Honor & Integrity Lacking at White House

(Opinerlog Editorial Published by Rochester "Democrat & Chronicle" 02-10-15)

None other than the New York Times reported that Speaker Boehner did inform the White House of the invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu before the invitation was accepted. For whatever nefarious reason, the White House remained silent until after Netanyahu accepted the invitation. In short, folks, there was no "breach in protocol" and the White House knew it.

So, what induced this White House chicanery? Embarrass and undermine Netanyahu and impugn Speaker Boehner. Nothing more high-minded than that.

One must properly question if this White House is capable of dignity, integrity, sound judgement and grace.

With each lie, "phony" scandal, act of lawlessness and rank adolescence, this White House disgraces both the Office of the President and the American people. If unchecked, two more years of this sophomoric and unprincipled administration may be more than America and the World can bear.

Obama Arbitrarily Seizes Sovereign Alaskan Territory

Am getting mighty sick of Congress whining about executive overreach and of States helplessly bemoaning lawless federal seizures of their real estate. Mighty sick!!!

Since Sen. Murkowski characterizes the recent federal seizure of 12 million acres of Alaskan territory "a war on Alaska", my advice to Alaskans is simple and direct: if you really believe this, then NULLIFY this imperial White House decree at once!!! (The White House's justifying its imperiousness by dubbing the seized ANWR acreage "off-limits wilderness" is akin to putting lipstick on a pig! You can dress it up, but it's still invasive federal tyranny.)

If Alaskans really care to understand their constitutional authority over their own territory, for starters I urge Alaskans--as well as citizens of all other States--to read the US Constitution and to check out my post entitled "Federal Imperialism vs State Sovereignty" on Opinerlog.blogspot.com.

The solution to this brazen federal overreach is as plain as the snow on an Alaskan's face! Stop whining and stop meekly submitting to federal excess! JUST SAY NO BLOODY WAY!!!!!! Who knows. You might even encourage other States to finally stand tall and proud.

But, what will Alaskans most likely do to resolve this federal excess? Well, if history is any indication, Alaskans will submit to lengthy litigation in FEDERAL courts with precious little hope of prevailing in the end. I mean, if you have a territorial dispute with another party, why wouldn't you, the aggrieved party, rely upon the other party's lawyers to fairly settle the dispute? Because doing so would be both stupid and irresponsible. That's why!

I am just so very sick of States who are so routinely unwilling to stand up for themselves, the US and their own State Constitutions, the rights of their Citizens and the Rule of Law. SICK!!!!

If you choose to be spineless and unprincipled, you deserve what you get, Alaska!

On Censuring Obama & Tightening Up Article II of Constitution

Since Congress lacks the political courage to impeach the most reckless, overreaching and lawless chief executive in our nation's history, it's time for Congress to, at the very least, censure Obama.

Obama is desperately looking for a respectable legacy, something which, to my way of thinking anyway, will most certainly elude him once future historians objectively weigh in on his serial lawlessness and prevarication. But with a formal congressional censure on record, his historical reputation and respectability will, in any event, be justifiably tarnished forever,

While there is no legal consequence to a censure resolution against the President, the purpose is to publicly and formally rebuke, condemn, reprimand, denounce the president for his unacceptable actions. The practical effect is to warn him/her to desist, the underlying threat being that of impeachment--assuming, of course, that Congress ever finds its constitutional backbone to do so. Very importantly, such a public rebuke by the "people's house" would be a shot across the bow to future chief executives who, subject to human frailty and pride, might be similarly tempted to abuse their constitutional powers as well, the latter a troubling prospect which should profoundly concern all Americans of every political stripe everywhere.

And, yes, while the censure of a Chief Executive does not appear in the Constitution, Congress's censuring the president is not unprecedented, nor is it prohibited.

In 1834, Andrew Jackson was formally censured by the Senate. In 1842, the Senate censured John Tyler. In 1848, the House of Representatives censured James Polk, and both James Buchanan and Abe Lincoln were similarly rebuked by the Senate.

