December 15--Bill of Rights Day, 222 Years

Celebrate it by learning to enforce the whole constitution.  Advice from James Madison.

The Tenth Amendment Center, December 15, 2013

222 years ago today, the Bill of Rights was given "life."  But it has no meaning if we just talk about it one day each year.   For us at the TAC, Bill of Rights Day is every day.  And our goal is to educate people on how to enforce the entire Constitution.

Today, we encourage you to read, learn and share - James Madison's wisdom:

A good place to start in determining how to enforce the Constitution is with the guy who’s commonly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”  While there’s some debate that James Wilson was actually far more fitting of that title, Madison was obviously quite influential.

The essential question: When the federal government violates the constitution, what do you do about it?

Here’s what Madison had to say in Federalist #46. The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

CONTINUE READING:  http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/15/james-madison-on-how-to-enforce-the-constitution/

Letter to the Editor: Far Right, by CCTA Education Chairman, Nancy Murdoch

Letter: Far right

Published: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 in Sun Journal New Bern

On a number of occasions the Sun Journal has identified certain members of the Craven County GOP as being “far right.” Perhaps that type of label sells newspapers, but exactly what does “far right” mean? According to Wikipedia: “The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.”

After reading that definition, one might assume the Craven County GOP has been invaded by the Ku Klux Klan (who were Democrats) or some other such misguided group. However, that’s just not the case. The “faction” consists of individuals who believe every Republican in Craven County should have a voice as to who we support, we should hold our elected leaders accountable, and principles are important. 

Different scales have been used over the years to describe political beliefs. Many of us ascribe to the belief that on one end of that scale is anarchy and on the other is tyranny (what our Founders believe by the way). We prescribe to the balanced center, as we know that men are not angels and some government is required for a civilized society. In fact, “We The People” made a social compact to give the government enumerated powers as outlined in the Constitution, because government is instituted by the people and they derive their just powers from us. If the government follows the rules laid out in the Constitution, the social compact stays intact.  However, many of us in the GOP believe the social compact is broken, and we believe it depends on those among us who value the 4,400 words of the Constitution to get us back on track. Because we do not have blind allegiance to the GOP and we are aware that some in our own party have abused their power, we are attempting to restore the social compact to its rightful balance.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of the press, among other things.  We implore the Sun Journal and all other media to use measured words, and to refrain from using slanted (and often incorrect) verbiage when reporting. Opinions belong on the editorial page, not the front page.

Nancy Murdoch, Havelock

http://www.newbernsj.com/opinion/letters/letter-far-right-1.227100

Nancy's letter was in response to the following article:

Craven GOP ‘tea party’ wing asserts influence

Honoring the Recovery of NC’s Bill of Rights

The North Carolina House of Representatives met last Monday in special session in the Old House Chamber at the State Capitol to honor the 10th anniversary of an FBI sting operation that returned North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights. During the special session, the House adopted House Resolution 286, introduced by Representatives Paul Stam, Deborah Ross, Duane Hall, and Josh Dobson.


The resolution tells the 1789 story of President George Washington sending every state an original copy of the Bill of Rights for ratification. In 1865, North Carolina’s copy of the Bill of Rights was stolen by a Union soldier during the occupation of Raleigh. Over the next 140 years, there were numerous attempts to sell this stolen copy back to North Carolina, but the State refused to buy back what rightfully belonged to its citizens. On March 18, 2003, the document was seized by federal authorities in Philadelphia. Finally in 2008, the document was turned over to the State of North Carolina after 5 years of litigation and 143 years of being out of the custody of the state.

