-of-control judiciary. Kim Davis is challenging the lawlessness of the Court and seeking to return this land to the rule of law. She’s not guilty in the least of civil disobedience. She is in fact practicing civil obedience in the highest sense, obedience to the Constitution and the law. If we are to get out from under the despotism of our judicial oligarchy, somebody has got to lead the way and strike the first blow against the chains of tyranny. Kim Davis may make an unlikely Joan of Arc, but Joan of Arc she may be. May her tribe of law-abiding, conscience-driven, public officials increase. Rapidly and soon.
"Judge" Roberts:
"Your Constitution and Laws mean nothing
except what your King and I want them to be ... at that moment.
Now, bow before us Blackrobes and your King."
Seems to me her religious conscience stance would be the same no matter if congress changed DOMA or KY’s legislature or voting majority changed the law to accept ‘gay marriage.’ Otherwise, why isn’t she making this argument?
Freegards
It is well established that SCOTUS has the power to decide a law is invalid, thus unenforceable and void.
I agree that Davis is the only one following the law.
SCOTUS, for all practical purposes (exact legal reasoning escapes me as IANAL & blathering on a chat board) voided KY marriage law by eviscerating the legal definition of “marriage”. As such, KY has no “marriage” law, and the KY legislature has not suitably replaced it.
THERE IS NO KY “MARRIAGE” LAW FOR DAVIS TO ACT ON.
It doesn’t mater Trump declared she broke the law and should be jailed. That is all there is to it.
If a doctor works for a government agency, can they be compelled to perform an abortion?
The way things got this way was indeed the “meek acceptance” of the idea that since if things percolated through the courts in the normal way, the same kind of individual decision would be reached over and over once the high court decided it in one instance, one might as well treat it as though law had been altered.
The present situation shows afresh how ridiculous that can get. “Legalization” of pre birth infanticide (aka abortion) was bad enough, but that could be hidden behind grimy walls. This new abomination has a harder time hiding.
There ought to even be judicial “civil disobedience” here. Force the USSC to keep on scolding at individual cases. There is nothing in the Constitution that says this would be wrong.
Great article and the only point worth mentioning. Yet Huckabee and Trump either skirt this issue, say “the law is the law” or don’t mention it at all. Huckabee is working on garnering up support for Davis, and supports her decision, but I have yet to hear him refer to this simple truth.
There isn’t even the attempt to force the High and Mighty Court to say exactly HOW their edict must be carried out, if indeed it must. The situation now is Calvinball. If you take your opponent’s flag do you have to sing the sorry song or do you have to go to jail or what? It’s all Calvinball. That sure doesn’t look even like “rule of law” at all. It is “rule of judges.” What’s old is new again and it isn’t any prettier than it was the first time.
"They're" not going to give reason for a nation of Christian soldiers to march on Kentucky
Who is the they, and why should the army be wanting their reason anyhow?
Easy on Donald.
He doesn't always get things right the first time.
Why WOULDN'T Christians want to mobilize ?
It will only end when a state decided enough and dares the feds to send in armed troops to enforce the left wing progressive rulings and EOs.
The SC, in their attempts to legislate from the bench, have essentially made state officials criminals retroactively, merely by holding an office, and abiding by state law.
This is a legal shitstorm of epic proportions. This is a battle of states rights vs. federal SC overreach.
The people of Kentucky voted overwhelmingly to keep this from happening, and a group of unelected federal judges decided to throw their weight around and FORCED the states to accept their decision.
Well, you know what? the black robed tyrants made their decision, and the answer from the states, and their voters should be: try to enforce it!
The states ARE the union, and the states, and ultimately the people, call the shots.
If the feds can't wrap their heads around that, then they should just leave, and take up a different line of work somewhere else in the world, because that shit doesn't fly here in the USA.
I believe they are; the angels are in the details of how.
Beginning to take a personal salvation by the Lord seriously is an excellent start. Christians trying to stand on things like morals or principles, without any clear grasp of what (or rather Whom) those morals and principles are about, are probably going to only succeed in looking like garden variety reactionaries. God is a pro-active entity.
The homos are hoping that if it happens it will be a replay of the black civil rights issue, forgetting that in the faith that launched America and still stubbornly smolders in the shadows waiting a fresh breath of spiritual oxygen, there was no command to discriminate by color when there was a command to discriminate by conduct.
What’s this “without bail” crapola? Is she a flight risk?
Sometimes it is hard to distinguish sarcasm around here
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.