Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore Memorandum to Alabama Probate Judges

http://media.al.com/news_impact/other/Chief%20Justice%20Moore%27s%20memorandum.pdf ^ | Feb 3, 2015 | Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore

[Ray76]

MEMORANDUM

TO: Alabama Probate Judges
FROM: Chief Justice Roy S. Moore
RE: Sanctity of Marriage ruling
Date: February 3, 2015

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to the probate judges of Alabama as to their duties under Alabama's Sanctity of Marriage Amendment ("the Amendment"), Art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act ("the Act"), § 30-1-19, Ala. Code 1975, in light of the recent orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. A news story has quoted the Honorable Greg Norris, President of the Alabama Probate Judges Association, as saying: "I don't think I have had a week like this in my life."¹ I hope this memorandum will assist weary, beleaguered, and perplexed probate judges to unravel the meaning of the actions of the federal district court in Mobile, namely that the rulings in the marriage cases do not require you to issue marriage licenses that are illegal under Alabama law.

¹ Brian Lawson, With Alabama Same-sex Marriage Decision Looming, Some Probate Judges Stop Doing Weddings, AL.com (Jan. 29, 2015).

I. Background

On Friday, January 23, 2015, the Honorable Callie Granade, a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, ruled in Searcy v. Strange (No. 1:14-208-CG-N) (S.D. Ala. Jan. 23, 2015), that the Amendment and the Act were unconstitutional. On January 25, in response to a motion by defendant Luther Strange, the Attorney General of Alabama, Judge Granade granted a stay of her ruling until February 9 to permit the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to consider imposing a stay pending appeal. On February 3, the Eleventh Circuit declined to enter the requested stay.

On Monday, January 26, Judge Granade entered a preliminary injunction in Strawser v. Strange (No. 1:14-CV- 424-CG-C) (S.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2015), another case that challenged the constitutionality of the Amendment and the Act. Two days later, on January 28, Judge Granade issued an "Order Clarifying Judgment" in Searcy to address whether her order of January 23 bound "the Probate Courts in Alabama."

II. Administrative Authority of the Chief Justice

As administrative head of the Unified Judicial System,² I have a constitutional and a statutory obligation to provide guidance to the probate judges in this state as to their administrative responsibilities under these recent orders.³ In that capacity I am authorized and empowered:

....

(7) To take affirmative and appropriate action to correct or alleviate any condition or situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state.

(8) To take any such other, further or additional action as may be necessary for the orderly administration of justice within the state, whether or not enumerated in this section or elsewhere.

§ 12-2-30(b), Ala. Code 1975.

In my estimation, Judge Granade's orders in Searcy and Strawser have created a "situation adversely affecting the administration of justice within the state" that requires me "[t]o take ... action for the orderly administration of justice within the state."

² "The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of the judicial system." Art. VI, § 149, Ala. Const. 1901.

³ The probate judges are part of Alabama's unified judicial system. Art. VI, § 139(a), Ala. Const. 1901.

III. Analysis

A. Alabama probate judges are not bound by the orders in Searcy and Strawser.

In Searcy, an adoption case, Judge Granade enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing the Alabama marriage laws that prohibit recognition of same-sex unions. In Strawser, Judge Granade granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of these same laws. Her order included standard language describing the scope of an injunction. See Rule 65, Fed. R. Civ. P.

[T]he court hereby ORDERS that the Alabama Attorney General is prohibited from enforcing the Alabama laws which prohibit same-sex marriage. This injunction binds the defendant and all his officers, agents, servants and employees, and others in active concert or participation with any of them, who would seek to enforce the marriage laws of Alabama which prohibit same-sex marriage.

Order of Jan. 26, 2015, at 4. The Strawser order is of more significance for Alabama probate judges than the orders in the Searcy case because Strawser is a case about issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Alabama. Therefore, it merits careful scrutiny.

The Strawser order tracks the language of Rule 65(d)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.:

Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

A) the parties;

B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

Since no Alabama probate judges are parties to the Strawser case (or to the Searcy case), the only question to resolve in terms of their being bound by the court's order of January 26 is whether they, or any of them, are officers, agents, servants or employees of the Attorney General or "are in active concert or participation" with the Attorney General or his officers, agents, servants, and employees. "[L]ike the Governor, the attorney general is an officer of the executive branch of government." Ex parte State ex rel. James, 711 So. 2d 952, 964 n.5 (Ala. 1998). See also McDowell v. State, 243 Ala. 87, 89, 8 So. 2d 569, 570 (1942) ("The Attorney General is a constitutional officer and a member of the Executive Department of the State government."); Art. V, § 112, Ala. Const. 1901 ("The executive department shall consist of a governor, lieutenant governor, attorney-general, ....").

Probate judges are members of the judicial branch of government. "There shall be a probate court in each county which shall have general jurisdiction of orphans' business, and of adoptions, and with power to grant letters testamentary, and of administration, and of guardianships, and shall have such further jurisdiction as may be provided by law...." Art. VI, § 144, Ala. Const. 1901. Probate judges are elected to six-year terms by a vote of the people in each county. § 12-13-30, Ala. Code 1975.

Alabama has strict separation of powers between the branches of government. "The powers of the government of the State of Alabama shall be divided into three distinct departments, each of which shall be confided to a separate body of magistracy, to wit: Those which are legislative, to one; those which are executive, to another; and those which are judicial, to another." Art. III, § 42, Ala. Const. 1901.

In the government of this state, except in the instances in this Constitution hereinafter expressly directed or permitted, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.

Art. III, § 43, Ala. Const. 901.

As a matter of constitutional and statutory law, therefore, Alabama probate judges are not officers, agents, or servants of the Attorney General. The probate judges are members of the judicial branch; the Attorney General is a member of the executive branch. The Attorney General is bound by the constitutional command that "the executive shall never exercise the ... judicial powers." The probate judges are bound by the constitutional command that "the judicial shall never exercise the ... executive powers." A constitutional firewall separates the authority of the Attorney General from that of the probate courts. The probate judges are not in any sense agents or servants of the Attorney General

The only remaining question, therefore, to resolve in determining whether Alabama probate judges are bound by Judge Granade's orders in Searcy and Strawser is whether they are "in active concert or participation" with the Attorney General or any of his officers, agents, servants or employees in enforcing the Amendment or the Act. Again, the answer is "no" for the simple reason that neither the Attorney General nor any of his agents has any authority over the judges of probate. As independent constitutional officers of the judicial branch of government who are directly elected by the people and shielded from executive influence by Sections 42 and 43 of the Alabama Constitution, the judges of probate are neither beholden to the Attorney General for their offices nor subject to his control in the execution of their duties.

The federal court in Mobile has no authority to ignore the internal structure of state government. How a state government structures its powers is "a decision of the most fundamental sort for a sovereign entity." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991). A state has "constitutional responsibility for the establishment and operation of its own government." Id. at 462. "Through the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign." Id. at 460.

Finally, no probate judge was a defendant in the cases under discussion except for the Honorable Don Davis who was dismissed with prejudice before issuance of the court's orders. Judge Granade's orders apply to the parties to the case, but under a straightforward application of Rule 65(d)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., those orders have no effect on the probate judges of Alabama. "A judgment or decree among parties to a lawsuit resolves issues as among them, but it does not conclude the rights of strangers to those proceedings." Martinv. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 762 (1989).

Furthermore, as stated in the Appendix, Judge Granade's orders are improper because the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the Attorney General from being a defendant in these cases.

B. The probate judges in their judicial capacity do not have to defer to decisions of a federal district court.

Having determined based on the above analysis that Alabama probate judges are not bound by Judge Granade's rulings in Searcy and Strawser, I would now like to give you a general perspective on the precedential effect in state courts of lower-federal-court decisions on constitutional questions. Because the United States Constitution provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby," Art. VI, cl. 2, U.S. Const., state judges are competent to adjudicate federal constitutional issues and indeed must do so when required in the exercise of properly acquired jurisdiction.

Because federal courts also adjudicate federal-law issues, the question has arisen whether state judges are in any sense bound by lower federal court decisions on constitutional questions. Almost universally the answer has been "no" for the simple reason that federal district and circuit courts have no appellate jurisdiction over state courts. "A decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case." Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2033 n.7(2011) (quoting 18 J. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 134.02[1][d], p. 134-26 (3d ed. 2011)). Although decisions of state courts on federal questions are ultimately subject to review by the United States Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), as are decisions of federal courts, neither "coordinate" system reviews the decisions of the other. As a result, state courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from and even contrary to the decisions of federal courts.

Numerous Alabama cases confirm this reasoning. "[I]n determining federal common law, we defer only to the holdings of the United States Supreme Court and our own interpretations of federal law. Legal principles and holdings from inferior federal courts have no controlling effect here, although they can serve as persuasive authority." Glass v. Birmingham So.R.R., 905 So.2d 789, 794 (Ala. 2004). See also Dolgencorp,Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So. 3d 737, 748 (Ala. 2009) (noting that "United States district court decisions are not controlling authority in this Court"); Ex parte Hale, 6 So. 3d 452, 462 (Ala. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 10, 2008) ("[W]e are not bound by the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit."); Ex parte Johnson, 993 So. 2d 875, 886 (Ala. 2008) ("This Court is not bound by decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals or the United States District Courts."); Buist v. Time Domain Corp., 926 So. 2d 290, 297 (Ala. 2005) ("United States district court cases ... can serve only as persuasive authority."); Amerada Hess v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass, 627 So. 2d 367, 373 n.1 (Ala. 1993) ("This Court is not bound by decisions of lower federal courts."); Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 589 So. 2d 165, 167 n.2 (Ala. 1991) ("Decisions of federal courts other than the United States Supreme Court, though persuasive, are not binding authority on this Court.").

A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.

Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. "In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court." United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).

Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.

Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).

The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts "possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law." Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.

The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court's interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision "would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.").

For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that an Alabama probate judge may deliver his own considered opinion, subject to review, on the issues raised in Searcy and Strawser and is not required to defer to federal district and circuit court rulings on the same questions.

IV. Conclusion

In fulfillment of my obligations as Administrative Head of the Unified Judicial System, I have herein offered you my considered guidance on how the recent orders from the United States District Court in Mobile affect your duties as an Alabama probate judge. Because, as demonstrated above, Alabama probate judges are not bound by Judge Granade's orders in the Searcy and Strawser cases, they would in my view be acting in violation of their oaths to uphold the Alabama Constitution if they issued marriage licenses prohibited under Alabama law.

APPENDIX

The reasoning employed by Judge Granade in dismissing Governor Bentley with prejudice on August 28, 2014, namely that his general authority to enforce the laws was insufficient to make him a defendant, also applies to Attorney General Strange, who is the sole remaining defendant in both Searcy and Strawser.

I.

How the Alabama Attorney General came to be the sole defendant in each case

A. Searcy

The complaint in Searcy named five defendants in both their individual and official capacities: Robert Bentley, Governor; Luther Strange III, Attorney General; Don Davis, Mobile County Judge of Probate; Catherine Donald, State Registrar of Vital Statistics; and Nancy Buckner, Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources.

On May 30, 2014, Judge Davis filed a motion to dismiss. He explained that in December 2011 Cari Searcy had filed in his court a petition for a step-parent adoption of the son of Kimberly McKeand. See § 26-10A-27, Ala. Code 1975. In April 2012, Judge Davis denied the petition on the ground that Alabama law did not recognize Searcy as McKeand's spouse. Searcy appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Inre Adoption of K.R.S., 109 So. 3d 176 (2012). Once his decision was appealed, Judge Davis argued, he lost jurisdiction of the case and was thus unable to provide relief to the plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2014, Commissioner Buckner filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of standing, namely that Searcy had suffered no injury traceable to Buckner's actions that a court order could redress. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). In her complaint Searcy alleged that Buckner "has the authority and power to ... amend birth certificates to reflect the adoption of a child." However, in her motion to dismiss, Buckner explained that such authority resides solely with the Department of Vital Statistics.