In short, a strong, undiluted message must be conveyed by the people's representatives to this insufferably arrogant and imperial Chief Executive that his lawlessness and serial lying, both rendered "high crimes and misdemeanors" by our Founders (look it up), are totally unacceptable, indisputable grounds for impeachment, and fully deserving of formal condemnation.

Tragically, Congress's simply wringing its collective hands and complaining about executive lawlessness does nothing more than sanction more executive lawlessness. When confronted with such unbridled executive overreach, congressional inaction is terribly unprincipled, misguided, irresponsible and intolerable.

Absent impeachment of this lawless chief executive or the successful congressional defunding of his unconstitutional executive actions, there remains no higher purpose for our representatives than to faithfully defend the Constitution from executive overreach. As such, there must be other constitutional remedies upon which the people may rely.

So, here's what I'm suggesting:

First, call your representatives and insist they aggressively move toward censuring this president forthwith, explaining why.

Second, to prevent further erosion of constitutional order, urge them to begin serious work on a constitutional amendment specifically designed to effectively restrain chief executives should they opt to exercise executive powers not specifically granted to them in the Constitution.

Toward that end, Article 2 should be amended to unambiguously define and clearly limit the scope of executive orders, memorandums, signing statements, etc. Such an amendment must be carefully crafted in a manner which renders its definition and meaning impervious to deliberate or inadvertent misinterpretation now or in the future by either lawyers, courts or politicians, often one and the same.

And because Congress cannot be relied upon to exercise its impeachment authority and because the Supreme Court may, in truth, only offer up unenforceable opinions on the constitutionality of laws/orders/regulations emanating from the Chief Executive, in lieu of congressional impeachment/conviction/removal from office per Art 1 Sec 3, the new amendment must include an efficient method for 60% of State Governors or Assemblies to nullify any such executive fiats within 60 days of their issuance, during which time those actions would not have the force of law. And should the States fail to meet this deadline, the House of Representatives would be required to approve or nullify such executive fiats within 30 days--during which time the executive action would be unenforceable--with a 60% vote. And should the Chief Executive ignore either the States or Congress in this matter, he and all officers illegally acting on the nullified executive action would be subject to immediate arrest and removal from office by US Marshals at the direction of Congress.

Unless this frightening executive excess is very carefully, substantively and urgently addressed now, we can be sure that future chief executives, emboldened by the lawless precedent set by Obama, will remain effectively unrestrained and our Constitution will be further and irretrievably eroded. This corrosive overreach will serve only to give license for more executive tyranny masked by the ambiguity of current law and inaction of Congress. This perilous situation must be eliminated if we are to properly safeguard what remains of our tattered Constitution and our fading Liberty.  If we fail to quickly address this issue head-on, tyranny will be the inevitable consequence.

To continue to do nothing about this brazen tyranny is a grievous disservice to America. Call your timid representatives, bring their attention to this urgent matter, and let's get this process moving!

Is America's Transformation Inevitable?

When outrageous becomes the norm, we've already breached that much-touted tipping point and are now plunging headlong toward national suicide.

Despite the serial lawlessness, betrayal and incremental foundational self-destruction being perpetrated upon us by our political overseers, so many of us have either not noticed, not fully grasped the phenomenon, been stunned into compliance, or become inured.

Short on principled leaders and statesmen determined to faithfully defend our Constitution and absent an energetic and virtuous electorate--the very building blocks of a viable republic--an insidious and likely irreversible transformation of our way of life and governing principles is most certainly well underway. That said, one has to question if our Founders foresaw such changes and, if so, what would they have counseled?

Unlike the Articles of Confederation which established a "perpetual union"--and we can all see how "perpetual" that turned out to be--the Constitution's purpose was to establish a "more perfect union"--not perfect, but more perfect.

