Nation under God.

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

Comments (registered users)