The document was displayed in the Legislative Building on Tuesday afternoon after being escorted by Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest. The document was also accompanied by a group of Richards Elementary School students from Onslow County on Monday.   From the "Raleigh Update" Week of March 18, 2013 Newsletter from NC House District 93 Representative Jonathan C. Jordan His email is:  Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net 

Liberty Council--Obama and Gun Control

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Liberty Counsel

1/16/2013

According to published reports, President Obama’s “gun control” measures will include 19 Executive Orders (EOs), as recommended by Vice President Biden’s task force, that he says are within his power to execute. Already, at least one irate Congressman has threatened to start impeachment procedures if the President follows through with his gun control agenda without regard to the legislative process.

Our constitutional rights are being dismantled before our eyes as the Obama axis of power rolls roughshod over the rule of law in America. I am calling on ALL patriots to join Liberty Counsel in our “I Second the First” campaign to protect our Constitution!

Please see my very important update below – Mat.

Valerie,

President Obama must truly believe that the legislative process is too much of a nuisance and just too bothersome to be useful.
You know the process I mean...the one mandated in our Constitution as established by the Founders – the process at the heart of the rule of law in our nation.

Perhaps the President thinks it just takes too long to establish laws lawfully. Or, maybe he thinks the Constitution is too cumbersome and his Executive Orders are a more efficient and modern alternative way to “get things done.”

More likely, he is fully aware that his proposals would never pass through the lawful legislative process. Someone on his imperial staff may have noticed that we pesky citizens can sometimes thwart the President’s best Leftist ideas before they have a chance trample all over the People’s liberties!

Judging from his actions, it is even possible the President believes that the checks and balances defined by the Constitution were just fine for a young nation in the 18th Century, but that it has been necessary for the Executive Branch’s prerogatives to “evolve” to have the decisiveness required in the 21st Century.

Whatever the President’s thoughts, they are clearly not worthy of the Oath of Office he will renew next Monday! That oath, laid out in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, is simple and to the point:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Valerie, I’ll leave it to you decide if Barack Obama is fulfilling his solemn oath by undermining and circumventing the Constitution.

++A lawless administration in action.

The reality of how the Obama administration intends to operate during the President’s second term has dominated the news cycles for several days now. President Obama, on the recommendation of Vice President Biden, is considering enacting as many as 19 Executive Orders on gun control.

This is Barack Obama’s style of leadership. Thomas Jefferson, a major contributor to the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution, called it “elective despotism.” It is an overarching abuse of power.

Barack Obama’s 19 executive power grabs on “gun control” (the number as of today, anyway – there could be a lot more coming) are likely just the beginning of this administration’s attempt to trample on the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

Here’s Liberty Counsel’s resolute position on this issue:We must "stick to our guns" and resist this tyranny!

The very purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to bear arms to protect their hard-won freedom and defend themselves from future tyrants. Yet today, we seem to have forgotten that the first battle of the American Revolution erupted when the tyrant King George’s forces marched to disarm the colonists by seizing an important powder magazine and armory!

It is now clear that the Obama administration fully intends to shake off all restraint in pursuing its dangerous, “progressive” agenda – even when it infringes on Americans’ right to bear arms, exercise their religious liberties, or hold sacred their rights of conscience.

That’s why Liberty Counsel launched our powerful “I Second the First” campaign to tell our elected officials…

“We the people” demand that the federal government return to the rule of law as established by the United States Constitution!

We will stand together and protect our Constitution and its precious First and Second Amendments, the very heart of every American's Bill of Rights, against radical attacks!

If you haven’t done so already, please click here now to join many tens of thousands of Liberty Counsel patriots in signing this powerful petition:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=188552&CID=374&RID=37486108

Whether or not you have already signed our petition, PLEASE forward it to as many like-minded, patriotic Americans as possible!

I am now planning to have this petition hand delivered to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, January 23rd. By then, I would like to deliver this message with 100,000 signers.

Please add your name now:
http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=188553&CID=374&RID=37486108

++Congressman takes Obama’s power grab very seriously.

Representative Steve Stockman (R-TX) has threatened to file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he institutes gun control measures through Executive Orders.

In a statement, Representative Stockman wrote…

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.”

