Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[StMichael]

SB, who are you firing your gun at? Taking a stand, sure. Look at what took place with that rancher last year. It was a stand off and the BLM backed down. It is things like this that turns the tides, not an itchy trigger finger. 

What is needed is acts of civil disobedience against the unjust and lawless state, maybe it is a march of 30,000 gun owners in Los Angeles brandishing their weapons in support of the 2nd amendment. Maybe it is running for local office and changing things. 

The tyranny we are experiencing is a slow tyranny. I have no issues with looking it square in the eye, but truthfully those against liberty don't even know if FDR was a person or a highway. It is not their fault, they are not taught about Washington in government schools. They have no idea who Alexander Hamilton was and why he appears on our money. There is no understanding of what a huge crime Obama committed (among many) by single handedly renaming Mount McKinley. They don't know that Woodrow Wilson introduced segregation into the military or the Birth of a Nation was a KKK film screened at Wilson's White House. If they don't know, it is up to us to at least give them the opportunity to be exposed to the truth.

So, Kim Davis taking a stand creates discussion, maybe 1 person will ask, how did the Supreme Court make a law where none existed?

 

[superblue]

I hear you St. but there is a difference between an itchy trigger finger, and what happened with that standoff you speak of. In that instance, both sides were armed, women were used as human shields and protesting while most of the armed men were behind them each side was waiting to see who would bend first or fire first and i would wager a bet the entire world was watching that one; in this instance armed civilians won not civil disobedience; not a vote; it won't always be that way though; further more we need new laws for citizens to be able to protect themselves legally with a fire arm from law enforcement that abuse or are ignorant of the laws in question. And who are " they " or " I " going to fire our guns at " obviously those guns would be aimed at the same " law enforcement agents " who were standing against those ranchers.

 An armed marched as you suggested can be effective but also seen as nothing but itchy trigger fingers, restraint can prevail and be warranted, but not being willing to pull the trigger when needed can only assure that one is going to live under tryanny for a long time.  We don't have to line up in firing lines against the British to know who are the ones ruining the country. Naming names, and demanding that they first be arrested and removed from office immediately by local law enforcement is the best option, to replace them with who i will leave that up to you an who ever else can figure that out better. An if they refuse to go; then armed civilians can escort them out of office, and i would treat these officials just as criminals are, freeze all their assets and go to a show trial , and at best tell them they can have enough money to live no more comfortably than you or I , no need for prison sentences, just a congressional hearing to make sure everyone knows what is going on, fine em an make sure they can't financially regain power an kick em to the curb to live happily ever after.

 

Our founding fathers were educated, they tried doing things peaceably with a king, they didn't wait around for generations to become educated like them, they found enough people who had enough of living under a king, found financial backers, and a country to support them, drew up a mini government so that society would not be dangling in the wind with their pantaloons down, and finally armed up and fought to be independent.A slow tryanny is merely the testing grounds, prodding the defenses to see where weak spots are and chipping away right at those spots to get further in.  Educating one person at a time is like going after a penny when you could go after the dollar.An in this instance, in regards to Kim Davis and same sex unions and the supreme court, not enough people care that the supreme court is flat out wrong and even less care enough to do anything about it. 

The same debate happened over abortion, and nothing has changed, if anything it got worse.  If anything in this case here in this thread, the issue is misguided, there should be more outrage over the illegality of the entire process, but instead everyone focused on the morality.

But what are we supposed to do, when our law enforcement agents decide to enforce bad laws, side with " taking orders from superiors " and we have military leaders unwilling to break ranks and protect the country from a corrupt government... ? An exactly who gets to decide how bad is bad enough from the government exactly how bad off do the poor need to be and how many of our rights from our constitution and bill of rights need to be violated before taking armed action. Or do we go back to the supreme court to review our constitution an bill of rights and have them tell us ?

*** side note *** 

 

never mind tryanny is actually a better option because if an armed revolt and everything i just said did happen,  i totally forgot about the completely corrupt civilians in our nation that would go on a nanner spree of riots and looting while the nation was in up heavel ( spell check that for me )

the only way anything i said could possibly take place is as peaceably as possible would be with law enforcement and military on the side of civilians and not the government keeping order and peace stable during a transition.

[Socrates]

 

Well. I never attacked her character or her motives, and I am certainly not outraged at her actions (but I assume you are referring to the OP and not me). I believe that the proper thing would have been for her to resign, and I think that is a good thing to discuss because it relates to the general question of the proper course of action when work conflicts with the obligations of one's faith (I believe I already indicated that in a previous post).

OK. Fair enough. I thought that was what you were implying but that appears to have been a misunderstanding.

Hmm. So if Kim Davis or the majority of the KY house members convert to Islam and decide that she/they will only marry Muslims and reject all marriage applications from Christians - in your view is there anything in the Constitution that would prohibit her/them from doing so? I am not sure how that would be much different from Kim Davis rejecting gay couples the right to marry because it conflicts with her religious beliefs.

 

 

It would be different, in as far as marriage being defined as between a man and a woman (rather than same-sex couples), has nothing to do with the religion (or lack thereof) of the man and woman being married.

I agree there's probably not a whole lot a clerk can do, though I think her refusing to issue the licences and go to prison at least helps bring attention to the fundamental injustice and tyranny of the court's decision.  

(Good article by Phil Lawler in CatholicCulture.org here.)

 

I don't know the answer to that. Most reputable polls indicate that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. And I do not think that even you would deny that the numbers are moving more and more in their favor. It is much more acceptable today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. The attitude change over time frame has been dramatic and I don't think that anyone who has been paying attention would deny that.

I am not quite sure why you are asking me that. You are preaching to the choir to a certain extent. I think the decision was wrongly decided and I do not support gay marriage.

But I think you are missing the one of the main points of the constitution - which is to protect the individual against the will of the majority. The constitution provides that the government may not deny a person certain rights regardless of the majority opinion. In this particular case the Supreme Court held that homosexual marriages are one of those rights. I disagree with the court's decision, but I agree that the court has the right to decide the issue. If not then we may as well just eliminate the court all together and let each person decide for himself what the constitution requires and does not require. That sounds a bit Protestant, does it not?

The State is not my Church, and the federal government is not my God.  Supreme Court justices are given no mystical, divine authority to faithfully and correctly interpret the Constitution, and in many case, such as this one, they disregard what the Constitution actually says altogether, instead abusing their status to enforce their own will on the people.  That's the judicial tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned about.

There's absolutely no right to "gay marriage" found in the Constitution.  None.  Nada.  (Anymore than there's a "right" to kill unborn babies, to refer to another atrocious SCOTUS ruling.)

The court has no "right" to rule contrary to the Constitution its justices swore to uphold, and the states should hold them accountable to this (though that gets into other topics).  If the actual U.S. Constitution is irrelevant, and only the justices' opinion of importance, then we may as well eliminate the Constitution altogether!

 

Are you referring to me or someone else? I do not advocate that the Supreme Court or any other government entity act outside of the constitution where public opinion is on their side. Quite the contrary. I think that the law should be applied according to its terms.

The point that I was attempting to make, and which I apparently did not make very well, was that Christians appear to be losing the public debate on the issue. When that happens, it is only a matter of time until we have gay marriage, regardless of what the court does.

Now whether Christians are losing the public debate is something that you might disagree with. That is fine. I think that you could at least agree that the state of the public debate on the propriety of gay marriage is a whole lot worse today than it was 50 years ago. Polls today indicate that a small majority of Americans support gay marriage. What percentage of Americans would have found it acceptable 50 or 100 years ago? Not too many. Christians need to do something about this trend. Because it if keeps trending in this direction we will have gay marriage even if that court decision is reversed.

I agree with you that public opinion is going in a bad way on this issue, though I'm not sure it's quite as overwhelming as the media would have us believe.  Heck, the state of debate on the topic is a lot worse today than it was even 15 years ago, never mind 50 or a hundred!  And, yes, something needs to be done to change that trend.  And, yes, I've head some liberals use the whole "side of public opinion" argument to justify the courts tyranny.

But my point is that (from a purely constitutional standpoint) this is a matter left for the people of the individual states to decide, not the courts.  Popular votes are apparently not good enough for the Left, which prefers rule by federal judicial tyranny.

[Peace]

The State is not my Church, and the federal government is not my God.  Supreme Court justices are given no mystical, divine authority to faithfully and correctly interpret the Constitution, and in many case, such as this one, they disregard what the Constitution actually says altogether, instead abusing their status to enforce their own will on the people.  That's the judicial tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned about.

There's absolutely no right to "gay marriage" found in the Constitution.  None.  Nada.  (Anymore than there's a "right" to kill unborn babies, to refer to another atrocious SCOTUS ruling.)

The court has no "right" to rule contrary to the Constitution its justices swore to uphold, and the states should hold them accountable to this (though that gets into other topics).  If the actual U.S. Constitution is irrelevant, and only the justices' opinion of importance, then we may as well eliminate the Constitution altogether!

We do not have a system where the individual states have the power to decide for themselves what the constitution requires and does not require. Each state has its own constitution and the judges of the respective states interpret them.

 I do not think that there is a right to gay marriage or a right to abortion in the US Constitution either. But the question is - who gets to decide? Each state individually? Each person individually? We do not have such a system, but if you want a system like that you can advoate for it it and try to get such a system implemented as law. I do not think it would be very good but you are welcome to try that.

As for "Judges opnion only being important" - do not forget that judges are chosen through democratic processes, and we have a democrating process for amending the Consititution if necessary. If a judge makes a poor decision and says that there is a right to gay marriage that can be fixed. You can seek a constitutional amendment that says "No gay marriages under any circumstances" if you like. These are ways that we remedy error under our system of government. You seem to want a system where each state can just choose to decide for itself what the consitution requires - that seems to be a recipe for a war among the states, or for the federal government to disslove all together. Again - that is fine, but you would no longer be living in the United States of America. You would only be living in the State of Virginia (or wherever you happen to be).

[CatherineM]

We had to marry civilly first because of Canadian immigration. The marriage commissioner we engaged had been doing weddings in Alberta for 40 years. I asked him what he'd do if forced to do same sex services. He said he'd quit, but didn't think that would happen. Conscience exemptions were allowed then but changed pretty quickly after that. I suspect he quit rather than capitulate. 

[Socrates]

We do not have a system where the individual states have the power to decide for themselves what the constitution requires and does not require. Each state has its own constitution and the judges of the respective states interpret them.

 I do not think that there is a right to gay marriage or a right to abortion in the US Constitution either. But the question is - who gets to decide? Each state individually? Each person individually? We do not have such a system, but if you want a system like that you can advoate for it it and try to get such a system implemented as law. I do not think it would be very good but you are welcome to try that.

As for "Judges opnion only being important" - do not forget that judges are chosen through democratic processes, and we have a democrating process for amending the Consititution if necessary. If a judge makes a poor decision and says that there is a right to gay marriage that can be fixed. You can seek a constitutional amendment that says "No gay marriages under any circumstances" if you like. These are ways that we remedy error under our system of government. You seem to want a system where each state can just choose to decide for itself what the consitution requires - that seems to be a recipe for a war among the states, or for the federal government to disslove all together. Again - that is fine, but you would no longer be living in the United States of America. You would only be living in the State of Virginia (or wherever you happen to be).

Actually, I don't think that would be such a terrible thing.  (I live in Texas, btw.)

And the truth is, that is in fact much closer to the system the American Founding Fathers envisioned, heretical as such a notion might be to our modern Cult of the Almighty Federal Government.

The Founding Fathers, including in particular Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") believed in a system in which the three branches of the federal government - the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial - would each provide checks and balances on the other, not one in which one branch, the Judicial, would wield absolute, total, and unchecked power over the others.

That the entire country should be ultimately subject to the unchecked will and whims of nine men was seen as tyranny contrary to the principles of a free republican government.

Jefferson wrote:

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

He also wrote:

Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Jefferson in his writings repeatedly wisely warned against the evils of "judicial tyranny" in which federal judges would have complete unchecked final power over the other branches over the government, and over the individual states.

In fact, they regarded the states as having the ultimate final authority, and Jefferson and Madison actually supported the right of states to nullification - to declare null and void laws and rulings from the federal government in Washington that they regarded as unconstitutional.

The Constitution also provides that Congress may impeach and remove Supreme Court justices that overstep their bounds and abuse their power, same as it may impeach presidents.

Here's some more quotes from the founders regarding the Constitution and checks and balances of powers:

• "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (emphasis in the original)
   
• I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments. — James Madison
   
• Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority. — James Madison
   
• As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper. — James Madison
   
• [T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. — Thomas Jefferson
   
• Each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action.... — Thomas Jefferson
   
• An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. — Thomas Jefferson
   

Read full list here: http://www.renewamerica.com/article/090313

This page has some more quotes from Jefferson against judicial tyranny.

You can call it a quixotic long-shot effort with little chance of success, but I'm for a return to the principles of state nullification, as well as for an Article V convention of state legislatures to reign in the current out-of-control abuse of power by Washington.

You may disagree with Jefferson and Madison regarding the proper power and limits of the Judicial branch, or dismiss their ideas as archaisms irrelevant to our modern times of unlimited centralized government power, but given the Supreme Court's now long history of abuse of power

Let's be honest and straightforward here: cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wage aren't just poor interpretations or the Constitution, but are SCOTUS judges overstepping the bounds of their power to legislate and effectively create new laws out of whole cloth, which clearly violate the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As the Constitution delegates to the United States no power to define marriage, or protect a "right" to abortion, such rulings are in violation of the Constitution, and of the rights of the states.  The founding fathers rightfully warned against and opposed such federal tyranny.

[Peace]

 And the truth is, that is in fact much closer to the system the American Founding Fathers envisioned, heretical as such a notion might be to our modern Cult of the Almighty Federal Government.

You mean  a system where each state determines what the Federal Constitution means for itself is much closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned? If that were the case, what exactly would have been the purpose of having a national constitution? Why not just leave it to each state to draft and interpret their own constitutions? That seems like it would have been a much more efficient way of doing it if that is what they had intended.

The Founding Fathers, including in particular Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") believed in a system in which the three branches of the federal government - the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial - would each provide checks and balances on the other, not one in which one branch, the Judicial, would wield absolute, total, and unchecked power over the others.

Agreed. But the Judicial Branch does not wield "absolute, total, and unchecked power over the others." The federal laws are enforced, by and large, by the Executive Branch. Voters can replace the judges of the court by means of the presidents that they elect - thus enabling those judicial precedents to be overturned. And the Constitution itself is capable of being amended by democratic means (as has been done many times in the past. You also mentioned that the judges can be impeached by Congress. So I do not see how that amounts to absolute, total, and unchecked power of the Judicial Branch over the others.

Concerning all of the various information you provided to support your assertion that the Founding Fathers believed that the states should have the right to interpret the Constitution for themselves - I think that one can make a reasonable argument concerning in favor of your position, although I am not fully convinced by it. In general I do not think it is persuasive to refer papers, speeches, etc. and an indicator of what the Constitution means. You have tons of negotiations that go on before a legal document is ratified - some of those may have been recorded and some may not. It is kind of like trying to determine the meaning of scriptures written 2000 years ago on your own by referring to the writings of the early Church fathers, and ignoring the authority of the Church to interpret it.

Besides, I don't think it much matters even if that is what the Founding Fathers desired. Marbury v. Madison was decided 15 years after the Constitution was ratified while those same founding fathers were alive, and has been the accepted law of the land in this country for more than 200 years. Making an argument in the year 2015 about what the Founding Fathers "truly believed" while Marbury v. Madison has been the accepted law of the land in this country for over 200 years seems to be a boat that will not get you very far from the harbor.

You can call it a quixotic long-shot effort with little chance of success, but I'm for a return to the principles of state nullification, as well as for an Article V convention of state legislatures to reign in the current out-of-control abuse of power by Washington.

Go for it bro. How you choose to spend your free time is no particular concern of mine.

Let's be honest and straightforward here: cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges and Roe v. Wage aren't just poor interpretations or the Constitution, but are SCOTUS judges overstepping the bounds of their power to legislate and effectively create new laws out of whole cloth, which clearly violate the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As the Constitution delegates to the United States no power to define marriage, or protect a "right" to abortion, such rulings are in violation of the Constitution, and of the rights of the states.  The founding fathers rightfully warned against and opposed such federal tyranny.

I agree that those decisions amounted to judicial activism.

I think the main thing that we disagree upon is the proper response. I do not think that the proper response is to say "The states are free to ignore the manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution."

I think that a better response is the one of the ones that we discussed before, such as voting the judges out or impeaching them, amending the constitution, etc. I agree with you that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and I would use the means that they have provided to resolve those problems. If you start saying that individual states can ignore the constitution whenever they believe that it has been incorrectly interpreted I think you end up with chaos. I think you end up with what you see among the Protestants and their 10,000 denominations, each with its own interpretation of scripture.

If you want Texas to be it's own nation and no longer to be a United States of America, I think that is fine and reasonable (Austin is pretty cool in particular). And you don't need a Federal Government to tell you what you can or cannot do. I do not see anything wrong with that at all if that is what you want.

I think there are benefits to having a unified country comprising 50 states, instead of just 50 individual states that are fully independent. I like being able identify with the state in which I live and the things that make me and people who live in different states a unique and unified country.

For that, I think we need a national constitution and a body with real authority to interpret it.

[Benedictus]

Westboro Baptist Church hate Kim Davis. I guess she has something in common with her opponents now. Kim is also doing a book deal, so say reports

[Ice_nine]

Westboro Baptist Church hate Kim Davis. I guess she has something in common with her opponents now. Kim is also doing a book deal, so say reports

I think WBC hates everybody. Including themselves.

[Socrates]

You mean  a system where each state determines what the Federal Constitution means for itself is much closer to what the Founding Fathers envisioned? If that were the case, what exactly would have been the purpose of having a national constitution? Why not just leave it to each state to draft and interpret their own constitutions? That seems like it would have been a much more efficient way of doing it if that is what they had intended.

Agreed. But the Judicial Branch does not wield "absolute, total, and unchecked power over the others." The federal laws are enforced, by and large, by the Executive Branch. Voters can replace the judges of the court by means of the presidents that they elect - thus enabling those judicial precedents to be overturned. And the Constitution itself is capable of being amended by democratic means (as has been done many times in the past. You also mentioned that the judges can be impeached by Congress. So I do not see how that amounts to absolute, total, and unchecked power of the Judicial Branch over the others.

Concerning all of the various information you provided to support your assertion that the Founding Fathers believed that the states should have the right to interpret the Constitution for themselves - I think that one can make a reasonable argument concerning in favor of your position, although I am not fully convinced by it. In general I do not think it is persuasive to refer papers, speeches, etc. and an indicator of what the Constitution means. You have tons of negotiations that go on before a legal document is ratified - some of those may have been recorded and some may not. It is kind of like trying to determine the meaning of scriptures written 2000 years ago on your own by referring to the writings of the early Church fathers, and ignoring the authority of the Church to interpret it.

Besides, I don't think it much matters even if that is what the Founding Fathers desired. Marbury v. Madison was decided 15 years after the Constitution was ratified while those same founding fathers were alive, and has been the accepted law of the land in this country for more than 200 years. Making an argument in the year 2015 about what the Founding Fathers "truly believed" while Marbury v. Madison has been the accepted law of the land in this country for over 200 years seems to be a boat that will not get you very far from the harbor.

Go for it bro. How you choose to spend your free time is no particular concern of mine.

 

I think the historical record is pretty clear regarding what Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers thought regarding the nullification rights of states, and the dangers of the unchecked powers of federal courts.

 

And, no disrespect, but I somehow suspect that they (especially Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," who had more to do with its drafting than any other single person), perhaps knew just a tad more about the Constitution and its intended meaning than you do.

According to the Constitution, every power not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the States and their respective constitutions, rather than the federal government (see the much-ignored 10th Amendment again).  When the SCOTUS oversteps its bounds to grant the federal government new powers over the states, this federal tyranny ought to be vigorously resisted by the states.

There's no disputing that the federal courts and the federal government in general have in fact moved away from the vision of Jefferson and Madison (unsurprising that federal justices should rule against restraints on their own power), but that doesn't mean that the founders were wrong in their ideals, or that the ongoing movement towards more and more centralized federal power is a good one, and should be blindly accepted.  It's certainly not accurate to argue (as you have elsewhere) that our current judicial tyranny was just what the Constitution's framers wanted.

Jefferson strongly disagreed with the Marbury v. Madison ruling, and said:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

You may find his concerns irrelevant, but I think they're prescient and wise, and time has proven them more so.

 

Without a check from the States, the federal government in Washington simply cannot be relied on to reign in its own power.  The legislative and executive branches will have no inclination to check judicial power, with the judicial branch rules to grant them more unchecked power.

I agree that those decisions amounted to judicial activism.

I think the main thing that we disagree upon is the proper response. I do not think that the proper response is to say "The states are free to ignore the manner in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution."

I think that a better response is the one of the ones that we discussed before, such as voting the judges out or impeaching them, amending the constitution, etc. I agree with you that the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and I would use the means that they have provided to resolve those problems. If you start saying that individual states can ignore the constitution whenever they believe that it has been incorrectly interpreted I think you end up with chaos. I think you end up with what you see among the Protestants and their 10,000 denominations, each with its own interpretation of scripture.

If you want Texas to be it's own nation and no longer to be a United States of America, I think that is fine and reasonable (Austin is pretty cool in particular). And you don't need a Federal Government to tell you what you can or cannot do. I do not see anything wrong with that at all if that is what you want.

I think there are benefits to having a unified country comprising 50 states, instead of just 50 individual states that are fully independent. I like being able identify with the state in which I live and the things that make me and people who live in different states a unique and unified country.

For that, I think we need a national constitution and a body with real authority to interpret it.

You keep comparing the federal government to the Christ's Church, and denouncing restoring power back to the States as "Protestant."  Sorry, but I simply don't share that idolatry of the federal government and its courts.  If that makes me a heretic against the Church of Washington, so be it.  Guilty as charged; burn me at the stake.

I think more diversity of laws among the states in most matters would be a good thing.  And, no, that would not require total secession (though perhaps given the current situation, that might be what it would take.)  It would simply require federal courts to respect their rights guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment.  The whole problem is, the federal courts show no inclination to do so.

[Peace]

I think the historical record is pretty clear regarding what Jefferson, Madison, and other founding fathers thought regarding the nullification rights of states, and the dangers of the unchecked powers of federal courts.

And, no disrespect, but I somehow suspect that they (especially Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," who had more to do with its drafting than any other single person), perhaps knew just a tad more about the Constitution and its intended meaning than you do.

According to the Constitution, every power not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the States and their respective constitutions, rather than the federal government (see the much-ignored 10th Amendment again).  When the SCOTUS oversteps its bounds to grant the federal government new powers over the states, this federal tyranny ought to be vigorously resisted by the states.

There's no disputing that the federal courts and the federal government in general have in fact moved away from the vision of Jefferson and Madison (unsurprising that federal justices should rule against restraints on their own power), but that doesn't mean that the founders were wrong in their ideals, or that the ongoing movement towards more and more centralized federal power is a good one, and should be blindly accepted.  It's certainly not accurate to argue (as you have elsewhere) that our current judicial tyranny was just what the Constitution's framers wanted.

Well. You can argue about that until the cows come home. I don't particularly care so I will concede you the argument. I don't think it matters because Marbury v. Madison has been accepted as law in this country for almost as long as it has existed. Good luck trying to change that. I don't think it is worth the time.

Without a check from the States, the federal government in Washington simply cannot be relied on to reign in its own power.  The legislative and executive branches will have no inclination to check judicial power, with the judicial branch rules to grant them more unchecked power.

I don't see why that should be the case.

You keep comparing the federal government to the Christ's Church, and denouncing restoring power back to the States as "Protestant."  Sorry, but I simply don't share that idolatry of the federal government and its courts.  If that makes me a heretic against the Church of Washington, so be it.  Guilty as charged; burn me at the stake.

I am comparing the constitution to Sacred Scripture, and I am comparing the Supreme Court to the Pope. If you do not have an authority to interpret the constitution you would end up with 50 different interpretations of it, just as you end up with 10,000 different protestant denominations when you say that each person is free to interpret Scripture for himself. That is Protestant and when you do that you end up with chaos.

The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the Supreme Court cannot interpret infallibly. That is why we have mechanisms to remove judges or to amend the constitution when the SC interprets it incorrectly.

My question for you is this - why even have a Federal Constitution if every state is free to interpret it independently? Why not just eliminate the Federal Constitution and allow each state to abide by its own constitution? I don't see the point in having a national constitution without an authoritative body to interpret it.

It would simply require federal courts to respect their rights guaranteed in the Tenth Amendment.  

But again - who gets to decide? Let's say that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution in XYZ manner. State A agrees that interpretation XYZ is correct. State B disagrees that interpretation XYZ is correct. If you leave it up to each state to determine whether the SC is correct - what do you end up with? You end up with each state interpreting the constitution as it sees fit. If that is the case you may as well not have a constitution (and you may as well not have a USA for that matter).

[Winchester]

[Socrates]

Well. You can argue about that until the cows come home. I don't particularly care so I will concede you the argument. I don't think it matters because Marbury v. Madison has been accepted as law in this country for almost as long as it has existed. Good luck trying to change that. I don't think it is worth the time.

 

 

 

Alrighty then.

Roe v. Wade has also been accepted as law in this country for a long time (though not nearly so long).  Doesn't make the ruling good law, or mean it shouldn't be argued against.

 

I don't see why that should be the case.

Government almost never voluntarily relinquishes its own power or reigns itself in.  That's an unfortunate fact of human nature.  Power is the strongest and most addictive drug known to man, and Washington politicians and bureaucrats are high as a kite on it.

Throughout its history, the size, power, and scope of the federal government has overall only grown, not decreased, regardless of what party is in control.

 

I am comparing the constitution to Sacred Scripture, and I am comparing the Supreme Court to the Pope. If you do not have an authority to interpret the constitution you would end up with 50 different interpretations of it, just as you end up with 10,000 different protestant denominations when you say that each person is free to interpret Scripture for himself. That is Protestant and when you do that you end up with chaos.

The analogy is not perfect, of course, because the Supreme Court cannot interpret infallibly. That is why we have mechanisms to remove judges or to amend the constitution when the SC interprets it incorrectly.

