very God-fearing, America-loving citizen who happens to be a public servant has both the right and the patriotic duty to ensure his entrusted powers are never exercised in any way that would cause the government we instituted, either for our state or more locally, to act in direct violation of our common morality and personal consciences, whether based on religious convictions or not. No power so exercisable can ever be just, because no such power can ever be or has ever been derived from the consent of the governed.

In a sovereign state where the people have determined among themselves the provisions of natural marriage most societally proper and meaningful for them, under our present Constitution no one else has power to alter or abolish any of those provisions. They know they are not being hateful but factual when they declare that promoting genealogical dead-ends is not nor could ever be in their or their society's best interests. Any public servant who assists some outside attempt to promote such is betraying their sacred trust. Indeed, the oath of office every public servant in this country takes to support our Constitution, so help him God, means his only legitimate response is to use all his powers to effectually render void and a nullity any and all such attempts. As former Congressman John Hostettler points out:

In explaining the supportive role that the states would play in the proper operation of the federal government, Alexander Hamilton put it this way in Federalist Paper No. 27:

"the legislatures, courts and magistrates of the respective members [i.e., states] will be incorporated into the operations of the national government, AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws." [Capitalization original.]

Thus, properly understood, preemption only applies to the "JUST and CONSTITUTIONAL authority" of the federal government. Given that (i) the law of domestic relations and marriage policy has never been made the "JUST and CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY" of the federal government (except for the District of Columbia and federal territories) and (ii) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to a limited set of protections in state-administered legal processes, there is no "lawful" basis for a claim of preemption in this case.

The duty to disregard any federal judicial usurpation of the states' lawful jurisdiction of marriage policy flows from another constitutional clause which invokes a duty to an even higher authority than any temporal legal system, federal or state. Immediately following the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution provides that "the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers... of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution." Known as the "Oath or Affirmation Clause," this provision requires every state official to swear or affirm their fidelity to the U.S. Constitution. In explaining the profound relationship between the Supremacy and the Oath or Affirmation Clauses, Alexander Hamilton highlighted the limited application of both. Once again in Federalist Paper No. 27, Hamilton remarked:

"the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which, all officers legislative, executive and judicial in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath." [Capitalization original.]

It's clear that state officials are "bound by the sanctity of an oath" to observe "the laws of the Confederacy." However, that oath is limited in its application to the "ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of" the Confederacy's jurisdiction. The power to overrule the states' restrictions on marriage policy has never been added to the "ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of" the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, without the future addition of such authority through the process set out in Article V for amending the federal Constitution, no order pursuant to any such opinion is "lawful."

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized at this juncture that no provision of the U.S. Constitution elevates an opinion issued by the federal judiciary — including an opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court — to the level of the "supreme law of the land." Indeed, there is only one time that I have ever heard that the U.S. Supreme Court was so consumed with pride to have even uttered such a radical principle. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958) ("[T]hat the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States 'any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'").

This aberrational statement of the Supreme Court should be viewed as a very lonely exception to the view of Blackstone as embraced generally by our Framers that "the law and the opinion of the judge, are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law." I.W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 71 (Univ. Chi. facsimile ed. 1765).

Additionally, no provision of the U.S. Constitution obligates any elected official — federal or state — to "be bound by oath or affirmation, to support" an opinion issued by the federal judiciary.

If it had been the intention of the Constitution's framers to exclusively delegate all questions of Constitutional finality to the unelected, life-tenured members of the U.S. Supreme Court — and to relegate every other elected office, federal and state, to a position of subservience to the decisions of that Court, Article VI of the United States Constitution would have been the place in the U.S. Constitution where this peculiar doctrine would have been made obvious. From its omission, it is clear that this was never the Framers' intent.

Therefore, state officeholders remain bound by the sanctity of the oath they took which binds them to uphold their respective state constitutions and the laws which define and regulate marriage in their particular member of the Confederacy. They cannot be considered "good soldiers" by doing anything else.

Labels: a Republic if we can keep it, Democrat War on Americans, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), lawless liberals (BIRM), liberals are always extreme, patriotism, Sealing the fate of freedom's enemies

	5:49 PM   0

ropose away to any or all members of your immediate family. Marrying whomever you choose to marry is your fundamental right. Your state cannot do anything that serves to disrespect and subordinate you. No other state can deny you the basic dignity of recognizing your marriage.

Moreover, since many, many people feel that their pets are members of their families too, yes you can make your marriage proposals to one or more of them as well.

Only bigots will tell you you can't.

So rejoice! Words no longer have meaning other than what "right" meaning federal might makes them have.

Ours is now a nation of men — or, in this case, five of them (gender-neutrally speaking, of course) — not of mean-spirited, incestophobic, "morality"-based law. Yes you can have it make the mosque downtown perform your sister-sister-sister-uncle-mother-pig wedding and the Christain-run pizza parlor next door cater your reception. The anything-goeSCOTUS has finally opened their doors to you also.

Not ordered liberty, but complete chaos is what it promotes with its doctrine of "words mean what We your Governors, not You the Governed, say they mean." Yeah, whatever. That's what those bigots say.

What marriage has meant for thousands upon thousands of years no longer applies. Your personal choices, identities, and beliefs are the only things that matter now.

Labels: degenerate Democrooks (BIRM), Democrat War on Americans, Democrat War on Christians, insane liberals (BIRM), liberals are always extreme, Separation of Common Sense and State, socialist injustice

	8:18 AM   0

he reactionary, unprogressive, closed-minded, idiotardian left^(birm) and other enemies of our freedoms and free markets want you to "think" feel that you're in mortal danger as long as there's some place you can see this—

Speaking as an American citizen with ancestors who both bravely fought under and bravely faced a Confederate battle flag — one while a Prisoner of War — I consider any ban of it anywhere not only a total desecration of their memory but an obscene disregard for their many struggles and sacrifices as well as their selfless service. For their land and ideals they each did the honorable thing when he saw that flag. What the few, cowardly despotists among us are mindlessly doing now is not.

When you become so frightened by the sight of a symbol — especially a highly historic one — that you must immediately go squealing like a little girl to the nearest authority figure to get them to completely oust it from each and every place where just your glimpsing it might somehow disturb your overly delicate worldview, you hand that symbol all the power it will ever need to forever terrorize and beat you.

Labels: a Republic if we can keep it, bedwetting liberals (BIRM), liberal hypocrites (BIRM), liberalism: THE ideology of fear, liberals are always extreme, more liberal intolerance, socialist injustice

	1:10 PM   0

nternational muslim ISIS terrorists and domestic black USIS terrorists love Demøthugs because Demøthugs just want to "empathize" with and "respect" terrorists, not stop their terrorism. If you don't smile and say, "Yes they can make our country and communities even more unsafe," they and their progressøfascist media accomplices brand you an islamophobe or racist.

Had enough yet, Mr. & Mrs. America?

These overt and self-confessed aiders and comforters of terrorists would rather you and yours be threatened, harmed, and even murdered en masse than do or say anything that might offend terrorists. Their feelings, not the American people's security, is what's most important to Demøthugs.

The Demøthug Party has already undermined our Troops and their mission in Iraq, leading to more and more international terrorism which threatens us all. Now it's trying to undermine our Law Enforcement Officers and their mission here, "setting the stage for a terrorist attack in this country."

Thanks, Demøthugs and every stupid American voter who's enabling Demøthugs to destroy our lives, our liberties, and our pursuits of happiness.

Labels: aided and comforted enemies, Democrat War on Americans, Liberalism Kills, liberals are always extreme, minionstream media, Stupidity of the Democrat Voter, Suicidemocrats, violent Democrats (BIRM)

	9:34 AM   0

ascists can't read. They alone enacted a statute that clearly says only states that establish "exchanges" under it may receive subsidies. They have no one to blame but themselves for enacting it that way.

Once the Supreme Court frees you and all other Americans from the shackles of this dictatorial dungeon, Congress should pass a law that limits government's role in your health care to no more than allowing you to take a 100 percent tax credit for all insurance premiums and unreimbursed medical expenses you receive bills for during the year. This would amount to a tax refund if your bills exceed your taxes owed. There would be no other subsidies, no HealthCare.trainwreck, no exchanges, no Medicaid expansion, and no government-mandated "shared responsibility payments" punitive tax hikes. The free market — composed of providers, consumers, and insurers — would set supply and demand. Any group of states wishing to enter into interstate insurance compacts would receive Congress's approval.

The new law would be abundantly readable and understandable, even for fascists.

Labels: Democrat War on Americans, fascist totalitarian liberals (BIRM), greedy and selfish liberals (BIRM), liberals are always extreme, Obama Lied Your Healthcare Died, Obama's War on the Constitution

	9:02 PM   0

hat would be justice. Why should they be allowed to have or make so much? After all, those entertainment businesses they're got, they didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.^® They're merely society's lottery winners.

Clearly, they've made enough money. Their hero Hugo Chavez compelled folks like them to pay their fair share. Our communist-in-chief Baracrook Hugochavezian Ødespot should use his pen and his øbamafone to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure all his fellow fascists here pay theirs also.

Then our society will be as socialistically just as the one their hero built!

A year and a half ago, Venezuelan government used the military to seize control of Daka, one of the country's largest retailers, in order to force the chain to charge "fair" prices. Punish those rich, greedy store-owners!

Surprise! That didn’t work. The chain is now collapsing as looters take what they want.

Socialists say capitalists just want to make a quick buck, but it's government that can't plan for the long haul.

Instead of thinking in terms of returns on investment and sustainable business models, socialists think only of today: They see people who need stuff and stores full of stuff. Take the stuff and give it to people, and then tomorrow — well, those capitalists will always bring in more stuff, I guess.

Calling it "social justice" doesn't make it work.

Labels: Democrat War on Americans, liberal a-hole freaks (BIRM), liberal hypocrites (BIRM), liberalism: THE ideology of hate, liberals are always extreme, socialist injustice, spread the misery around

	12:10 AM   0