Posted on 06/27/2015 9:55:17 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Friday’s Supreme Court decision is unadulterated judicial activism. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in dissent: “Today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to. . . . Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences” in other rightly condemned activist decisions.
Nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage in all 50 states, and five unelected justices do not have the authority to redefine marriage everywhere. Still, the question now is: What do we do?
I suggest that pro-marriage citizens should follow the example of pro-life citizens.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Pro-lifers were told they had lost, that the issue was settled.
Secede. It’s time.
“The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a ‘rebellion’ is a gross abuse of language.”
“Obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent the progress of a movement sanctified by its justice, and sustained by a virtuous people .”
“Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.”
“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
Davis
The acknowledgement is necessary that our Constitution is based only on Objective Truth-—not the Marxist philosophy of no biological connections (destroying Natural Law) —or the irrational concepts that the State has a right to kill off any useless eater. We are incompatible with Collective philosophy ALWAYS. Individual Natural Rights come from God only-—never the State. All collectives (sociallists) destroy Individual Natural Rights-—all of them ,and they CAN’T do that-—ever.
Our Constitution is Supreme. Always was-—the Judges are even destroying the word “supreme” along with making Justice promote Vice. It is irrational law which is ALWAYS unjust law.
There is meaning in ALL the Words in the Constitution and Founding Documents. The philosophy is Lockean and the Ethics are absolutely Christian Ethics.
All “Just Law” is NEVER allowed to be antithetical to that philosophy or that Ethic system——all Law that promotes vice, or theft (welfare) is unjust law and as Justice John Marshall stated all judges and politicians have a DUTY to NOT obey unjust law. They have the DUTY to declare unjust law “Null and Void”.
Care to post the USC article and section regarding secession? Then we can better discuss it.
Yeah! Give up! We will get nothing from anyone except from the Christian empire. And that looks unlikely except for talking points. We cannot even depend on the Catholic empire. The King Obama empire controls America and will unless we win in 2016 forget it. I do not like to admit defeat but we have nothing including the GOP to fight for us. The Federal Government is too big and communists controlled.
I’m amazed the Globe printed this.
I wrote two FReeper Education articles on federalism.
Last October I published Federalism: Yesterday and Today. Following the article I credited the books from which I drew my content. I slighted the period after the New Deal in order to reach a conclusion in a more expeditious manner because the essay was running too long. I think you commented on that thread.
Last March I published Reflections on the 82nd Anniversary of the New Deal. This covered the New Deal period and beyond at a deeper level. Some day, I’ll find a way to merge the two articles. I don’t think you saw that thread.
Grab the popcorn.
Care to point out the words abortion, marriage or even right to Privacy in the Constitution?
The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. It seems however that you look at it as the only ‘marriage’ that can’t end in divorce.
At some point there will be a divorce, hostile or otherwise.
Unlikely because they will get thrown off a roof before they have the chance to file a lawsuit.
Madison argued that the Constitution was different from the Articles of Confederation in one critical area. The Articles were a treaty between sovereign powers, thus governed by treaty law. The Constitution was a compact or contract wherein the Whole People, using the states as their agents, formed the contract. This is why Hamilton and Madison wanted the Constitution to be ratified by state ratifying conventions, not the state legislatures. It was an action of the Whole People, not the states, and was governed by contract law.
Under treaty law, if you think you're getting the short end of the stick, all you have to do is notify the other parties that you're leaving the treaty. Unilateral action is acceptable.
Under contract law, if you think you're getting the short end of the stick, you need the concurrence of the other parties to the contract to leave the contract. In one of the Federalist Papers in the 40 series, Madison argued that under the Constitution if even one state wished to secede, that would involve the dissolution of the Union, and that would require unanimous consent. In the first essay, I pointed out that Lincoln was willing to lower the bar to three fourths' consent. (Read the section marked "The Civil War and Its Aftermath.")
The Supreme Court supposedly settled the issue with Texas v. White in 1869. Under that decision, the Union is both permanent and indivisible. It was a case of the victors sealing off the exits for good.
In the essay, I pointed out that there were secession threats in 1803, 1815, 1832, 1850 and 1860. The federal response in each case was predicated on Madison's understanding of the Constitution as a contract, not as a treaty.
We can boast loudly of our successful push to heteronormativize gay culture until they reject gay marriage themselves.
Good suggestion but I believe that the next step is to make homosexuality a protected class of citizens where it will be illegal for anyone to deny a homosexual anything.
The notion that secession MIGHT be permissible IF it could be done somehow within the limits of the Constitution is specious. The Constitution doesn't cover the matter. At all. And with the government now openly ignoring any and all limits required by the Constitution, that game is over.
We can freely secede in any manner we like. It all comes down to Might Makes Right. If the federal government comes crashing down on us to impose tyranny and stop secession, then that is the way it goes -- we've been there before.
But the notion that secession is in any way "illegal" or "improper" or "unconstitutional" is just silly.
We do not have a social contract. We have a game of Power.
Marriage has been federalized. States should get out of the marriage business. There should only be a federal marriage license with registration and marriages performed at the local federal court house. Additional ceremony can be provided by churches.
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.