By Publius Huldah
The courts have lawful authority under the supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) to overturn SOME Amendments to State Constitutions and SOME State laws.
It depends on whether the State provision conflicts with the federal Constitution, or with an Act of Congress which is authorized by the Constitution, or with a Treaty which is authorized by the Constitution.
For example: Say a State law says you have to be 45 years old to run for President. That would conflict with Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5, US Constitution, which establishes 35 years as the minimum age requirement. State laws can’t contradict the Constitution. So a court could properly strike down the State law which says Presidents must be at least 45 years old.
Do you see? The State Law, or State Constitutional provision, or State judicial opinion must CONTRADICT something in the federal Constitution, or Acts of Congress authorized by the Constitution, or Treaties authorized by the Constitution – before it may lawfully be struck down under the supremacy clause.
THE REASON AMERICANS HAVE SUCH DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT GRASPED THE SIMPLE CONCEPT THAT OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CREATED A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF “ENUMERATED POWERS” ONLY.
When acts of the national government are authorized by the Constitution, States can not lawfully contradict such acts.
But when acts of the national government are not authorized by the Constitution, then State legislators, officials and judges are obliged by their Oaths of Office to SPIT ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Quite right.
If you think the American system of government is supposed to dictatorship by a nine-man junta issuing edicts, and overturning our democratically-enacted Constitutions and laws, you might be a liberal.
When the 14th Amendment was enacted, abortion and sodomy were illegal everywhere, so-called same-sex marriage was unthinkable, and the legal trend at the time was to make the penalties for abortion more severe (because the invention of the stethoscope had revealed that unborn babies were active earlier than had previously been known). For any jurist to claim that the 14th Amendment created rights to commit those crimes — rights which weren’t “discovered” for more than a century — is not merely wrong, it is flagrantly dishonest.
Laws change, but they do not legitimately change by magic. The governing principle is stated in our Declaration of Independence: The legitimacy of government — that is, of laws, lawmakers, and law-enforcers — can be acquired in one and only one way: through the Consent Of The Governed.
The Governed — that is, the People of these United States — never consented to let unelected, unaccountable, renegade judges “reconstruct” our laws and Constitutions to mean things that would have astonished and horrified the people who wrote them.
The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution by the legitimate process of an amendment ratified by 3/4 of the States. It does not include any provisions creating a legal right for sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy or incest. Yet activist courts, lying about the 14th Amendment, have now legalized three of those crimes throughout the United States. The fourth and fifth — polygamy and incest — will be next:
https://archive.today/lmnIp#selection-717.47-717.266
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/incest-taboo-shouldnt-be-illegal-german-experts-say-n211391
How can polygamy and incest continue to be prohibited if, as a CNN writer editorialized, “Morals-based legislation has been unconstitutional since 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, and so we cannot just continue ignoring the polygamists’ clamor for acceptance.”
If the 14th Amendment had actually included a provision to legalize any of those crimes, it would not have passed Congress, and it could not have been ratified. In fact, it is nearly certain that in the 18th or 19th century, or even in most of the 20th century, not a single State would have voted for ratification of any Constitutional Amendment which created a right to commit any of those crimes.
If you want to change the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, the only honest, legitimate way to do so is the amend it. The simple fact is that there is insufficient public support to amend the U.S. Constitution to legitimately legalize those crimes.
As for the merits and costs of legalizing sodomy, abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy, incest, etc., those are rightly topics for pubic debate in a democratic society. If you think any or all of those acts, which were all illegal throughout the USA when the Constitution was written and ratified, should be made legal, the legitimate way to make that happen is to convince voters and legislators in sufficient numbers to get the laws changed. It is neither legitimate nor honest to simply get some judge to pretend that the U.S. Constitution says something that it plainly does not say, and was never intended to say.
It is also worth noting that the very first sentence in Article I of the U.S. Constitution declares that “All” legislative (i.e., lawmaking) powers of the federal government are vested in Congress. Not “some” or “most,” but “all.” That means that the courts do not have Constitutional authority to make or change laws.
As Thomas Jefferson said, “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.”
That sentiment was not peculiar to Jefferson. It was the consensus of the Framers. In fact, Hamilton, Madison & Jay, writing in The Federalist Papers (making the case for ratification of the Constitution) declared that impeachment was the appropriate remedy for judges who exercised their own Will, rather than honest Judgment about the true intended meaning of the laws. In fact, in Federalist #81, they declare that it is the threat of impeachment which will keep judges honest.
To learn more, google search for this quoted phrase:
“punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations.”
Government officials like Kim Davis aren’t sworn to uphold left-wing activist judges’ lies, they are sworn to uphold the actual Constitutions of the United States and their own State. In Davis’ case, the former says nothing about same-sex counterfeit marriage, and the latter explicitly forbids it. Anyone who issues same-sex marriage licenses is in violation of his oath of office, and the five liberals on the SCOTUS who trampled the Constitution to trample our values should be impeached.
Funny you brought up the 14th Amendment. We might want to argue that it was not legally ratified and the 13th Amendment as well.
Great read but based on a false notion the Constitution is actually the law of the land. In the end it will only become the law of the land once again if and when the people are willing to hold those who violate it accountable by any and all necessary means. Sadly, I expect as long as the beer and TV sports hold out little or no action is likely.
Gentlemen, those of us who share a like mind need a new country.
Where might that be?
Ah, there’s the rub. My wife and I are praying God might bless an effort in the American north west. It is a daunting task and much needs to be done but we will most assuredly hang separately if we stay in place.
It may be possible to move enough like minded people into that area, gain elected office in those areas, work for autonomy, and eventually sovereignty.
There are no illusions on my part regarding such an effort. The path is narrow and fraught with steep obstacles yet is it not worth the effort? If we do not take up the task we and our children shall continue to suffer the erosion of what liberties those liberties are all but a memory.
I often like to remind people that when I was quite young one could buy guns via mail, dynamite from a hardware store, and pray in public schools. All of those are meant to point out how far we are removed and the urgency of the task at hand.
Been looking at that area.
As a Southern man, by the grace of God, having roots in Dixie since the early 1700s, it is difficult to even consider leaving but being realistic, knowing demographics are destiny, it leaves me little alternative but to look for options. As fate would have it we took a trip a couple of years back up through Miinesota, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. and were stunned, stunned by the life they lead. It reminded me of my hometown back in the early 60s and although quote young vividly remember beong able to run around, ride my bike, and stay out until dark without fear of attacks, kidnapping, molestation, or worse.
While all those states sharing certain similarities Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana displayed a more favorable political climate and better demographics, So while we haven’t made the move just yet we are saving the dollars government sees fit to leave us and have put our property up for sale. As soon as the Almighty sees fit to bless us with a buyer we are gone.