®™©
Supreme Court to “RULE” on Rowan
County Clerk Kim Davis pictured at right, who refuses to grant marriage licenses to ‘Sodomites’. She
claims “her Christian beliefs have been violated.”
But of course that’s based on the First Amendment, and we no longer have a
First Amendment. Actually we no longer
have Constitutional law, just Judicial Tyranny.
Why is this happening? Anytime
the Constitution is violated we will have extreme conflict because ‘all other
rights and laws’ are constructed on the foundation of the American
Constitution. So if we violate one of
these rights like dominoes they will all fall, and with the chaos it produces,
we will eventually lose them all.
Note: the jargon used by the dissenting Supreme Court Justus’s of “creating the new right,” has even the minds of the good
guys on the court skewed and controlled, if even that goes unchallenged it
leaves the impression that the Court can in fact create law, create rights, or
overturn them at will. Well they can and
they have, but only because “We The
People” let them illegally
get away with it.
Regardless
of which side of this argument you find yourself on, it doesn’t change the fact
that this is not how a Representative Constitutional Republic is legally and
constitutionally supposed to function. Our
Government has truly become wrought with nothing less than “Judicial
Tyranny.”
You might want to think long and hard about that
fact in the coming election.
My heartfelt thanks and prayers go out to Kim Davis
for standing up for herself, for her belief in God, her rights, for standing up
for all the rest of the American people, and for U.S. Constitutional law. It looks to me like Kim Davis may just become
a true martyr for Jesus Christ in the face of government judicial tyranny.
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
“The Courts Can’t Rule,” its Judicial
Tyranny
By de Andréa, Opinion Editorialist
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
for ‘THE BOTTOM LINE’:
Published September 02, 2015
Note: de Andrea’s credentials
regarding this particular subject, are two years of constitutional studies at
Hillsdale University in Hillsdale Michigan. One year of “Constitutional History” and one
year of “Applied Constitutional Law.”
Despite this blatant violation of Constitutional law by the
courts, the full U.S. Supreme Court, including two justices who illegally
performed “same-sex wedding” ceremonies while the issue was before them, on
Monday illegally denied a Kentucky county clerk’s request for a stay of a judge’s order that she issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Rowan County Clerk Kim
Davis’ attorneys with the nonprofit Liberty
Counsel had asked for a stay as her case developed at the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver said, Davis would report to work on Tuesday
and “face
whatever she has to face.”
He told reporters, “She’s going to have to think and pray about
her decision … she certainly understands the consequences either way.”
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the district, was one of two
justices, along with Ruth Ginsberg, who defied the law and conventional
judicial ethics and performed a “same-sex wedding” while the Obergefell case
establishing the legality of same-sex marriage was under consideration.
She had received the request for a stay in the Davis case and
referred it to the whole court.
But the justices refused to consider Davis’s U.S. Constitutional
First Amendment religious rights and, without comment, refused to act.
Read Takedown:
From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage. Systematically replacing the morality of God
with immoral government tyranny.
Liberty Counsel has noted that even the district court, which
issued the order against Davis, admitted that the case presented a “conflict”
between two individual liberties held sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.”
One was the enumerated long held constitutional right to
religious freedom, the other, the Courts illegally created same sex marriage
right.
Staver had argued: “Providing religious conviction
accommodations is not antithetical for public employees. Throughout our
history, the courts have accommodated people’s deeply held religious beliefs.”
“The Supreme Court’s marriage ‘opinion’ does not suggest that
religious accommodations cannot be made or that people have a fundamental right
to receive a marriage license from a particular clerk,” he continued, referencing
the original ‘opinion’.
“There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far
without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’ First
Amendment rights,” he said.
“The SSM Mandate demands that she either fall in line (her
conscience be damned) or leave office (her livelihood and job for three decades
in the clerk’s office be damned). If Davis’ religious objection cannot be
accommodated when Kentucky marriage licenses are available in more than 130
marriage licensing locations, and many other less restrictive alternatives
remain available, then elected officials have no real religious freedom when
they take public office.”