Stellar students of history, our Founders understood that no compact/contract could ever be perfect or perpetual; that all compacts, if breached,  are subject to the equitable remedy of rescission (annulment), which, in the context of our voluntary compact of States, is equivalent to the concept of a State's secession (withdrawal), the converse of a State's accession (consent to join).

Of special significance, never once did our perceptive Founders view the "more perfect union" of States as "indivisible", a self-serving Lincolnesque invention to justify the north's invasion of the south, or that our union, with or without a clash of arms, would stand the test of time. In fact, contingent on their grudging consent to ratify the Constitution, and with nary a peep of protest from either Federalists or Anti-Federalists, Maryland, Virginia and Rhode Island, the latter which ratified the Constitution only after George Washington's election, explicitly reserved their right to rescind/revoke their ratification, or, in other words, withdraw from the union, if they became disenchanted with the arrangement. Thus, the Founders--framers and ratifiers alike--never believed that withdrawal from the union would be anything but a principled, entirely lawful, natural, and foreseeable development.

From the outset, and despite outrageously muddled revisionist judicial opinions, e.g. Texas v White (1869), and decades of revisionist indoctrination following the deliberately misnamed  "civil war", this compact of States, the united States of America, was understood by the Founders to be strictly voluntary. And like it or not, this voluntary union remains just that--voluntary. And no amount of revisionism or political correctness can alter that foundational truth.

Like in any contractual relationship, violations occur and conditions develop which render the original contract of no further use, benefit or relevance to one or more parties to that contract. Thus, perpetual was never intended to convey permanence or immutability, but, like any contract, a temporariness dictated by the benefits derived from that relationship by the parties to that contract. (The Articles of Confederation is a good example of the realistic limitations of the word "perpetual" for, as we all know, the Articles of Confederation quickly outlived is usefulness and was replaced by the States and their citizens with a federal republic in 1788.)

Astute students of history, both the Framers and Ratifiers clearly understood that, over time, no man-made political system could successfully resist corruption, mutation, transformation and, yes, eventual self-destruction. In short, they understood that the  historical constancy of change and mankind's need to painfully re-learn history's unpleasant lessons is as hard-wired as DNA itself.

For reasonably serious students of history, there is nothing especially profound about the foregoing observations, but in these perilous times of gargantuan national debt, a chasmic ideological divide among the electorate and its representatives, relentless violations of the Constitution at all levels of government, rampant lawlessness and habitual mendacity among our political leadership, and, yes, crippling subversion of our political system and the country's cultural fabric from within, dramatic systemic change is not only inevitable, but is already taking place. In short, our rapid transformation from a federal union of States to a unitary corporatist-welfare state has been underway for some time now.

As for our federal republic, or what little remains of it, let's remember that a citizenry's commitment to political union at ANY price is sheer folly. If our economic, social and political systems fail to adequately safeguard our inalienable rights and our representative form of government, then our adherence to that political union is not only short-sighted, it is breathtakingly delusional and manifestly suicidal.

Going forward, I can only hope that preserving our God-given natural rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will be our primary goal. And when it becomes crystal-clear that the federal union has failed us, then from a practical standpoint our options are limited to either emigrating to other more accommodating countries or relocating to those individual States within the current union where more fertile ground for constitutional and economic order may exist.

Remember that NOT ONCE did any of the Founders in any way deny our fundamental right to secede or revolt. (Indeed, the venerable Declaration of Independence, was our first successful act of secession, and the American Revolution our first act of revolution.)

From the outset, our Founders soberly understood that the union's days were, indeed, numbered. In fact, most of them would have been unsurprised by the so-called "civil war", though they would have bridled at the north's lawless actions to prevent the south's secession. At a terrible price in American treasure and lives, and only by application of overwhelming military force--not virtuous adherence to founding constitutional precepts--was the north able to quash the legitimate southern secession/war for independence in 1861. And, of course, the systemic legacy of that costly Pyrrhic northern victory has been nothing less than the substantive transformation of our federal republic into something very much at odds with the political arrangement our Founders had so carefully crafted and adopted. Why Pyrrhic? Because since the conclusion of the War for Southern Independence, States have become vassals of an essentially boundless central government, something our Founders would have roundly condemned. That said, however, it appears that most of us have accepted monarchical rule so long as we are able to effectively delude ourselves into believing that this union of States is still a "republic".