On June 6, 2014, Governor Bentley and Attorney General Strange filed a joint motion to dismiss. The motion argued that Governor Bentley's general authority over the executive branch was insufficient to name him as a defendant when he had no direct enforcement responsibility for the Amendment, the Act, or the adoption statute. Merely suing Governor Bentley as a representative of the State was no different than suing the State itself, an action forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment. While seeking a dismissal of all claims against Governor Bentley, the Attorney General agreed to remain in the suit in his official capacity "to defend the validity of Alabama's marriage laws."

On June 24, 2014, the plaintiffs responded to the motions to dismiss. They volunteered to dismiss all claims against Davis, Donald, and Buckner and to dismiss the individual capacity claims against Bentley and Strange. However, they argued that the official-capacity claims against both Bentley and Strange should remain in the case. On July 14, 2014, Davis and the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation for Davis's dismissal. On July 18, the court entered an order to dismiss Davis with prejudice if no other party objected by July 25.

On July 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Katherine Nelson acknowledged the stipulation of dismissal of all claims against Davis, Donald, and Buckner. She also recommended granting Governor Bentley's motion to dismiss on the ground that his relationship to the acts complained of was "'too attenuated to establish that he was responsible for' implementation of the challenged laws." Report and Recommendation of July 30, 2014 (quoting Women's Emergency Network v. Bush, 323 F.3d 937, 949 (11th Cir. 2003)). Judge Granade adopted the Magistrate's recommendation and, on August 28, dismissed with prejudice the claims against Bentley, Buckner, and Donald. The only remaining defendant in the case was the Attorney General in his official capacity.

B. Strawser

Because the complaint in Strawser named "the State of Alabama" as the sole defendant, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity. In an order dated October 21, 2014, Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady, providing free legal advice, advised the Strawser plaintiffs

that rather than filing a substantive response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, they may well desire to respond by filing a motion to dismiss the State of Alabama and substitute as the proper defendant ... Luther Strange, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama.

The order contained a detailed footnote advising these pro-se plaintiffs that "[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits against an unconsenting State by one of its citizens." The footnote included as supporting authority three citations and parenthetical supporting quotations from United States Supreme Court cases. Order of Oct. 21, 2014, at 1 n.1. In a second footnote, Magistrate Cassady continued the plaintiffs' legal education by explaining that "'official-capacity actions for prospective relief are not treated as actions against the State.'" Order of Oct. 21, 2014, at 2 n.2 (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14 (1985)). Dutifully following this advice from the court, the plaintiffs on November 13, 2014 filed a "Motion to Amend Complaint and Change Defendant." The Attorney General did not object to the motion.

Thus, by dismissal of all defendants except the Attorney General in Searcy, and the substitution, with court assistance, of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama in Strawser, Luther Strange in his official capacity became the sole defendant in each case.

II.

The Attorney General is not a proper defendant in these cases

The issuance of marriage licenses in Alabama is controlled by Chapter 1 ("Marriage") of Title 30 ("Marital and Domestic Relations"). Section 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, states: "No marriage shall be solemnized without a license. Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties." The duty is discretionary because certain prerequisites must be satisfied before a license may be issued, such as, where applicable, the age and parental consent requirements of § 30-1-4 & -5, Ala. Code 1975. The probate judge must maintain a register of all licenses issued, § 30-1-12, Ala. Code 1975, which is to include certificates of solemnization received from those who perform weddings. § 30- 1-13, Ala. Code 1975. "It is the duty of the judge of probate to give notice to the district attorney of all offenses under this chapter." § 30-1-18, Ala. Code 1975. "No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex." § 30-1-19(d), Ala. Code 1975.

By contrast to the exclusive statutory duty of probate judges to issue and record marriage licenses, and to monitor this process, including solemnizations, for offenses, the Attorney General has no duties in this area.

As an officer of the State, the Attorney General shares the immunity of the State from private law suits in federal court. "[T]he Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against state officials where the state is, in fact, the real party in interest." Summit Medical Associates, P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F. 3d 1326, 1336 (11th Cir. 1999). "The general rule is that relief sought nominally against an officer is in fact against the sovereign if the decree would operate against the latter." Hawaii v. Gordon, 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963). An exception exists to this rule for actions taken by state officials that violate the Constitution. "The Court has recognized an important exception to this general rule: a suit challenging the constitutionality of a state official's action is not one against the State." Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102 (1984). This principle, first articulated in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), "has not been provided an expansive interpretation." Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102. Actions for damages are precluded, but generally prospective actions for declaratory and injunctive relief are permitted.

Nonetheless, a key requirement of an Ex parte Young action against a state official is that "such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act, or else it is merely making him a party as a representative of the state, and thereby attempting to make the state a party." 209 U.S. at 157. The Court elaborated:

"In the present case, as we have said, neither of the State officers named held any special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If, because they were law officers of the State, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the statute, by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the governor and the attorney general, based upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the State was, in a general sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as attorney general, might represent the State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for obtaining a speedy judicial determination of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a mode which cannot be applied to the States of the Union consistently with the fundamental principle that they cannot, without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons."

209 U.S. at 157 (quoting Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 530 (1899)).

The situation described in Ex parte Young is exactly what has occurred in this case. The Alabama Attorney General does not hold a "special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional," nor is he "expressly directed to see to its enforcement." Those duties and responsibilities lie with the judges of probate in the judicial branch. In the passage that immediately precedes the one quoted in Ex parte Young, the Court in Fitts underscored this point:

It is to be observed that neither the Attorney General of Alabama nor the Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State appear to have been charged by law with any special duty in connection with the act of February 9, 1895.

....

There is a wide difference between a suit against individuals, holding official positions under a State, to prevent them, under the sanction of an unconstitutional statute, from committing by some positive act a wrong or trespass, and a suit against officers of a State merely to test the constitutionality of a state statute, in the enforcement of which those officers will act only by formal judicial proceedings in the courts of the State.

Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U.S. at 529-30. Recapping its discussion of Fitts, the court in Ex parte Young stated: "As no state officer who was made a party bore any close official connection with the [act at issue], the making of such officer a party defendant was a simple effort to test the constitutionality of such act in that way, and there is no principle upon which it could be done." 209 U.S. at 156 (emphasis added).

Making the Attorney General, who is not the official chiefly responsible for enforcing the marriage laws, the sole defendant in this case was a convenient means of making the State of Alabama the defendant, a methodology condemned by Ex parte Young as unconstitutional under the Eleventh Amendment. Because both Searcy and Strawser were in substance actions against the State rather than against one of its officers, the United States district court lacked jurisdiction and its judgment is void. The tenor of Judge Granade's orders indicates that she intends the orders to be applicable to all state officials merely because the Attorney General is the defendant. Such an assumption violates the Eleventh Amendment. "Holding that a state official's obligation to execute the laws is a sufficient connection to the enforcement of a challenged statute would extend Young beyond what the Supreme Court has intended and held." Children's Healthcare Is A Legal Duty v. Deters, 92 F. 3d 1412, 1416 (6th Cir. 1996).

The Tenth Circuit in a very similar case came to the same conclusion. Two women who desired to be married to each other filed an action against the Governor and the Attorney General of Oklahoma seeking to have that state's marriage amendment declared unconstitutional. The Tenth Circuit held that they lacked standing to sue these officials. "[T]he Oklahoma officials' generalized duty to enforce state law, alone, is insufficient to subject them to a suit challenging a constitutional amendment they have no specific duty to enforce." Bishop v. Oklahoma, 333 F. App'x 361, 365 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished). Noting that marriage licenses in Oklahoma were issued by district-court clerks who were part of the judicial branch, the court stated: "Because recognition of marriages is within the administration of the judiciary, the executive branch of Oklahoma's government has no authority to issue a marriage license or record a marriage." 333 F. App'x at 365. Stating that "[t]hese claims are simply not connected to the duties of the Attorney General" and citing the specificity requirement of Ex parte Young, the court ordered dismissal of the claims against the Attorney General for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. Id.

In a later published case the Tenth Circuit noted that the holding in Bishop that the Attorney General was not a proper defendant in a challenge to Oklahoma's prohibition on same-sex marriage "turned on the conclusion that marriage licensing and recognition in Oklahoma were 'within the administration of the judiciary.'" Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193, 1202 (10th Cir. 2014). The parallels with Searcy and Strawser are too obvious to require elaboration.

The Attorney General's agreement to litigate this case with himself as the sole defendant cannot confer subject- matter jurisdiction that is otherwise not present. "The jurisdiction of the federal courts is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation or by prior action or consent of the parties." American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1951) (emphasis added). "'It needs no citation of authorities to show that the mere consent of parties cannot confer upon a court of the United States the jurisdiction to hear and decide a case.'" Id. at 18 n.17 (quoting People's Bank v. Calhoun, 102 U.S. 256, 260-61 (1880)). See also Boumatic, L.L.C. v. Idento Operations, BV, 759 F. 3d 790, 793 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Litigants cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction by agreement or omission ...."); SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618 F. 3d 458, 464 n.4 (5th Cir. 2010). ("[P]arties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement where it otherwise would not lie ....").

Further, because the Attorney General neither caused the plaintiffs' alleged injuries nor is able to redress them, the parties also lack standing to sue him as a defendant. "To have standing the plaintiffs must demonstrate injury in fact, causation, and redressability." I.L. v. Alabama, 739 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the federal court in Mobile lacked jurisdiction on this basis also. Alabama law agrees with these propositions:

"Actions or opinions are denominated 'advisory,'" and, therefore, not justiciable, ... "where, by reason of inadequacy of parties defendant, the judgment could not be sufficiently conclusive." E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 31 (1934) (emphasis added). "'Actions for declaratory judgments brought by individuals to test or challenge the propriety of public action often fail on this ground, ... because the ... public officer or other person selected as a defendant has ... no special duties in relation to the matters which would be affected by any eventual judgment.'" Rogers v. Alabama Bd. of Educ., 392 So.2d 235, 237 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (emphasis added) (quoting E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 76 (2d ed. 1941)). "'The absence of adversary or the correct adversary parties is in principle fatal. A mere difference of opinion or disagreement or argument on a legal question affords inadequate ground for invoking the judicial power.'" Id. (emphasis added).

Stamps v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 642 So. 2d 941, 944 (Ala. 1994) (emphasis in original).

End of Appendix

[Ken H]

Did he just tell the fed court to take a hike?

[fifthvirginia]

This is the most brilliant legal defence that I have seen, since 1861-1865, of states rights, as expounded in the 10th Amendment.

Yes, Judge Moore told the Fed to bug off and delineated the legal case behind it. Judge Moore sent this instruction to all of the Alabama judges that handle weddings and adoptions.

Brilliant !!!!! This is what all US state level supreme court judges should do.

[Guenevere]

Bless Judge Moore!

[mrreaganaut]

Having only previously seen the media caricature of Judge Moore, I wasn’t sure how well I liked him. Now, having read one of his opinions, I find I’ve been missing out. I hope the next Republican president appoints Moore to the Supreme Court!

[RginTN]

Wow. Judge Moore is impressive. Every state probate judge ought to read this and then refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

The homosexual lobby may have just met their Stalingrad defeat!

[T-Bird45]

Don’t think so - the horses, i.e. the probate judges, have left the barn:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3257398/posts

They don’t appear to be persuaded by Judge Moore’s analysis. Personally, I think the judge makes a strong case, especially as regards who was party to any ruling and the probate judges were not party to the actions.

[Guenevere]

Don’t put a lot of credence into ABC’s propaganda.

[Nextrush]

Considering the other members of his court, elected Republicans and the elected GOP governor don’t back him up on this, I don’t expect President “Jeb” to appoint him....

[eyeamok]

“state courts may interpret the United States Constitution independently from and even contrary to the decisions of federal courts.”

