Democracy died today in the USA: the Supreme Court (#SCOTUS) killed it

Vivificat - From Contemplation to Action ^ | 6 October 2014 | Teófilo de Jesús (@vivificat)

[Teófilo]

Brethren, Peace to you all in Jesus Christ, our Supreme, Merciful Judge.

This is in the news at this time:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has turned away appeals from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.

The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states should be able to get married in short order.

That would make same-sex marriage legal in 30 states and the District of Columbia.

But the justices have left unresolved for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.

Analysis. The decision by the SCOTUS not to hear the appeals from Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin regarding the right of the states to define and regulate marriage, often inscribed in the states' constitution by popular referendum or by clear legislative majorities, sounds the death knell of the legal recognition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman in the United States. Even though the justices "have left unresolved for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide", we can't expect their future reversal  now that the floodgates have been opened in 30 states. Every law, every constitutional amendment protecting marriage as a marital union between one man and one woman is now fair game across the nation. By the time the SCOTUS even hears a case sorting the powers of the state to regulate and define marriage in accordance to natural law and the wishes of the states' societies, marriage will have been redefined by entrepreneurial jurists in all 50 states and territories. We have lost the war to protect the institution of marriage in this country.

It was just a matter of time. The Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas effectively denied the existence of God’s Eternal Law and natural law, and established its own atheistic and anarchic “morality.” (1) Their decision opened the way for the expansion of rights for people suffering from same-sex attractions in the name of absolute personal authority, and removed the duty of the state to protect and foster natural marriage as it has been understood throughout history. The state is now to be a mere passive recorder of any such "marital" unions entered by one or more consenting adults of either sex, however many, for however long the contracts may last. Ironically, the state retains its right to foster and finance Malthusian policies of birth and population control, including abortion, also in the name of protecting individual rights. It was just a matter of time for the SCOTUS to catch up with all of the consequences of their Lawrence v. Texas decision.

The SCOTUS refusal to hear the appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin represents a death-blow to republican, representative democracy and the power of the people to regulate society and its institution through ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments. SCOTUS has tacitly nullified laws without reason or comment across the whole country. We the People are no longer in charge: unelected jurists, educated in the latest deconstructive, postmodern trends and informed by hundreds of "scientists" whose advice the jurists value uncritically have succeeded in imposing a fiction over and against the will of the people. You might think I exaggerate, that I ignore previous instances in our history when such severe claims were made and "nothing happened." I assure you I'm aware of these instances and stand in what I say: SCOTUS has killed our democratic republican polity, this time through inaction.

Laws formulated over and against natural law are null and void from the moment of  their enactment.(2) People of conscience should not obey them and also should be prepared to face the social and civil consequences of their principled stance. Persecution against people of faith will now increase dramatically: the Democrats will dance for joy and the Republicans, who during the years they were in power confirmed many of the jurists now governing us, and wary of the polls, will look the other way.

The isolation of people of faith and attempts at further excluding them from the civil and political arena will now intensify. We must be prepared for the upcoming persecution as we mourn the death of democracy and the last vestiges of the Nation's adherence to natural law in America today.

Notes.

1. TFP Committe on American Issues, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist
Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement, 2004, p.1.

2. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience) to abstatin from its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we, are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine." -- (William Blackstone, as quoted by Clarence B. Carson in _The American Tradition_, p. 41)

[Iscool]

Six Catholics on the Supreme Court...Bet there won’t be a peep out of your pope...

[lastchance]

Griswold V Connecticut, when the Supreme Court ruled that States could not ban contraceptives. It lead to a general acceptance that the reproductive and unitive aspects of sex could be separated.

[Teófilo]

Probably not. Should there be?

[Teófilo]

Got it thanks.

[rdl6989]

Bttt

[morphing libertarian]

Died in cal long ago

Prop 187

[Clemenza]

1. The US is a Republic, NOT a Democracy. Not that this wasn't' a s--t decision mind you.

2. Why does someone from a thoroughly miscegenated, third world welfare dependent "commonwealth" like PR care?

[Arthur McGowan]

The “birth certificate” is a crude, clumsy digital concoction, not a scan of any existing piece of paper.