To a man, our Founders would be astonished that the union today, a shattered copy of what was originally conceived, still remains at all. Thus, as said, if our best efforts fail to restore constitutional order on a national level, and if the electoral process continues to fail to restore the union as originally conceived, then the original compact among the States is, for all practical purposes, null and void, and has been null and void for some time now. Unsurprisingly, authoritarianism and, eventually, disunion are but natural consequences of the foundational disintegration we have been experiencing since the War for Southern Independence.

Now more than ever, and in the face of insidious political correctness, ideological delusion, a widespread Pollyanna mentality, and pervasive historical revisionism, our foundational governing principles and rights demand our clear-headed attention and vigorous assertion if we are to successfully survive the political treachery which has befallen us. If we genuinely cherish those principles and rights, then it remains our duty to defend and advance them in any way we can. If history is any lesson, once lost, only the clash of arms can again restore those principles and rights. And in that regard, we can only hope that such a painful re-learning of history's lessons can be averted.

If we can prevent national dissolution by restoring constitutional order throughout the land, all well and good. But, ALL appropriate Founder-sanctioned remedies to successfully counter the malignant deconstruction of our system of governance must be on the table. That said, my personal view is that, short of a miracle, the foundational deterioration of our republican-free enterprise system is so nearly complete as to render that corruption irreversible, the consequence of which is that the successful restoration of constitutional order on a national level is most likely unattainable. Not a Pollyanna by nature, I am, therefore, expecting the deterioration to worsen, but am both hoping and working to reverse this corrosive process. So, while I'm not throwing in the towel just yet, I am refocusing on more realistic and achievable outcomes. And that is precisely what we should all be doing. But, for starters, we must all jettison the blinders which dangerously impair our ability to clearly see conditions as they really are.

So, to clear-eyed patriots everywhere: don't be overwhelmed into compliance by the lawlessness, double-talk, chicanery and propaganda spewed by our "leaders" and their minions; keep your eyes on the ball and be prepared for further painful and dramatic change. Very importantly, however, begin developing a workable plan to survive and prevail as Freemen. My suggestion is that we take careful measure of those States within the current union which are most likely to successfully succeed as independent republican states. It's always a good idea to know where best to relocate our families when the rubber really does hit the road.

Our choice is simple: weak-kneed, mindless submission to and continued accommodation with an alien order quite at odds with our founding principles or a single-minded commitment to restoring constitutional order--if not on a broad national level, then on a State or regional/confederated level. In any event, I can only hope that most Americans will clearly see the subversion taking place, make no excuses for it, and finally take appropriate action to reverse course.

Watching our republic slip into oblivion, I wonder just what it will take to rouse Americans from their stupor? What will it take to encourage them to take convincing remedial action to shake up the power structure and to actually resurrect the republic. I'm still wondering, and I'm still without an answer. I don't pretend to have the solution, but I do know that our doing more of the same, i.e. a little more than nothing, solves just that: nothing!

("Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." A. Lincoln on the floor of the US House of Representatives, 1847.)

("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." Amendment X of the US Constitution, 1791)

("If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation...to a continuance in the union...I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.' " Thomas Jefferson)

("...a breach of any one article [of the Constitution] by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved." James Madison, The Madison Papers)

(Evaluating Lincoln's inspiring Gettysburg words that Union soldiers sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination, i.e. government of, by and for the people, H. L. Mencken asserted that "the Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.")

("If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." New York Tribune, 1860)

On Executive Lawlessness: What MUST We Do?

