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 ...
Well, we’re in a fight for freedom against tyranny, not unlike we were 250 years ago.
The big difference between then and now is then, people by-an-large trusted in God and mistrusted man and government. That changed around the turn of the 20th century when people began to forget God and put their trust in man and government.
To be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we must once again put our trust in the God of the Bible. To have a political rebirth of freedom, we need a spiritual rebirth of freedom IMO. That’s not out of the question, and I think there’s a real possibility this will happen one more time as it has a few times in the past.
That is correct. The supreme Court was meant to be the weakest branch. And the theory was that all three branches derived their power from the people. It seems now as if the Executive is empowering the Judicial. Money now seems to be the lifeblood of the country, and the biggest influence on the Legislative branch.
I agree with that, but this woman’s view is completely wrapped around the religious objection. Although it traditionally has been adjudicated with exceptions, like in the case of a pacifist in the military, there could be no such protections negotiated for a county clerk. So I see that quite clearly..
But, non the less they are currently negotiating a fix. What the defendant would agree to is to keep her name off the licenses for any objectionable marriage. That could be done by a assistant, however the statute she works under is not likely clear enough and the court is still playing hardball.
This tells me that there is no intention by the court at this time to mitigate anything and it wants to show it’s fangs.
In any case, her law team will use all of the available legal arguments. Not just the religious objection, which as you noted and others have as well, will most certainly take a great deal of time to argue and it has to cook for a while to tenderize, so to speak...
Great. Ask Jefferson. That’s OK. But shouldn’t we be inquiring into the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, the CONSTITUTION?
Nobody’s doing that, so it’s not naïve sanguinity to point out the exceptional achievements of the USA and its Founding Fathers, and what has been done to undo them. What other nation truly did have the intent of setting up the rule of God on the planet?
The 10th and 11th Amendments to the Constitution were violated by the Supreme Court Justices that voted for gay marriage. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision is not valid. Question is who holds their feet to the fire for this bad decision?
10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
11th Amendment - The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Whether we all agree is irrelevant. The only thing that matters at this point in history is this: Who is going to do *anything* about it?
Has the judiciary over-stepped? Has the Legislature and the executive over-stepped? I am fully convinced they have. I also believe that any objective observer would reach the same conclusion.
So who’s going to do something about it? Does there exist a congressman, federal prosecutor, federal judge who has shown not only the interest, but the ability to do anything about it — other than flap their gums for the reporters? Is there some civilian, private or corporate entity that not only can, but *will* do something about it?
Despite being convinced that there exists ample evidence that would convince a reasonable and prudent person that all three branches have gone well beyond their constitutional limitations, I am also convinced that each branch is well aware that they enable each other to do so and as such there is nobody in any position of appropriate authority who can and will do anything of substance to remediate it.
We are stuck with the status quo until a leader arises who can *lead* (and I mean that in every sense of the word) the country out of this mess, and it will probably take multiple generations to get it done. Thinking good thoughts and being positive won’t be enough to get it done. It will have to get ugly to wean the country (from ghetto welfare all the way up to corporate welfare) off the govt teat.
Finally, because such a leader is extremely unlikely to appear, I am also convinced there really is no recovery. We’ve lost the original intent and purpose of the Constitution and gone waaaaay off into left field. Whatever we end up with will only have a passing resemblance, if even that much, to the founder’s vision.
For the love of GOD and all that is HOLY - someone show me how I’m wrong.
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.