If you want to compare the Constitution to Sacred Scripture, the SCOTUS justices have often acted as the most blatant heretics, disregarding what is written and declaring it, Humpty-Dumpty style, to mean whatever they want it to.

In cases such as the ones I've discussed, they piss all over the Constitution, and dare to call their desecration "interpretation."

If Biblical "experts" deny the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and say that Scripture actually teaches something totally different, Christians would be right to reject that as un-Scriptural nonsense.

Face it, your analogy fails, so you should give it up.  I simply don't share your worshipful reverence for the federal courts, and neither did the framers of the Constitution.

 

My question for you is this - why even have a Federal Constitution if every state is free to interpret it independently? Why not just eliminate the Federal Constitution and allow each state to abide by its own constitution? I don't see the point in having a national constitution without an authoritative body to interpret it.

But again - who gets to decide? Let's say that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution in XYZ manner. State A agrees that interpretation XYZ is correct. State B disagrees that interpretation XYZ is correct. If you leave it up to each state to determine whether the SC is correct - what do you end up with? You end up with each state interpreting the constitution as it sees fit. If that is the case you may as well not have a constitution (and you may as well not have a USA for that matter).

 

Why even have a Federal Constitution if federal judges are free to completely disregard it and its limitations on federal power?

When federal courts blatantly act completely outside their lawful jurisdiction, by doing things such as defining marriage, such unlawful dictates ought to be vocally and vigorously rejected by the states.  It's not a matter of interpretation, but of unlawful usurpation of power.

We've traded in constitutionalism and federalism for a judicial oligarchy, just as Jefferson warned about.

[Peace]

Alrighty then.

Roe v. Wade has also been accepted as law in this country for a long time (though not nearly so long).  Doesn't make the ruling good law, or mean it shouldn't be argued against.

You are correct in that bad laws should be argued against. I think that the result of Marbury v. Madison is a good result, but if you want to take up a picket to protest the decision go for it. Good luck finding people to join you. I don't think it is worth the time, but you are welcome to do so if you wish. Please let me know how it goes.

Government almost never voluntarily relinquishes its own power or reigns itself in.  That's an unfortunate fact of human nature.  Power is the strongest and most addictive drug known to man, and Washington politicians and bureaucrats are high as a kite on it.

Throughout its history, the size, power, and scope of the federal government has overall only grown, not decreased, regardless of what party is in control.

I don't see why you seem to think that state nullification is the only means of preventing the increase in the size of the Federal Government.

If you want to compare the Constitution to Sacred Scripture, the SCOTUS justices have often acted as the most blatant heretics, disregarding what is written and declaring it, Humpty-Dumpty style, to mean whatever they want it to.

In cases such as the ones I've discussed, they piss all over the Constitution, and dare to call their desecration "interpretation."

I agree that the SC has made mistakes. I disagree with the response that you propose. I think the response that you propose would do more harm than good. But I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree.

If Biblical "experts" deny the Incarnation, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and say that Scripture actually teaches something totally different, Christians would be right to reject that as un-Scriptural nonsense.

Face it, your analogy fails, so you should give it up.  I simply don't share your worshipful reverence for the federal courts, and neither did the framers of the Constitution.

I do not recall having written anything about having a worshipful reverence for the federal courts. And if you want to agree to disagree that is perfectly fine by me.

When federal courts blatantly act completely outside their lawful jurisdiction, by doing things such as defining marriage, such unlawful dictates ought to be vocally and vigorously rejected by the states.  It's not a matter of interpretation, but of unlawful usurpation of power.

That is your opinion. I do not think that nullification is the best response to judicial activism for the reasons that I have stated previously. I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on that. If you want to seriously advocate for nullification you are certainly welcome to do so. I think that is not a boat that will get very far from the harbor. But please spend your time on that if you think it is worthwhile. Please let me know what type of success you have with it.

[dominicansoul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html?_r=0

 

Pope Francis' few choice words say it all...