I'd like to expand on my previous post, where I exhorted real Americans to honor their Constitution and conscience in defiance of the Supreme Court's latest attack on society. Many of you might be wondering what this means, especially considering that you are being told from all other quarters that the ruling is now "the law of the land" and obligates you to meekly fall in line. Not so.
First, even if you accept the offensive premise that the Court may place itself over the Constitution and unilaterally determine the law of the land, the decision has no effect whatsoever on private choices or conduct. The decision stems from the Fourteenth Amendment, whose prohibitions reach only STATE ACTION. If you as a private citizen do not wish to officiate a homosexual wedding, bake a cake for one, photograph one, or attend one, the decision doesn't constrain you one bit, and you have no need to try to carve out religious or other cramped "exceptions" to a rule that doesn't even exist here. So, all private citizens may do or say as they please on this subject without fear that their assailants have a new legal arrow in their quiver.
Second, no real American can accept the offensive premise that the Court's decisions are themselves the law of the land. The Court is merely a co-equal branch of the federal government, along with the executive and the legislature, all of which are inferior to the law of the land and lack the power to change it. The only thing the Court can do under the Constitution is adjudicate specific controversies between specific parties -- anyone not a party to this lawsuit is not bound by the decision in any way, shape, or form. The decision is merely precedent to guide lower courts in the event of future controversies among other parties. As such, anyone in a position of public authority who was not a party to this lawsuit may refuse to issue licenses for homosexual weddings, if that is what the law of his jurisdiction allows or requires. When the predictable lawsuit is filed to force his hand, he can defend his actions by citing the plain language of the Constitution, the rich history underlying it, its clear reservation of all non-delegated power to the several states, and a reminder that the Constitution is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever judge is presiding over the case should honor and uphold the Constitution rather than the Supreme Court's dereliction from it. If he abdicates his duty, then the matter can be appealed until either the Constitution or the Court ultimately prevails, at which time other parties and other controversies may emerge.
Surely some readers with a legal bent are shrieking right about now that public officials and judges who flout Supreme Court precedent are unfit for office. But I ask you what is worse: a public official who disregards a Supreme Court decision, or a Supreme Court that disregards the Constitution? Only the latter amounts to outlaw behavior worthy of removal from office.
If you need a refresher on the Constitution and how the Supreme Court has bludgeoned the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition, read the following articles that I previously posted here: I, II, III, IV, V. You can find a lot more of them by clicking on the "14th Amendment" tag beneath this post.
By the way, there are some calls from "conservatives" to amend the Constitution to reverse what the Supreme Court has done here. This is perverse and illustrates once again the impotence of mainstream activism. It is the burden of the proponents of gay marriage to amend the Constitution and federalize an issue that is reserved to the states under the existing one. We are not confronted with a Constitution that needs changing on this issue; rather, we are confronted with outlaw activity by people who care nothing for rules and refuse to be bound by them. When your opponent takes off his gloves and wields a knife, keeping on your gloves in obeisance to the rules is an act of suicide.
No comments:
Post a Comment