Pretty good read, I have been saying this for a long,long time and nobody ever seems to listen, except to poo poo the idea that States are not bound by Inferior Federal Courts. See Article 3, section 2.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Apparently 46 States see it the same way! Inferior Federal Courts have NO JURISDICTION on Constitutional Issues. So why do they act contrary to this Official Stance on these issues?

[grobdriver]

Did I miss the part where he says, “Follow my lead or turn in your wig”?

[Tzfat]

President Cruz needs to make Judge Moore his first nomination for the Supreme Court of the U.S.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I like chief justice Moore, and if a conservative was elected POTUS, with a conservative senate, I think it would be grand if he was appointed to the SCOTUS.

[Ray76]

It would be great if Moore was a justice of the US Supreme Court.

Moore, Thomas, Scalia

[Yosemitest]

I agree, very strongly!

CNN'S Chris Cuomo: Our Rights Come from Government, Not God
Rush Limbaugh, February 13, 2015

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Did you hear about this?
When I saw this I was a little surprised, and I have to catch myself now because I shouldn't be, because this makes perfect sense.
Andrew Cuomo, son of Mario "The Pious," the late Mario "The Pious," Democrat Party royalty, state of New York, governor.
He was the best "what if" presidential candidate the Democrats have ever had.
Well, running a close race there with Hillary.
Except her time is still up, she might still make a run at it, but he never did.
Mario Cuomo never did.

But in addition to being Democrat Party royalty --
and, by the way, they made it abundantly clear that they were devout Catholics,
except when it comes to abortion.
But, you know, that was not wanting to impose religious views on anybody.
Right.
No, that's how Mario "The Pious" -- people asked him,
"Well, wait a minute, you're a devout Catholic, and you say that, privately, personally, you're opposed to abortion,
but that you don't think you can impose your religious values.
But you impose other religious values,
and you impose your values on taxes on other people,
and you impose your values on Big Government on people.
Where do you draw your line on abortion?
Why do you feel it's not right to impose --"
And, by the way, I always said to Governor Cuomo,
"What is this imposition?
You're not imposing anything, why can't you be honest about it?"

At the time there was controversy, there were several bishops that thought Governor Cuomo should be booted out of the church because of this high wire act that he had going.
Anyway, he's got his children, he's got Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, and Chris Cuomo, who is an anchor -- sorry -- a narrative reader on CNN in the morning.
And yesterday morning on CNN, Andrew Cuomo did a 25-minute interview with Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore.
And of course Chris Cuomo -- it's Chris Cuomo, not Andrew -- Chris Cuomo was just livid over what they're doing in Alabama.

Alabama, they are trying, legally, to prohibit gay marriage being legal there.
And judges are defying the law, which is not new, by the way.
But they're outraged about it in this case, because the federal judges and the appellate courts are telling local judges,
"Screw you. Whatever you think doesn't fly.
We have more power. We're overruling you."
And the state of Alabama is not being permitted to peacefully implement its own laws.
So it was made to order.

Here you have a young son of Mario "The Pious," devout Catholic.
Here you have personified a pro-life activist right-wing hayseed hick, NASCAR loving, probably's got a still in the backyard judge,
who wants to argue with one of the cognoscenti of the New York-Washington media elites about gay marriage, about abortion, and all of these other things.
Gay marriage was actually the issue that was front and center.
This argument centered around THE ORIGIN OF RIGHTS.
Chris Cuomo made no mistake WHERE HE THINKS rights come from.

He could not be more wrong.
He said that our rights do NOT come from God, as the judge asserted,
and he thinks that the judge is a backwards hillbilly hayseed, hick who doesn't understand the law,
because, as Chris Cuomo says, our LAWS come FROM MAN, OUR RIGHTS COME FROM MAN,
and where he got confused is that RIGHTS ARE NOT LAWS.
But Chris Cuomo's not alone.
The CONCEPT of rights, we lost that I don't know how long ago.
In a strict definition of the word sense we lost that argument.
If you WANT IT in America, you THINK you have a right to it.
If you really want to have fun, grab your average low-information American and start talking about
THE ORIGIN of rights,
WHAT they are,
and WHERE they come from,
and you will be so depressed that you'll wonder how we've made it this far.

The judge was patient DESPITE Chris Cuomo.
I mean, it got kind of loud.
Some people thought it was rude.
It was certainly contentious.
Twenty-five-minute interview, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore on Thursday, CNN's New Day co-host Chris Cuomo
discussing the judge's refusal to adhere to a federal judge's ruling on same-sex marriages.


"Cuomo and Moore disagreed on whether or not the federal court decision was binding to the point that
it REQUIRED the state of Alabama to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But they also continued the argument to the point of WHERE certain rights ORIGINATE,
to which Cuomo argued they came FROM MAN AND LAW,
AND NOT FROM GOD."

Judge Moore said,
"I believe that’s a matter of law BECAUSE OUR RIGHTS contained in the Bill of Rights DO NOT COME FROM THE CONSTITUTION,
they come FROM GOD."

Well, that set Cuomo OFF.
As it would ANY liberal.
You mention God, you mention rights,
and the liberal is gonna be set off
and set OUT OF CONTROL in outrage and anger, predictably so.
Cuomo replied,
"Our laws do NOT COME FROM GOD, your honor, and you know that.
THEY COME FROM MAN."

Judge Moore said,
"Let me ask you one question.
Let me ask you ONE question, Chris.
Is the Declaration of Independence LAW?"

Cuomo said,
"You would call it ORGANIC LAW as a basis for future laws OFF OF IT?"

Judge Moore said,
"I would call it the ORGANIC LAW BECAUSE
the United States CODE CALLS IT organic law.
It is organic law BECAUSE THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY CALLS IT the organic law of the country
MEANS WHERE OUR RIGHTS COME FROM
And IF they come from THERE,
MEN CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY."

That's THE POINT.

Cuomo said again,
"Our rights do NOT come from God.
hat’s your faith.
That’s my faith," just like his dad.
Oh yeah, but I can't IMPOSE MY FAITHh here on my job of narrating the news to people.
"That’s your faith.
That’s my faith, but NOT our country.
Our laws COME FROM THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AND COMPROMISE."