Of and by themselves, whining and studiously explaining the blatant unconstitutionality of Obama’s pending immigration executive order is a foolish exercise in futility.

The answer is to isolate and debilitate Obama. Cut him off at the knees.

If Obama recklessly carries out his threat to issue a sweeping and illegal immigration executive order, our congressional representatives--with tens of thousands of American patriots at their sides--must encircle the White House and demand his resignation! Such assertive, unified action will bring it all to a head one way or the other. This lawless Chief Executive will either resign or pull his lawless executive order. Chastened, perhaps he will then behave like a law-abiding President of the United States until his merciful departure in 2016.

In any event, merely chest-pounding and complaining will no longer be enough to stop the tyranny. Clearly, Obama's achieving his alien ideological goals--not upholding his oath of office or ensuring the Rule of Law--remains the menacing driving force behind all he does. A demonstrably serial liar and neo-Marxist, it is now time to stop him!

Congressional representatives should also use their bully pulpits by appealing directly to the States and to federal employees to ignore all such orders forthwith. Congress should also withhold any funding used to execute any illegal executive orders.

Better the temporary shutdown of a corrupt government than the complete collapse of our constitutional republic.

This is about so much more than simple-minded politics. It’s about safeguarding the doctrine of separation of powers and the very survival of our republic. If Obama–or any Chief Executive– is permitted to routinely get away with such brazen acts of lawlessness, the precedent, like a malignant cancer, will render the Constitution moribund and the Rule of Law an irrelevancy. We would, indeed, become a "banana republic". Are we really willing to accept that?

P.S. I understand the Constitutional Sheriffs Association is planning to descend on DC if Obama commits this crime. If so, then perhaps the Association can lead this effort. Sitting on our hands and hoping for the best or leaving it to fate alone is utterly irresponsible and suicidal.

"The most basic reason for a community or a nation to set up a system of government is to assure its inhabitants that the rights of the people shall be protected and preserved." Thomas Jefferson

"In the face of tyranny, always permit our Founders to be our guide. To prevail, we must be fearless, tenacious and unequivocal in our steadfast defense of Liberty."

How to Beat the Liberal-Progressive Democrat Machine

Most Americans understand the mortal threat posed by Modern Liberals-Progressives-Democrats: their unbridled insanity, shameless mendacity, ruthlessness; their visceral ideological loathing of the Constitution, free enterprise and individual liberty; and their relentless effort to "fundamentally transform the United States of America".

Conservatives continually point out the folly and perfidy of Liberals:  their hypocrisy, terribly failed policies, insidious racial and gender politics, deceit, and their subversive goal to destroy what precious little remains of this constitutional republic.

To blunt the Liberal machine, in a characteristically gentle, civilized, logical and, yes, self-defeating, manner we Conservatives-Republicans have tried to reason with them, to compromise with them, and to carefully explain to the American voters the demonstrative destructiveness of Progressive-Liberal policies--so far, however, with spectacular ineffectiveness.

So what's the answer? How do Conservatives-Republicans put the Democrats on their heels and politically prevail? How do we defeat the Progressive-Alinskyite machine?

Well, it seems it's a careful mix of Machiavelli, George Patton, Madison Avenue, Sun Tzu, commonsense and a heavy dose of some good 'ole American grit and determination!

Today, I read what is, for all practical purposes, a powerful political expose and primer regarding what the Democratic Party and its horribly destructive policies over the years have really been all about and what exactly Conservatives must understand and do in order to prevail at the ballot box. Entitled "Take No Prisoners" by David Horowitz, who has an incomparable insight into how the radical left operates, the following are some especially salient excerpts from his masterfully instructive and timely book. Republican campaigners, take note:

The most important battle in the world today is not being waged in the Middle East but here at home, in the United States.