Steve Stockman should be joined by hundreds of his fellow Congressmen! The way in which the Obama administration is operating mocks the balance of power as set out in the Constitution!

Valerie, we simply cannot allow our constitutionally protected rights to be dismantled by a tyrannical president with no regard for the rule of law or the checks and balances of power built into our Constitution!

If you haven’t already done so, please click here now to add your name to this important petition:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=188554&CID=374&RID=37486108

In appreciation for the stand you are taking, we will send you a complimentary “I Second the First” sticker for you to display on your car, home, or anywhere you feel it will have an impact.

This is a citizen action that every freedom-loving American should take. If you would, after signing, please make your circle of friends aware of this campaign and the availability of our complimentary “I Second the First” campaign stickers.

Thank you and God bless America!
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. President Obama intends to enact Executive Orders to limit, or in some cases even eliminate, gun rights. Our constitutional rights must be protected from the assaults of any despot, including this one!

We’ll send your colorful “I Second the First” campaign sticker as soon as we record your signed petition. May God bless you!

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?U=188555&CID=374&RID=37486108

P.P.S. To see more about the work of the Liberty Counsel family of organizations, go tohttp://www.libertycounsel.com/

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit “Treason to the Constitution,” and are Null and Void.

Supreme Court Rulings on SB-1070 and Obamacare Commit "Treason to the Constitution," and are Null and Void.

In June, 2012, roughly two years after the initial filings, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) passed down rulings on the multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare, and on Arizona’s SB-1070. Was the Constitution upheld or further eviscerated? Political pundits on both sides of the issues spun the rulings to fit either their joy or outrage depending on their political persuasion, but what really happened?

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." -Confucius (551 BCE - 479 BCE)

Regardless of which side of the issues you reside, you were betrayed. The federal district courts that the complaints were filed in had zero constitutional authority to hear the cases. The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, had zero constitutional authority to hear “on appeal” the lawsuits against Arizona’s SB-1070 and Obamacare.

The Declaration of Independence clearly states:“…governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The process matters and the ends do not justify the means, especially when the “means” involve shredding the Constitution, and the “ends” involve destroying the sovereignty of the States, and eviscerating the Bill of Rights. An authority usurped is a tyrannical act, and this unjust power was not derived from the “consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson’s advice   “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special Government to a general and supreme one alone.

We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken. If they do, then, with the editor of our book, in his address to the public, I will say, “that against this every man should raise his voice, and more, should uplift his arm…That pen should go on, lay bare these wounds of our Constitution, expose the decisions seriatim, and arouse, as it is able, the attention of the nation to these bold speculators on its patience.” - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820  

Thomas Jefferson further advised: "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion with education.”
James Madison, author of the Constitution, is attributed with the following from March 3, 1817:“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

In a June 12, 1823 letter to Judge William Johnson, Thomas Jefferson writes:“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.“  — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

Taking Jefferson’s advice, give due diligence to the following questions:
1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] “on appeal?”3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?5. If the Supreme Court granted this authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?  

An honest review of the process will expose that the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, was usurped and ignored at every step of the way. Until the above questions are answered, an honest discussion of the merits of the cases and the rulings handed down, is not possible. Until due diligence is given the above questions, making any decisions regarding what We the People’s next course of action should be is premature and irresponsible.  

What does the Supreme Law of the Land say about how these cases should be handled?

The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 states:“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis added]

In 1821, in "Cohens v. Virginia," Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall stated the following:  

• “The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."
• "…It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."
• “The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank, and the part two of its authors [Madison and Hamilton] performed in framing the Constitution put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.”
• “These essays having been published while the Constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.”   

–U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall

1. How did inferior federal district courts establish jurisdiction and venue to hear the cases brought before them, and was that Constitutional?ANSWER: Plaintiffs cited 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 in their complaints to establish jurisdiction and venue before inferior federal district courts. These statutes are themselves “repugnant” to the Constitution, and should have been rejected. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court was granted the power to authorize the subjugation of cases “in which a State shall be Party” to inferior courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has the duty, as clearly defined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1, to be the “first” to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party.”.

Over the years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have overstepped their authority on this issue, each relying on the other to validate the practice, yet nothing in the Constitution authorizes either to do so. Laws not written in pursuance of the Constitution are not law at all, and no court has authority to rely on unconstitutional laws to take jurisdiction that is not theirs to exercise. Additionally, no ruling passed down by a court that has no constitutional authority is valid. 28 USC 1251, 1331, and 1345 must be amended to conform to the mandates of the Constitution. View proposal here.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78:“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is executed, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:  

• “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
• Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” [emphasis added]  

2. Where in the Constitution did the appellate courts and the Supreme Court obtain their authority to hear these cases [in which a State is party] "on appeal?"

ANSWER: They didn’t. The Constitution grants no such appellate authority to any court, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts should have taken these cases away from "inferior tribunals" under his authority over the lesser courts, and in pursuance of his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He was advised of this constitutional crisis, and chose to ignore it, as were the litigants in the Arizona and Virginia cases. (Read: Open letters to Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts at RejoinorDie.com)

3. If the appellate courts and SCOTUS did not obtain that authority directly from the Constitution, then where did they get it?
ANSWER: Congress, in direct contradiction to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, granted authority to the federal appellate courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases “on appeal” within the federal judiciary in which States are Party. No such constitutional crisis would ever arise if Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, Part 1 was upheld.

4. If Congress granted that authority, does the Constitution grant them the power to do so?ANSWER: No. The Constitution only authorizes Congress to make exceptions and to establish regulations [laws] in respect to cases that do not involve sovereign States [foreign or domestic]. The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, part 2 clearly states that the “appellate” jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is granted in relation to “all the other cases before mentioned.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “original jurisdiction” as follows: “Original Jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in the first instance. Jurisdiction to take cognizance of a course at its inception, tries it, and passes judgment upon the law and facts. Distinguished from appellate jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added.)

5. If the Supreme Court authorized inferior federal courts to hear cases “in which a State shall be Party,” does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court that power?

ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court of the United States is granted [shall have] “original jurisdiction” over cases in which one of the parties represents a sovereign (foreign or domestic), and is granted “appellate jurisdiction” over “all the other cases.”
The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not hear on appeal “all the other cases” for which it was granted “appellate jurisdiction.” The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to neglect or subjugate cases to inferior courts it is required to hear ‘in the first instance.”

The states, acting alone or in tandem, have no discretion under the Constitution to engage in a federal lawsuit on behalf of a sovereign state in an inferior federal court. To do so violates the Constitution and undermines the sovereign relationship of all other states that exists between them and the federal government within our constitutional republic.

6. What did the Framers of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court say about such a situation?

ANSWER: The Framers of the Constitution [the sovereign states] established, and the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged, that when a conflict between the sovereign States and the federal government arises, and said conflict is to be resolved within a federal court, that it must be adjudicated “in the first instance” before the U.S. Supreme Court, and no other. The Constitution makes no differentiation regarding whether or not the State is a plaintiff or a defendant. The cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 fall in that category.

Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 81:

“In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”

George Washington warned us, and advised us in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803:

“If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction.“

“If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where

the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance."  

“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.”

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

“If the solicitude of the Convention respecting our peace with foreign powers induced a provision that the Supreme Court should take original jurisdiction in cases which might be supposed to affect them, yet the clause would have proceeded no further than to provide for such cases if no further restriction on the powers of Congress had been intended. That they should have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress might make, is no restriction unless the words be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction.”

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.”

“When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original. If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Mr. Bernard Reese, a Trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society, in an August 10, 2010 article titled, “Court had no authority in Arizona case; Supreme Court does,” published in the Rockford Register Star states:


“The United States Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2, Cl. 2 specifically provides that: “In all cases …. in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.”

“Thus, U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. This means that neither Judge Susan Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, has any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue...” (Emphasis added)

-Bernard Reese, of the law firm Reese & Reese,

Trustee, Supreme Court Historical Society

In early August, 2010, taking the advice of Jefferson to “inform their discretion through education,” letters were delivered to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. These letters have since become known as ‘scarlet letters.’

Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in a December 12, 2010 Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, stated the following items should be taken into consideration when deciding cases in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the court: 1- the text of the legislation, 2- the history, 3- the traditions, 4- the precedents, 5- the values, and 6- the consequences of the decision.


An application of Justice Breyer’s philosophy on maintaining “public confidence” in the court suggests the following analysis:


• TEXT – Compare 28 USC 1251 to Article III, Section 2, and the bills to the Constitution.


• HISTORY – Founding documents & Federalist Papers 62, 78, and 81


• TRADITIONS – “original jurisdiction” in Blackstone’s Commentaries, and in Black’s Law Dictionary.


• PRECEDENT – “Marbury v. Madison"   • VALUES – does this statute uphold intent of the Framers?


• CONSEQUENCES – shredding of State’s Rights, risks the loss of confidence in the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution.


Was “public confidence” in the Supreme Court advanced or diminished by these rulings? Nothing about the Supreme Court’s handling of these cases instills confidence they are upholding the Constitution. Without getting into the merits of the case, if the Constitution was usurped at every step of the way, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice does nothing to secure the integrity of the process, how can public confidence in the high court be anything but diminished?


“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the roots.”

- Henry David Thoreau

A wise man told me "If you don’t know where you’re headed, any road will get you there." Are we heading in the direction of restoring and upholding the Constitution, or are we being ruled by the whims of men?

Did we “bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution” as Jefferson advised? The parties that filed these lawsuits and the parties that responded made “strategic decisions” to ignore the “Supreme Law of the Land” and relied instead on unconstitutional statutes and case law to justify their actions. The federal district courts which took “original jurisdiction” had no such constitutional authority as the statutes they relied upon to establish “jurisdiction and venue” were themselves unconstitutional.

The appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, relied on precedent and unconstitutional statutes to establish their appellate authority to review the cases against Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution has never been amended to authorize the subjugation of cases to “inferior tribunals” [federal district courts] in which the sovereign states “are Party,” nor has it been amended to grant the appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the authority to hear cases “on appeal” in which a state is Party. James Madison talked about usurped powers.

This is not “just government,” and We the People have not consented to it. There are many remedies available to right these wrongs. The sovereign states have a duty to “interpose, nullify, and reject” these rulings, and We the People have a duty to replace every usurper in public office: federal, state, and local.   In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, a state’s right and duty is explained with the following:
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress

In the Report on the Virginia Resolutions, James Madison author of the Constitution states:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”  -James Madison, from Elliot’s Debates, Library of Congress
  Face it folks, the system has been perverted to undermine, ignore, and destroy our constitutional republic. Our ignorance of the mandates in the Constitution have made us vulnerable to opportunists who prey upon the public resolve for their own political or financial gain with reckless disregard for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend against all enemies. When we cheer on such usurpations because the rulings are favorable to our positions, we become enablers to the destruction of our constitutional republic.


Samuel Adams, often referred to as the ‘Father of the American Revolution,” advised us,
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."


