“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.
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.
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.