Judge Moore said,
"It’s NOT A MATTER OF FAITH, sir.
It’s a matter of ORGANIC LAW, which states,
'We hold these truths to be held equal AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'
And the ONLY ROLE of government is stated in the next sentence IS TO SECURE THOSE RIGHTS FOR US.
The government starts TAKING THOSE RIGHTS AWAY FROM US,
then it’s NOT SECURING
and it is DEFILING THE WHOLE PURPOSE of government."

Now, THE JUDGE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and Chris Cuomo could NOT BE MORE WRONG.
Natural law, ORGANIC LAW, what have you, rights,
you don't have a right to be free BECAUSE some politician tells you you do.
You don't have a right to be free BECAUSE a president or a government decrees it.
Only in communist or tyrannical regimes is that a question,
and it's ONLY a question BECAUSE your natural RIGHT, YOUR NATURAL YEARNING, your INDEPENDENCE, your FREEDOM, has been TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU,
which was the judge's point.
The ONLY thing a government can do IS TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM YOU.

But the thing is, IF they can TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU, IT ISN'T a RIGHT.
IF they can TAKE IT AWAY from you, IT IS A LAW.
They can't take away your right to be free.
They could put you in jail, but they can't take away your right TO IT.
And this discussion OF WHAT IS A RIGHT VERSUS WHAT IS A LAW, Chris Cuomo literally has NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
But he THINKS
he's one of the few people on earth who understands it,
one of the few people in the government, the country, who understands it.

Every law that's written could be said TO INFRINGE ON human rights, because every law that's written LIMITS BEHAVIOR.
Now, we get together and we decide that CERTAIN limits on behavior ARE CALLED FOR based on having an orderly society or what have you.
But if it's all done in a democratic fashion
you live with it and deal with it.
If you don't like it, you try to change it.
If you're living IN TYRANNY, you have NO WAY of dealing with it.
Your right still exists, BUT IT'S BEING DENIED YOU.
And they DENY YOU YOUR RIGHTS BY PASSING A LAW OR A DECREE CLAIMING you're NOT free.
You have to do what I tell you to do.

I mean, do some people have THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN tyranny and others have THE RIGHT TO BE FREE ?
Chris Cuomo must THINK so.
If rights come from government, then people that live in communist countries DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to be free.
They have the right to live in tyranny 'cause their governments have done it.
Their governments have written the laws that say,
"You CAN'T be free,
you're NOT free,
you CAN'T SAY what you want,
you CAN'T THINK what you want.
If we hear about it and WE DON'T LIKE IT, you're gonna go to the gulag."
Well, to him, THOSE are rights.

Many Americans THINK they have a right to house on the beach.
Somebody has one, I should.
They have a right to a livable wage.
They have a right to a nice car.
They have a right to health care.
No, you don't.
Health care IS NOT a RIGHT.
"Well, by God, I got a right to a lawyer."
No, you don't have A RIGHT TO a lawyer.
The United States Constitution has CLAIMED as a matter OF LAW that
everybody is entitled to legal representation
if they are accused AND can't afford it.
That's NOT a right that you're BORN WITH.

This is one of the ways, by the way, the left succeeded in getting so many people TO SUPPORT national government-run health care,
THE BELIEF that it's a right.
And what is the right?
"I have a right to be healthy, and I have a right to get well if I get sick."
No, you don't.
There is no such RIGHT anywhere.
There's nobody that can GRANT that right.
You're not BORN with it.
Besides, it CAN BE TAKEN AWAY.
IF it can be taken away, IT'S NOT a right.
"I have a right to whatever I want."
No, you don't.
You have to EARN IT.

The sad thing is, most people watching the show yesterday on CNN I would ASSUME [to] THINK
the judge is so full of it
that they ended up laughing themselves silly.
But it is, it's right there IN THE DECLARATION:
We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal
and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
Natural law. We're born with this.
They are
the right to life,
the right to liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.
That the natural state of the human being is yearning to be free and wanting to be happy.
Is that not true, by the way?
In this country you'd have to get people to really stop and think about it,
'cause they ACCEPT ALL this, take it for granted, because IT's ALL THEY'VE KNOWN.

But everybody's PURSUING happiness, however they define it.
I mean, nobody actively wants to be miserable,
except there are some psychological cases of people who are miserably happy, or happily miserable, whatever the phrase is.
But even there, it's PEOPLE DETERMINING what it is that makes them happy.
There's no government that GRANTS that.
There's no government that grants freedom.
They can TAKE IT AWAY, though.
And that's what they do.
It's one of the FUNDAMENTAL disagreements and dividing points between the left and right, by the way.
All-powerful government grants you everything.
You are NOTHING but a tissue mass.
Without government GIVING YOU life and TELLING YOU
what you can and can't do
and what you're worth and not worth.
People believe that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: For any of you who encounter people who are CONFUSED ABOUT THIS business OF RIGHTS AND LAWS,
ask 'em
if they know what the Bill of Rights are,
the Bill of Rights is,
ask them if they know what that is.
"Well, yeah, the Bill of Rights, of course I do,
it's what I'm entitled to."
No, no, no.
"The Bill of Rights, yeah, that's my stuff."
No, no, no.



The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments TO THE United States CONSTITUTION.
And those first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution have one thing in common:
They TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CANNOT DO to the citizens.
The Bill of Rights,
NOT the bill of laws, NOT the bill of suggestions, NOT the bill of hopes,
the Bill of Rights DETAILS WHAT human beings HAVE RIGHTS TO,
and EVERY ONE OF THEM LIMITS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO TO people.

The first 10 amendments:
Freedom of speech,
freedom of assembly,
freedom of religion,
freedom against unreasonable search and seizure, the list goes on.
Freedom to not incriminate yourself at trial in the commission of a crime.
They've got to prove it. The government -- state, federal, local -- has to prove it,
otherwise you walk.
The first 10 amendments tell people in the government what they CANNOT AND MAY NOT AND SHOULD NOT EVER DO.
And those first 10 amendments are WHY liberals, not just,
but those 10 amendments are one of the PRIMARY REASONS the left wing HATES THE CONSTITUTION.

There is a constitutional scholar, IF you can call him that.
He's not a scholar in my mind. He's a DISTORTER.
His name is Cass Sunstein.
He's the husband of Samantha Power, who's up there at the United Nations.
He is SO OFFENDED by the Bill of Rights, he's SO TROUBLED by the Bill of Rights, SO BOTHERED by it, that he renamed them.
He called the Bill of Rights the charter of NEGATIVE liberties.
When I first heard that, I said,
"How in the world is liberty negative?"
But I soon found out I was not looking at it THE SAME WAY Cass Sunstein and practically every other leftist looks at it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: No, no. My point is that Chris Cuomo -- and I would venture to say his brother, Andrew, and his father Mario, do NOT UNDERSTAND the Constitution, is MY POINT.
Look at the freedom of speech.
Do they really think that Americans have freedom of speech BECAUSE SOME MEN GRANTED that right way back long ago?They must.
They must believe that.
So in that case they'd have TO LIKE the founders,
except maybe free speech now is going TOO FAR
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LIMIT speech.
If it offends people, if it HURTS people's FEELINGS,
if it's too critical of Muslims, THEY want to LIMIT SPEECH.
Well, if they CAN limit it, it ISN'T a right, folks.
That's the bottom line.

The Founding Fathers, these people were so brilliant.
It's all there in the Declaration, IF you just look at THAT ONE sentence.
All men are created equal.
CREATED, GOD, ENDOWED BY our Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights.
You can't take 'em away, is what unalienable means.
Right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
BELIEVING THAT, they then next WRITE the Constitution, First Amendment,
free speech, freedom of religion, whatever.
THEY BELIEVE THAT RIGHT to free speech COMES FROM GOD.

They were CODIFYING IT for the FIRST TIME in human history
that the right to say what you want is NOT something GRANTED by some OTHER MAN to a group of people.
IT COMES FROM GOD, and IT IS THAT WHICH SET THE STAGE FOR
SETTING THIS COUNTRY APART
AND HELPING DEFINE WHAT AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IS.
Do you believe the right to worship as you wish is BECAUSE your government permits it,
or because the Founding Fathers WROTE it?
Do you THINK you have A RIGHT to believe any religion you want?
If you do, then you CANNOT possibly go along with the idea
that SOME HUMAN BEING GRANTED YOU that right.

It isn't A LAW. It is A RIGHT.
That's why the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, LIMIT WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN DO.
Because the Founders knew THE ONLY THING government's gonna do IS TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, LIMIT THEM, get in the way.
And the first 10 amendments were specific in what the government CANNOT DO.
You get to the Second Amendment, LIBERALS of course TWIST THEMSELVES INTO PRETZELS.

But this charter of NEGATIVE liberties --
and, by the way, I beg the indulgence of those of you who have been here a long time and have heard this countless times.
There are new people tuning in here today.
And this little tete-a-tete that Chris Cuomo had yesterday,
I guarantee you most watching CNN probably THOUGHT the judge is an absolute backwards hillbilly, hayseed hick
and that Chris Cuomo is the sophisticated erudite all-knowing.
And it's the other way around.

How in the world do you look at the Bill of Rights,
which were WRITTEN TO NOT ASSIGN, BUT TO ACKNOWLEDGE human liberty and freedom and value.
How do you look at that and see it as A NEGATIVE, as Cass Sunstein and his fellow left-wing constitutional scholars do?
I admit when I first came across it, I was baffled.
How in the world can something as beautiful, as meaningful, as unique, as brilliant as the Bill of Rights BE SEEN AS a negative?
Well, IF you happen TO BELIEVE that
the government is all-powerful,
the government is THE CENTER of the universe,
the government determines everything,
THEN the Bill of Rights YOU WOULD HATE.
You would look at the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments as some of the biggest things IN YOUR WAY, IF you BELIEVE IN big government.

If you BELIEVE government has the answer to everything, for everybody,
THEN the Constitution is A PROBLEM.
That's why these people call it a charter of NEGATIVE liberties,
and I'm telling you, this is WHY Obama is animated and does the things he does.
He does NOT LIKE THE LIMITS the Constitution places ON HIM.
He DOESN'T LIKE THE LIMITATIONS in the Bill of Rights ON HIM AS president.
Kings and leaders should not be bound by such infantile things.
The people don't know what's best for them.
They don't know what kind of dangers can happen when they open their mouths too much.
They don't know the dangers can happen if they pick up a gun.
They do not know enough to be allowed to practice religion freely.

So the first 10 amendments is a charter -- the whole Constitution, actually,
but the first 10 amendments becomes a charter of NEGATIVE liberties
BECAUSE, from the standpoint of liberals, it's negative
'cause it tells Democrats and liberals WHAT THEY CAN'T DO TO PEOPLE.
That's why THEY HATE IT, and that's WHY they are forever TRYING TO ERASE THEM, OBSCURE THEM WATER THEM DOWN,
'cause THEY DON'T LIKE THE LIMITATIONS ON THEM.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE LIMITATIONS ON the size of government, the power of government, the reach of government.

They want to have MORE POWER THAN YOUR FREEDOM.
They want MORE POWER OVER YOU THAN YOUR LIBERTY, which YOU HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY GOD,
by virtue of the fact that IT IS PART OF THE WAY YOU ARTE CREATED.
IT IS IN your DNA, however you want to specify this, however way it makes sense to you.
If you DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, you got A PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING THIS,
but for those of you WHO BELIEVE IN GOD, the GOD OF CREATION --
and, by the way, there can be evolution at the same time.
I don't want to get sidetracked with you nabobs on that.