Obamacare and Arizona’s SB-1070 aren’t the core problem. The rulings for and against them aren’t the core solution. Tens of millions of dollars were coerced out of grassroots pockets to fight against Obamacare, and nothing changed. The federal government’s refusal to uphold its constitutional duty to “protect us against invasion” (see Article IV, Section 4), and the states’ refusal to demand their grievances be heard in a court that has constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) further empowers the federal government and further eviscerates state sovereignty. Without the states upholding their constitutional duties, We the People don’t have a chance of preserving our God-given Rights against a rogue federal government.
Jeff Lewis National Director
, FIRE Coalition National Director
, Patriot Coalition Project Director
, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER Email
: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com Phone
: 252-876-9489 Twitter
: http://twitter.com/PatriotWatchdog

Ken Blackwell: Constitution’s Limits Threaten in an Obama Second Term

Note: This column was coauthored by Ken Klukowski, a Breitbart.com columnist


Public officials and pundits are still digesting the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision in NFIB v. Sebelius. Not yet discussed are the extraordinary implications for the size and role of government in a second Obama term in light of President Obama’s new stump speech, as it is clear there is not a reliable majority on the Court to restrain government power by enforcing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

Most provisions in the Constitution fall into two categories. The first are authority provisions, explaining the structure and powers of government. The second are liberty provisions, declaring certain rights of the people.

The original Constitution had only the former, because the latter were regarded as superfluous. If something was not found in a specific authority clause, it was automatically illegal and beyond the purview of the federal government. Political backlash from the Anti-Federalists and others led to some states threatening to withhold ratification unless a Bill of Rights was promptly added. Likely our fourth president James Madison would have lost his first congressional race to our fifth president James Monroe had Mr. Madison not joined Mr. Monroe’s call to add the Bill of Rights to the nascent Supreme Law.

Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of our Constitution is that it is a written document. It is written so that all can see what the powers of the national government are, and guaranteeing in the Tenth Amendment that all powers not specifically granted to the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people. This doctrine of enumerated powers is the cornerstone of our constitutional order and the federal system.

We wrote in our second book that if President Obama won a second term, Americans’ liberties would only be as secure as the courts were faithful to properly exercise their power of judicial review to invalidate actions that violate the Constitution. Whether invalidating unconstitutional legislation passed by Congress or unconstitutional executive actions, the courts must not flinch when cases are properly brought to them.

Mr. Madison explained that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” for checks and balances to work. Each branch must boldly discharge its constitutional duty. Part of the tragedy of the Obamacare decision is realizing that the current membership of the Supreme Court will not exercise robust judicial review.

CONTINUED: 

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/07/13/constitutions_limits_threaten_in_an_obama_second_term/page/full/

Seek His Face and Earn His Grace

by Diane Rufino

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." --- Thomas Jefferson


What is happening in the US? Are we turning away from God, as many claim, or are we witnessing just the opposite? Are we seeing the error of our ways and turning towards Him?

Are we, as a nation, witnessing a Christian restoration or an atheist transformation?

I think the answer is that both forces are engaged in a great struggle. The progressive nature of our courts combined with the misinterpretation of our Bill of Rights, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, and combined with the enormous power of the liberal media have allowed the atheist movement to have greater force than it deserves. To counter that movement, Christians and Christian organizations must fight against incredible odds, most notably the courts, the "wall of separation," and the liberally-biased media. It comes as no surprise that our government and the "establishment" is harboring an increasing hostility towards faith. Yet the Christian resistance is growing.

We've taken God out of our schools and out of our seats of government. We've removed crosses and other Christian symbols from public squares and from national cemeteries. We've perverted the meaning of the First Amendment with a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution - the "Wall of Separation" - so that we can systematically remove important and traditional human values from society and avoid expensive lawsuits. The First Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values but rather it was written to protect those values from government and government tyranny. We've watched as a Culture of Immorality has enveloped the country starting with the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and are suffering from its natural consequences. Yet churches are growing larger. In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that women can kill their unborn under the constitutional protection of "privacy," but 39 years later, the pro-life voice grows louder and stronger.

We have a huge segment of society benefitting from the hard work, property, and taxation of others. About 50% of Americans are being used to support the other 50% in a lifestyle that the government continues to redefine and upgrade. This is institutionalized sloth and envy -- two of the Christian mortal sins. Some say it is the new form of slavery. Indeed, every person who benefits from the effort and property of another is himself a petty tyrant and a slave master. Yet as the entitlement ranks increase, the outrage against such human decay builds and people are urging a return to the policies of ethics, morality, and personal responsibility. As long as people can embrace these values, there is the hope of earned success and human dignity.

