Thursday, January 23, 2014
Another Judicial Outrage!
Folks, this has nothing to do with one's personal feelings about how marriage should be defined. It is about the Rule of Law, the Constitution itself, and co-equality between the States and the central government.
My humble advice to Oklahomans is to dust off the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution and to summarily nullify this outrageously lawless ruling.
9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
Never once did our Founders grant federal judges constitutional authority to override/veto/nullify a State Constitutional Amendment which fully comports with the Constitution of the United States. And in this case, like marijuana and a whole host of other matters, defining marriage is strictly a matter for the State and the citizens of that State to decide and not the federal government--and most certainly NOT an unelected, unaccountable, black-robed judicial oligarch, an agent of the overreaching federal Leviathan!
The Founders purposely limited the federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in Article 1 Sec 8 and no others. Per the 10th Amendment, all other powers, whether expressed or implied, were vested in the States or the people. PERIOD. FULLSTOP.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
― James Madison
Folks, this isn't rocket science. The Founders were crystal-clear on this point. Achieving co-equality between the States and the federal government was of paramount importance to the them, this to prevent what is currently happening, that being federal usurpation of State authority.
And, of course, those who cluelessly view this judge's ruling as perfectly legitimate and falling within the full authority of the judiciary speciously and inanely point to the oft-misinterpreted Supremacy Clause to justify their claim that federal law overrides State law. So, AGAIN, let's draw their undivided attention to these intellectual giants to the actual wording of the Supremacy Clause:
Article VI, para 2 (Supremacy Clause): This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So, what words do these obfuscators and snake oil types routinely and conveniently omit? Yup! You got it. And by omitting those crucial words one can easily conclude that the central government IS the supreme law of the land. And, of course, that's utterly preposterous.
The Supremacy Clause stipulates that the federal government, of which the judiciary is a part, is supreme, but ONLY within its constitutional sphere of authority. In those myriad undefined areas of authority the federal government has ZERO authority and the States are, in fact, supreme. What this means is that the CONSTITUTION--and neither an act by the federal government or the States--is the supreme Law of the Land.
A judge's brazenly overriding a State referendum of its citizens in a matter which clearly falls outside the purview of the federal government (Art 1 Sec) but, rather, falls within the clear purview of State authority is nothing short of tyrannical; thus, the ruling should be rendered null and void of no legal effect within the sovereign confines of the State of Oklahoma.
As stewards of the Constitution and the liberty of its citizens, Oklahoma should unhesitatingly NULLIFY the ruling. That's what Oklahoma should do. But, will they do it? NOT until they dust off the 10th Amendment, get a spine, some constitutional principle and assert their sovereign authority.
And we all wonder why this country is in meltdown mode?