Posted on 10/12/2015 5:51:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’ve been saying that 2015 is the year of pushback, and this might be the most significant act of pushing back so far: A group of legal scholars, most of them university professors, have declared that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage this past June 26th is not “the law of the land,” and they are calling on all office holders, together with all presidential candidates, to join them in rejecting the Court’s decision.
Make no mistake about it: This is really big news.
These scholars, who teach at schools like Princeton and Oxford and Notre Dame and Boston and Boston College and Michigan State and Kansas State and Vanderbilt and Hillsdale and the University of Toronto and the University of Nebraska, state that the Court’s decision “has no more claim” to being the law of the land “than Dred Scott v. Sandford had when President Abraham Lincoln condemned that pro-slavery decision as an offense against the very Constitution that the Supreme Court justices responsible for that atrocious ruling purported to be upholding.”
They note that “Lincoln warned that for the people and their elected leaders to treat unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court as creating a binding rule on anyone other than the parties to the particular case would be for ‘the people [to] have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’”
They also cite James Madison, who in 1788 had this to say about the balance of powers: “The several departments being perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.”
But these professors and lawyers are not simply making a philosophical statement about the Court’s Obergefell vs. Hodges ruling.
They have issued a call for action, reminding “all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.” They also call on “all federal and state officeholders” to “refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.”
They urge these officeholders to recognize the right of each state to define marriage, to “pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons,” and to “open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.”
To repeat: This is big, and it gives further legal, moral, and Constitutional teeth to the first and fourth principles laid out in Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Never Compromise Your Convictions and Refuse to Redefine Marriage.
These scholars have also issued a fourfold call to all presidential candidates, urging them to:
1. treat Obergefell, not as “the law of the land,” but rather (to once again quote Justice Alito) as “an abuse of judicial power”
2. refuse to recognize Obergefell as creating a binding rule controlling other cases or their own conduct as President
3. appoint judges and justices who respect the constitutional limits of their power, and
4. support the First Amendment Defense Act to protect the conscience and free speech rights of those who hold fast to the conjugal understanding of marriage as the union of husband and wife.
To help send this critically important message to all the presidential candidates, join me in signing this statement here, and let’s pray for a continued spirit of revival in the Church and awakening in the society.
Preserving the meaning of marriage and restoring the sacredness of marriage must be among our top priorities if we want to see America become healthy, and as disciples of Jesus, we can do nothing less.
This landmark action by these scholars could be another spark that will help fan the flames of a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution.
It is ridiculous that doctors can kill a baby in the womb because it is the right of the mother.
It is ridiculous that a Cross or the Ten commandments should be removed because atheists say so.
The next problem is Islam. It is NOT a religion but a political system.
Don’t vote for any candidate who utters the phrase “it’s the law of the land” when discussing this abomination.
In other words, VOTE CRUZ. He gets it and stands on his principles.
Chief justice roberts need I say more
Obergefell is anarchy. It is a thermonuclear missile aimed squarely at the heart of morality. Obergefell is a terrorist assault on religion.
The 5 justices who imposed this decision must be removed from office as moral incompetents. They are ignorant and corrupt beyond redemption.
Cruz has been on a mostly one man crusade against the unlawful decisions of the SCOTUS and there unconstitutional actions usurping the legislative process, now he has some significant support, about time I’d say.
Let’s make it politically correct to point out stupidity wherever found. Loudly.
Anyone who proclaims the judiciary can write laws is living in a dream world. Is there any “checks and balances” going on that I was taught long ago in high school? Who’s checking the Judicial? Legislative... Executive?
Besides, I thought the constitutionality of a law was supposed to be decided by the States as dictated by the Constitution. Am I wrong here? Or did the founders fail to provide a mechanism in which to settle law?
Things not mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the states to decide.
Marriage isn’t mentioned in the constitution.
One day we will all find out (my 2 cents) that Roberts has been and is continuing to be blackmailed. Might be regarding the two cute little children that were adopted by he and his wife. Might be that he has been seen in bath house photos...
What say anyone else? When Justice Thomas and others were “totally stunned” at Robert’s 180 on Obamacare... gee, golly... something is up, right?
Why are we accepting this illegal act by five individuals to force perversion and persecution upon us? Each of us must resist and not comply in any sense of the word.
Wow——Can you imagine some people being able to go through over 16 years of the progressive, Marxist agitprop and STILL be able to “think” critically? They DEFIED “Fichte 1810, Marx, and German psychology and Big Pharma (Cultural Marxism).
These people are truly rational animals, not the godless animals with no ability to “think” which Fichte planned in 1810 for human slavery). Maybe these people attended private school or were homeschooled, but the MSM agitprop 24/7 is REALLY hard to avoid and not let contaminate the Worldview of children.
It is almost impossible to not be made into the “useful idiots” our unconstitutional system of brainwashing (goals 2000, NCLB, Common Cr*p) forces the masses into.... forces young children to “see” the world through a Marxist Lens (sick/warped) and have all Wisdom and Understanding of Natural Law (Truth/Reality/God) and History and Traditions erased so they only experience “cognitive dissonance” (ex-KGB YurI) when they are exposed to the TRUTH!
Praise the Lord, that people can actually see through the Satanic ruse and evil, vile “Brave New World” that this evil, vile court “decision” which removes our Constitution and destroys Words/Language and ALL Traditions (pure Marxism) so that the Minds of ALL children raised “seeing” such vile, irrational use of the body-—will embed irrational, vile ideas “just like the harem boys in Afghanistan, where the children will be incapable of having any MATURE, rational thought in thier head.
The Age of Reason is descending into a pit of hell, literally, the Worship of Ba’al is FORCED into the CLASSROOM, because sodomizing others is their Rite of Worship, (always has been the religion of the Lucifereans in Hollywood who were raping the Corey boys) and which reduces Man to irrational (godless) animal (pure Marxism) which is incompatible with our Constitution and a Christian Mind.
You can NEVER look at another person in an irrational, filthy way and declare it “Love” or “Good” or a “Natural Right” (LOL) or Christian. It is the WARPING of desires, the removal of Virtue, and the destruction of human culture for nihilism and materialism (religion) and elevate the Mindset of the Boshevik, the Samurai, the Spartan and Nazis cultures who ALL were brutal, evil, sexist, pederasts, and narcissists and idolators, pure evil.
Habits and Desires are learned in childhood. The perverted now have control over the “visuals” that form your children’s worldview....it will be like the toxic, vulgar, homoerotic Weimar Republic which formed the feral, vile, “group think” mind of the Hitler Youth.
Virtue is essential for Freedom and civil society (Socrates/Aristotle) It is essential that we RETURN “JUSTICE” (The Queen of Virtue) back to “Just Law” and put REASON and VIRTUE back into the Word, ‘Justice’.
Promoting Vice in Just Law is an oxymoron (irrational which is unjust law which is “null and void”).....it always is—as Justice John Marshall stated, all Just Law promotes “public virtue” as Montesquieu stated ALL Republics had to do——and that all LAW that is antithetical with the “..laws of nature and nature’s God” is “Null and Void” and we have a DUTY to disobey it MLK, jr. and the Nuremberg Trials reiterated that Truth.
There is a “REASON” why Western Civilization developed Modern Science and Freedom, and the most brilliant cultures in the history of earth. Destroy Reason in children and you have dumb useful idiots-—serfs-—peasants-—obamaphone ladies——just non-thinking programed virtueless people.
Without Virtue, (which includes Wisdom and Justice), civil society collapses. Our Just Laws promote evil, irrational, vile acts of Vice TODAY....which are Null and Void. (Killing babies is also unconstitutional—as is promoting progressive (unequal) tax—welfare/theft-—Marxists have destroy Justice for 100 years in this country and it is time to REPLACE truth/Words/Language that the Marxists twisted and perverted.
All habits, desires and attitudes are learned through culture by children. It is why harem boys of Afghanistan grow up to hate and mutilate women (all homosexual cultures are sexist and hate filled-—Lust is NOT Love). They LEARN to lust after males, boys and goats-—their culture makes sex meaningless and irrational.
The SC can make rulings. Not Law. There IS a difference.
Why is it that the conservative justices go liberal on us, almost to the man/woman Sandra Day Oconner, but never seen a liberal justice get more conservative.
John Kasich, the more he opens his mouth the more I wonder why he is not a democrat. He was the first to say, “law of the land.”
They note that “Lincoln warned that for the people and their elected leaders to treat unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court as creating a binding rule on anyone other than the parties to the particular case would be for ‘the people [to] have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’”Unfortunately, this is exactly what modern legislatures want to do.
Punting the controversial issues to the Supreme Court allows members of Congress to avoid blame. And also gives them a target to attack while campaigning for office.
And since the SCOTUS never stands for election, they don't worry about facing the voters.
Win-win.
Related thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3347634/posts
And that's one of the reasons why Cruz is my first pick for '16.
Unfortunately, many people proceed to make a logical inference by combining the two statements above without recognizing that it's possible for a decision to be legitimately enforceable without actually being legitimate. Consequently, if the Court makes a false statement about what the law means, the fact that the court misinterpreted the law would not render its decision unenforceable, but it would instead mean that the law wouldn't match what the Court says it is.
If one acknowledges the possibility that the Court may have at times made decisions inconsistent with the Constitution, it will become apparent that the Constitution doesn't really have all the odd little nooks and crannies that the Court loves to read into it.
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.