I'm just ANTICIPATING YOU LITTLE LIBERALS out there shouting at your radio,
"What about evolution?
What about evolution?
Scott Walker! Scott Walker!"
Just cram it for a second.
I know you people are out there, and I know how you're just throwing things at the radio right now,
but screw it, you don't know what you're talking about.
The point is,
THE UNITED STATES IS INDEED SPECIAL. IT IS INDEED BLESSED.
The United States is indeed unique.
The United States is indeed one-of-a-kind.
The United States of America is indeed exceptional PRECISELY BECAUSE its founding documents and Founding Fathers were ASTUTE enough and BRILLIANT enough to ACKNOWLEDGE THE RIGHTS INHERENT TO BEING A HUMAN BEING
and that no government --
which is just a group of men, just another group of people
-- shall have the right TO TAKE THESE RIGHTS AWAY, shall have THE POWER.

No group of men will have the power TO TAKE AWAY YOUR FREEDOM.
We the founders ARE WRITING IT SO, because we understand FROM WHERE THESE RIGHTS COM.
It was brilliant.
And from the beginning of the existence of the Constitution, it's been argued over,
because obviously big statist liberals, big-government liberals and dictators and tyrants and so forth,
this is A PROBLEM FOR THEM
That's WHY the United States is a target.
People have been trying to chip away, defeat the United States forever BECAUSE when we say
it's an outpost for freedom, it's a shining city on the hill, it's a beacon or whatever, it is.
It's the only place.
That's WHY everybody wants to come here.

Dictators the world over do NOT SLEEP PEACEFULLY knowing there is a United States because there is every day LIVING TESTIMONY TO THEIR FRAUD.
The United States is living testimony and living example to THE FAILURE of socialism, communism, tyranny, no matter how good the intentions of the leaders.
And so it must be snuffed out.

Now, you get a guy like Obama, who was taught the kind of DRIVEL AND BILGE he was taught, like other people of his generation growing up.
There's nothing special here.
There's nothing exceptional here.
It's a racist, sexist, bigoted country,
and it's about time that we get even with all of these past 230 years of injustice.
And that's what the Obama administration's all about.
That's WHY what happened with the Supreme Court in the first case in Obamacare was so disappointing
because Obamacare IS CLEARLY, to a layman reading the document, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The government CANNOT MAKE US BUY something.
Until now.
But TO GET AROUND THAT, the Supreme Court went along with THE IDEA that
they're not really making us buy anything.
They're TAXING US if we don't buy something.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Semantic argument.
The bottom line is, according to the Constitution,
THEY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THE POWER to have the United States government administer probably over half of what it's involved in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I got an e-mail from somebody who thinks he's caught me.
"Hey, Rush, what about homosexuals and the right to work?
Are you telling me that the right to work is something...?
'Cause they weren't allowed to work UNTIL government came along."
No, no. You're missing the point, sir.
The Constitution DOESN'T ADDRESS HOMOSEXUALS.
The right to work IS A CONCOCTION born of the creation of unions.

You do NOT have A RIGHT to a job.

Nobody does.

Now, if somebody tells you,
"You can't work at a certain place BECAUSE you're homosexual,"
sorry, that's the government writing A LAW.
That's NOT a government creating A RIGHT.
So when the government comes along and says, "Gays MUST be hired," that's NOT A RIGHT.
That is A LAW, and it is TO CORRECT A VIOLATION OF an existing right, which is entailed in freedom.
But nobody has A RIGHT to a job.
Nobody has A RIGHT to an income.
Nobody has A RIGHT to health.

You have A RIGHT to live.

You have A RIGHT to life.

Unless you are aborted.

Try to figure that out within all of this.
You have A RIGHT to live, but nobody HAS TO GIVE YOU has to give you a job.
Nobody HAS TO GIVE YOU a "LIVABLE wage."
Those are NOT rights.
They may be things society MUTUALLY AGREES are good,
and which society's legal representatives would debate and pass A LAW
and the president would sign it, and it would BECOME LAW.
You'd have many people disagreeing with it, claiming GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO SET A LIVING WAGE (AND SHOULDN'T)
because, who has that kind of power and who gets to define it and all that.

But those are ARGUMENTS that societies have, free societies have.
And when you lose, IN A FREE SOCIETY, you live to fight another day.
If you lose.
It's the same thing in court.
The legal system is not about,
when you get right down to it -- and this is gonna blow you up again.
I could make the claim that the legal system is NOT ABOUT JUSTICE,
that the legal system EVEN VAGUELY WOULD NOT BE ABOUT FAIRNESS.
The way the legal system work, JUSTICE IS
EVERYBODY GETS THEIR DAY IN COURT.
But beyond that, THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES.

There are too many variables, and that's why the burden of proof IS ON THE ACCUSERS AND THOSE WHO ISSUE CHARGES.
They have TO PROVE IT IN OUR SYSTEM.
Now, I know there's corruption, and I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the structure here.
You have A RIGHT to a fair trial.
It doesn't mean that you're gonna be found innocent.
This stuff is... Some people think it's way complicated.
It isn't, IF you have an underpinning or ABILITY to look at things WITH LOGIC AND REASON.

There's NO RIGHT TO an income.
There's NO RIGHT TO a certain income.
There's NO RIGHT TO a job.
If there were a right to a job, you'd create your own.
Nobody could stop you -- unless you're breaking the law do get it, and then you'd get away with it 'til you got caught.
Nobody HAS TO GIVE YOU a job.
If you think somebody HAS TO GIVE YOU a job, you WANT the government to have the power TO FORCE SOMEBODY TO GIVE YOU a job.
That's not it.
We're not talking RIGHTS there.

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links


• CNSNews: CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

[Ray76]

Feb 12, 2015

While the majority of Alabama’s probate judges are following the rule of law, a few are not. Those few are the ones Liberty Counsel sued yesterday in a petition before the Alabama Supreme Court. Liberty Counsel’s mandamus petition requests that the Alabama Supreme Court order the probate judges to cease issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

America must adhere to the rule of law, not the arrogant creation of ‘laws’ by judicial activists,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.  Liberty Counsel is standing against misguided activism and in defense of the probate judges in Alabama who are refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1883

---

Feb 13, 2015

Late Friday afternoon, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the probate judges who are issuing same sex marriage licenses to respond to Liberty Counsel’s mandamus petition.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1884

[Guenevere]

Bttt