If you don't come to the arena  ready to fight a political war, the Democrats will. And they will win. The passions that motivate them are self-righteousness and hate. They hate conservatives and Republicans, and think they are evil; they are missionaries, and their politics is a religion that provides them with a meaning for their existence. 

If forced to fight, then fight to win! In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability.

Democrats see history as something to transcend, not as providing a reservoir of experience from which they must learn; dishonesty is fundamental to the progressive cause since the cause is always about an imagined future whose panaceas cannot pass the test of experience.

The Democrats' primary agenda is not to promote practical solutions to complex problems; their only consistent agenda is power, which they hope to use to fundamentally transform America into a guardian state; the goal of each progressive program is the subordination of the private sector to the power of the state. 

Hope works, but fear is a stronger and more compelling emotion. 

Campaigns are supposed to make the other candidate unlikeable. (Your opponent is never described as a "good man", a "nice guy".)

Republicans target the problems; Democrats target the politics.

[Republicans] need to accept that Democrats are going to practice the politics of personal destruction and attribute to Republicans the sins they themselves have committed. They do it because that's the way they win.

Why are Republicans so reluctant to name the victims of Democrat policies, particularly the victims among America's minorities and working classes?

You must convince people you care about them before they'll care about what you have to say. When you speak, don't forget that sound bite is all you have. Whatever you have to say, make sure to say it loud and clear. Keep it simple and keep it short--a slogan is always better. Repeat it often. Put it on television. In politics, television is reality; images--symbols and sound bites--will always prevail. Focus your message and repeat it over and over again; what you project through images is what you are.

Suggested sound bite for Republicans: "Taxes for bureaucrats out of the pockets of the people."

You must define yourself in ways that people understand. You must give people hope in your victory and make them fear the victory of your opponent.

If Republicans want to persuade minorities they care, they have to stand up for them. They have to defend them. They have to show that Democrats are playing them for suckers, that Democrats are exploiting them, oppressing them, and profiting from their suffering--an easy case to make if there were Republicans willing to make it. 

For Republicans to win, it is necessary to compete with Democrats on the caring issues, to reach beyond the partisan core and expand the conservative base. 

Politics isn't just about reality. If it were, good principles and good policies would win every time. It's about images and symbols and the emotions they evoke. Using the romance of the underdog against the Democrats is the best way to neutralize their attack.

In political warfare, if only one side is shooting, the other side will soon be dead.

For Democrats, politics is not just about who will run the government. It's about the nature of government itself; Democrats regard politics as a religious war.

To win, it helps if you have good principles and good policies. But having a good image for yourself and attaching a bad image to your opponent is even better. In politics, as in other battles, what is decisive is how you fight. If you are losing, you need to look to yourself for the reason why you are not doing better. (In the long run, the American people will do the right thing.)

Because Conservative expectations are low, they easily become self-fulfilling visions of defeat.

Democrats will not become "reasonable" until the American people understand what they are doing. The only way this will happen is if Republicans make the Democrats' oppression of the poor and minority children the focus of their political attack; the attack must expose the Democrats' hypocrisy, tarring their character in the same way and to the same degree that current Democratic attacks taint conservatives. It must pack the emotional wallop that will neutralize the assault. 

Elections are driven by emotions, not reason, and when it comes to mobilizing political emotions, Democrats beat Republicans, hands down. While the Democratic attack appeals to the base emotions of envy, resentment, and fear, Republicans' response to Democrats' attacks is ineffective because it speaks to voters in a language which is abstract, unemotional, and indirect. 

Republicans win national elections only when they put national security issues at the center of their campaigns.

When Democrats attack, they speak from the same text, when they march to the polls, they march in lockstep; because Republicans speak with many voices, their message is diluted, hard to hear, and difficult to understand; Republicans do not frame their campaigns as moral crusades and do not mobilize their troops under the banner of a morally uplifting, unifying idea. 

It is time [for the Republicans] to connect the struggles for individual freedom at home and the defense of our free society abroad, and to make them one.