The courts have misbehaved already, the document argues.
“No court, and especially no third-party desiring to violate
religious belief, is fit to set the contours of conscience,” Liberty Counsel argued. “For
if that were true, a person who religiously objects to wartime combat would be
forced to shoulder a rifle regardless of their conscience or be refused
citizenship; a person who religiously objects to work on the Sabbath day of
their faith would be forced to accept such work regardless of their conscience
or lose access to state unemployment benefits; a person who religiously objects
to state-mandated schooling for their children would be forced to send their
children to school regardless of their conscience or face criminal penalties; a
person who religiously objects to state-approved messages would be forced to
carry that message on their vehicles regardless of their conscience or face
criminal penalties; a person who religiously objects to capital punishment
would be forced to participate in an execution regardless of their conscience
or lose their job; a person who religiously objects to providing
abortion-related and contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees would
be forced to pay for such coverage regardless of their conscience or face
staggering fines.”
Those are examples showing “that the majority who adhere to a general law”
do not “control the dictates of individual conscience.”
The Obergefell case, in fact, recognized the religious rights of
Americans, even while the courts illegally created the new right to same-sex
marriage, in violation of Federal DOMA, which still is the law until - if an
when Congress may repeal it.
“Obergefell unanimously held that First Amendment protections
for religious persons remain despite SSM,” Liberty argued.
WorldNetDaily reported: that “gays” were
demanding Davis be charged with official misconduct. Davis had stopped issuing any marriage
licenses period, in order not to
discriminate against anyone, following the Supreme Court’s creation of the new
marriage right law.
She also has filed a separate lawsuit against her governor for
violating her religious rights.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Even though this has been
made a religions issue, I still wonder if this battle should be fought on a legal
bases rather than religious bases. After all courts are not religious
institutions they are legal institutions. And in spite of the fact that the courts are
violating the religious rights of citizens in the process, the courts are in
point of fact violating the law, that is fundamental. We can argue all day about moralities and get
nowhere because it’s faith based and personal, but the law must be the same for
all, even the courts.
The four dissenting Supreme Court justices – John Roberts,
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – all warned that creating “the new right of same-sex
marriage”
would war
against the existing right of religious exercise embedded in the U.S.
Constitution.
And here we are, two months later, and what they said is already
coming to fruition.
Why is this happening? Anytime
the Constitution is violated we will have extreme conflict because ‘all other
rights and laws’ are constructed on the foundation of the American
Constitution. So if we violate one of
these rights like dominoes they will all fall, and with the chaos it produces,
we will eventually lose them all.
Note: the jargon used by the dissenting Supreme Court Justus’s of “creating the new right,” has even the minds of the good
guys on the court skewed and controlled, if even that goes unchallenged it
leaves the impression that the Court can in fact create law, create rights, or
overturn them at will. Well they can and
they have, but only because “We The
People” let them illegally
get away with it.
In a
letter to Judge Spencer Roane, in November 1819, he wrote, judicial tyranny
made the Constitution “a thing of
wax.”
“If [as the Federalists
say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of
the government,” …, “then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se. …
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of
the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It
should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever
power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at
first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that
relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They
are inherently independent of all but moral law…”
Regardless
of which side of this argument you find yourself on, it doesn’t change the fact
that this is not how a Representative Constitutional Republic is legally and
constitutionally supposed to function. Our
Government has truly become wrought with nothing less than “Judicial
Tyranny.”
You might want to think long and hard about that
fact in the coming election.
My heartfelt thanks and prayers go out to Kim Davis
for standing up for herself, for her belief in God, her rights, for standing up
for all the rest of the American people, and for U.S. Constitutional law. It looks to me like Kim Davis may just become
a true martyr for Jesus Christ in the face of government judicial tyranny.
Thanks for listening – de Andréa
Please pass on this
article to everyone on your email list.
It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.
Copyright © 2014 by Bottom
Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved - Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of
this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links
to referenced articles as source materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment