The best example of this in practice is President Lincoln. He ignored the appalling Dred Scott decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1857 which declared that blacks were not and could not be citizens of the United States and therefore had no legal protection. He issued passports to blacks and banned slavery in western districts, defying the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
This is EXACTLY what needs to happen.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I would not like to see the current president ignore the court’s recent opinion on the second amendment.
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”
— President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
After Obergefell: Dignity for the Second Amendment
Marc Greendorfer
Tri Valley Law; Zachor Legal Institute
August 28, 2015
Abstract:
On June 26, 2015, a sharply divided United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, commonly known as the “same sex marriage” cases. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, introduced the rationale for striking down state laws that did not recognize a right to same sex marriage: a theretofore unrecognized and unenumerated “dignity” right that took legal precedence over longstanding principles of federalism and the bedrock American legal tradition of allowing states to experiment with solutions to a wide range of social issues.
Justice Kennedy didn’t explicitly consign federalism to the ash heap of history, but to put the Court’s ruling into effect (that is, to force each of the 50 states to recognize a right to same sex marriage), the basic premise of federalism - that each state has the right to make its own laws, other than to the extent there is federal preemption for a limited universe of topics - has to be disemboweled. This description of the fate of federalism is particularly true in light of the fact that prior to Obergefell, there was no question that the regulation of marriage was a matter strictly consigned to state control.
What does Obergefell mean for other state and local laws that purport to regulate other matters that have been found to be protected by the Constitution? In particular, can any state laws that regulate the right to keep and bear arms, a right protected by the Second Amendment, survive in a post-Obergefell world?
This paper examines the Obergefell opinion (and the dissenting opinions) to argue that Justice Kennedy’s opinion results in the effective preemption of all state and local laws that affect fundamental rights, including the individual right to keep and bear arms.
(Note: This paper is an expansion of the amicus brief the author submitted in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court case, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2589220. The amicus brief has been downloaded from SSRN approximately 290 times as of September 2015.)
Number of Pages in PDF File: 21
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652536
What the author wrote in a blog that drew my attention to this paper:
>>
What I argued is the following-if the court gives this kind of protection to newly created rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, how would it ever be able to uphold any state infringement of existing fundamental rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, like the Second Amendments protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Justice Kennedys Obergefell opinion did exactly as I expected in my amicus brief.
.... Justice Kennedys opinion must mean, as a matter of 14th Amendment precedent, that all fundamental rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are now immune from state and local regulation. ...
<<
Every justice who voted for this ruling should be impeached for seeking to overturn the Tenth Amendment.
They called the SC decision an EDICT .... which can be received as legitimate if from a sovereign entity which the SC is not
It is something we should print out and keep in the bathroom to study
Well ... that's MY quiet place library, anyway.
We're already seeing the prosecution persecution of Christian individuals who do not bow to the US Supreme Court's unConstitutional act which elevated homosexual marriage to that of equality of heterosexual marriage.
We've already seen that in the Kim Davis (KY County Clerk) and in the "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" case as well. These two are but two examples.
There is also a case in a Nevada court where an Elvis based wedding chapel is being sued/was sued for not performing homosexual marriages --- and that's not the only chapel to do so.
We also have cases pursuing legal action where churches may lose their insurance coverage for not marrying homosexuals. Many insurance companies are either dropping coverage, or telling churches that they will not pay for any claims as a result of being sued by a homosexual couple for refusing to marry them.
Again, Christian prosecution PERSECUTION is happening already, and it's only going to get worse until Christians stand up en masse and REFUSE to follow the US Supreme Courts unConstitutional ruling.
That, and elect a President who takes a stand against the USSC.
The article at the top of this thread is and EXCELLENT read. Thanks for posting.
No decree contrary to the natural law can be binding on anyone.
That’s a legal consensus. The debate is over. Anyone questioning these facts is a Constitution Denier.
related thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3347628/posts?page=1
These scholars may be right in a normal world, but we live in Obamaworld, which is an upside down world.
The results, including the public’s yawn, come from decades of non-Bible based (ie, relativistic) media and education. We just kept our heads down, attended church, and saved for kid’s college and for our retirement, and here we are!
A government authorized license is not recognized by the Church as a valid marriage. The SCOUTS maintained the separation of Church and State by only legalizing the Government’s License requirements. It did not encroach upon the domain of the Church where Marriage is Biblical. Period.