To make a strong case for limited government and individual freedom, conservatives need to address the concern that Americans have for the well-being of others. They must speak to Americans' hearts and not just their pocketbooks.

Re Tea Party and the Republican Party: Understanding that conservatives disagree on tactics, not fundamentals, is crucial to keeping the marriage alive. A tactical difference is not grounds for divorce.

Fighting fire with fire means throwing the Democrats' atrocities against black and brown Americans in their faces every time they open their mouths. It means condemning them for destroying the lives of millions of poor black and Hispanic children. It means taking up the cause of the victims and indicting the progressive perpetrators. 

I could easily and enthusiastically go on, but I think you can all see how critically important and timely this wonderfully readable and instructive book really is. Obviously, I highly recommend this book to every Republican-Conservative campaigner, consultant and leader who is genuinely determined to achieve electoral success and a restoration of constitutional order in America. I can only hope that Rince Priebus has taken the time to read it and to share its wisdom with fellow Republicans running for office.

To the Conservative-Republican-Tea Party alliance: this is a MUST-READ-NOW book!

Utah Governor Bows to Federal Judiciary

In response to the Supreme Court's deferral to a lower court's decision to override Utah's ban against gay marriages, Utah Governor Gary Herbert announced his intention today to "uphold the rule of law" by permitting gay marriages in Utah.

While he expressed his disappointment and even voiced his belief that defining gay marriage was within the purview of State authority, in the next breath he cavalierly yielded to the federal judiciary, thus violating what appeared to be his own sincere commitment to adhere to the rule of law.

Like so many of his other gubernatorial peers throughout the country, and by his dismaying self-contradictory stance in this matter, Gov. Herbert demonstrates that he is both confused and terribly ignorant of just what constitutes the "rule of law". I can only hope that this plague of ignorance gripping our State leadership throughout the country is unwitting and remediable.

For me, the issue is NOT merely a matter of whether or not gay marriage should be legalized by Utah or any other State, but, far more importantly, it is a matter of constitutional law, that law, the Supreme Law of the Land, with which Governor Herbert appears to be at once so fervently enamored and yet so terribly conflicted.

To Governor Herbert: The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution--NOT the federal judiciary!!!!! 

Thus, if the Governor is, as he asserts, committed to "upholding the rule of law", then, in accordance with his oath of office, that is precisely what he should do. In this instance, however, he flagrantly abdicated to the federal judiciary and, in so doing, he, in fact, abandoned the "rule of law".

The Supremacy Clause (Art VI para 2) grants supremacy to federal law/dictates only to the extent that those laws/dictates fall within the scope of clearly defined federal powers (Art 1). Per the 10th Amendment, those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the individual States and its People. These residual powers, whether enumerated or implied, are limited only by Art I Sec 8, Art I Sec 10 and Art VI para 2 of the Constitution. In other words, those powers not specifically delegated by the States and the People to the federal government are unarguably vested in the States and the People. Thus, like a whole host of matters these days, the federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to define gay marriage in the States. Period! Fullstop!

So, why is Governor Herbert and so many other elected State officials routinely deferring to federal laws/edicts/rules? My guess is that it is born of ignorance, willful or otherwise, but, more than likely, a burning and suicidal desire for an unencumbered stream of federal handouts.

For Governor Herbert and his gubernatorial peers, two clear, concise quotes for your attention and compliance:

"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." (10th Amendment, US Constitution, 1791)

"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." James Madison (The Federalist #45)

Restoration of constitutional order and the proper balance of power between the States and the federal government cannot be achieved until elected State officials dust off, read and faithfully adhere to our foundational constitutional principles. Only in this responsible way can the Rule of Law be achieved.

Until this pervasive and dangerous inclination on the part of our leaders to ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution is reversed, what precious little remains of our constitutional republic will soon slip into oblivion. In short, this sort of insidious suicidal ignorance of the Law must come to a screeching halt--and soon!!!