If you haven’t seen any evidence, it can only be that you have avoided seeing it.

You must have some powerful motive for not wanting to know the truth.

[Iscool]

You must have some powerful motive for not wanting to know the truth.

I'm with you on that one...Like don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up...

[Arthur McGowan]

I’ve been noticing for seven years how angry people can get when the subject of the birth certificate (or other evidence that “Obama” is a foreign agent hostile to the U.S.) comes up. Why would people get angry? Fear.

Of course, since January 22, 1973 there has been NO justification for thinking that the “federal government” is anything other than a murderous criminal conspiracy.

[Iscool]

I’ve been noticing for seven years how angry people can get when the subject of the birth certificate (or other evidence that “Obama” is a foreign agent hostile to the U.S.) comes up. Why would people get angry? Fear.

Possibly fear of being duped...Sometimes it's a big blow to ego...It can be tough to admit you are wrong...Even when facts are presented...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

We absolutely need a battery of amendments!

For safer borders too.

And for a new elected body whose only job is to initiate spending cuts and mandate debates if congress tries to veto them.

For more state power regarding education and law enforcement innovations. [Maybe give congress veto power after sufficient debates rake over establishment congress critters.]

For a mandatory debate system that puts nutty professors and activist judges on the hot plate.

And YES — for banning any redefinitions of MARRIAGE! [God willing, I'll flesh these ideas out more after this important election.]

[Teófilo]

I appreciate the 5-cent psychoanalysis, but none is needed, thank you. I’m a big boy, educated, and experienced and I can reach my own conclusions.

Let’s work together on those things we do agree upon. The sooner you accept the fact that we’re not going to agree on anything, the sooner we can work together in stopping the evil we do agree exists.

~Theo

[Teófilo]

"Miscegenated"? Well yes, I am, and proudly so.

There's always a benighted crackpot in the forum who learned nothing at civics and who believes himself capable of teaching others about Politics 101, knowing nothing himself about the subject at hand and what's worse, whose heart is but a cesspool of racial hatred.

Yes, I'm speaking about you. The evidence is in your words.

Go away, fool, go play in the pigpen by yourself. Kindly don't talk to me any more.

Theo

[Art in Idaho]

Most FReepers are aware of these links, but I post anyway for review and for people new to Article V. It is our responsibility to make Article V the most understood aspect of the US Constitution.

The longer we wait, the bigger the risk of secession or outright civil war. Spread the word and pass them on to your email list.

Convention of States - Alabama Way to go Alabama! A good introduction.

'Convention of states' to rein in government? Another great summary explanation.

The Case for an Article V. Convention. Fantastic explanation of Article V convention to the Mass State Legislature.

I would recommend watching the above three videos first and then:

Convention of States Lots of information here.

Article V Project to Restore Liberty Another good source.

A Summary of Mark Levin’s Proposed Amendments by Jacquerie

Chapter 1 of Mark Levin’s Book, The Liberty Amendments

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the Liberty Amendments

Rep. Bill Taylor introduces a Convention of States

Citizens for Self Governance: Convention of States Project – a hub of 15 youtube videos on the Convention of States

Mark Levin Article V, Liberty Amendments youtube video hub

Three hour video of C-Span interview with Mark Levin

Amendments Convention Links

Gaining Steam? Nearly 100 Lawmakers Descend on Mount Vernon to Talk Convention of States The beginning.

Convention to Propose Amendments to the United States Constitution

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process

Friends of Article V Convention Links

Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment by Jay Bybee. Repeal the 17th!

Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance by Robert Berry

The Final Constitutional Option

Article V Handbook - for State Legislators An important resource.

State Legislators Article V Caucus State Legislators, Join up at this site!

Send this list of links to your State Representatives and Senators here: Contact your State Legislators.

Sample Letter to state Representatives regarding the Convention of States Project and also, Talking Points. Both from Here.

Excellent Article V Letter to a State Assemblyman by Jacquerie

. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke. Let’s all work together to get this going.