We have a president who wants ever so strongly to have government compel religious groups to provide birth control and abortion services - services that so fundamentally offend religious principles and offend our constitutionally protected Right of Religious Conscience - to further the agenda of Women's Rights. But instead, our country realized that a line had been crossed and the president was forced to retreat from his policy. The fight of gays and lesbians for the right to marry may cause many, particularly our unprincipled youth, to argue "Why Not?" but it causes countless others to re-connect with their religious values.

So, is it possible we are witnessing a Christian revival?

Those who came to America's shores did so under an apparent covenant with God. As Governor John Winthrop pledged in 1630 on board the Arbella, which set out for America's shores:

"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

CONTINUED:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.com/

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

Why a Marriage Amendment?

by Diane Rufino, April 21, 2012

My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react? Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities - the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.

Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have - to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience. James Madison said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property - our greatest possession."

Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004. One can find the book "King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels "a stir in his heart." But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee. The two men marry and the book reads: "Everyone lives happily ever after." On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.

A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: "Mom, am I gay?" She wanted to know why he would ask such a question. He told her that his teacher told the class that "anyone can be gay." Children shouldn't be confronted with such questions. They shouldn't have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion. Growing up is hard enough.

Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can't keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like "King & King."

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

by Diane Rufino, April 29, 2012

Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children. It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.

In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In verse 18, God said: "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper." And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh. And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him."

In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place... "

Genesis 2:23-24 reads: "Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

The "helper" that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his "other half," to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become "one flesh." This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form "one complete" genetic offspring. A child.

The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:6). It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.

Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth. Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted. Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.

In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a "married couple" cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial "unspoken" lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society. Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps. Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life. Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete. Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature. Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.

There is no fundamental right to marriage. It is not included in the Constitution's Bill of Rights for a reason... It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation. Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8. [pg. 195]

[What was Proposition 8? Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000. But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].

Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those that involve the raising of children. If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a "committed type of relationship" and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts - just as it would protect other contracts. Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers. But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.

It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges. We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges... and often win. That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic... a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don't or can't appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution. In his article, he asks the question - With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage? He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone. But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage. He is quite serious when he states "Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”

Richard Wilkins - law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) - explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:

"Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong - for at least three important reasons. First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states. Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts. Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution? But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief. The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage. But judges have. (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn't stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.

It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States. Any constitutional scholar can attest to that. Yet an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same" has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution. In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision. But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing. It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.

Professor Wilkins asks: "What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?" He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example. He said: "The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question. Relying on the high Court's decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution." The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.

Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage. (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco. Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law? 'The Constitution demands it,' he said.) Wilkins asserts: "The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts."

Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away. As Professor Wilkins wrote: "Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed. All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people."

Wilkins went on to write:

“In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”

The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people. Even though the Constitution says nothing about 'sexual liberty;' even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained 'right' for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air. Lawrence created this 'right,' not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the 'meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.'

The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along. (If the definition of marriage - an understanding as old as time - violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries' old legal notions the "mysteries of the universe" will invalidate next.) In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words 'marriage' and 'constitution' in the same sentence. An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution."

But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:


"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)

Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: "This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance." ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)

Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them! (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).

A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.

And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values. He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society. He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed - if the family is destroyed - then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination. (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason). He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:

"1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.

As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by 'a written constitution' and 'the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.) Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , 'would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.'

Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The 'new Constitution,' announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people. Many people applaud the idea of a 'living Constitution;' a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition. But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the 'new Constitution' unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society's controversial moral and social debates.

Under the 'new Constitution' announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court - rather than a legislature - will settle the matter. Why? Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the 'meaning of life' and the 'mysteries of the universe' become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.

Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended. It is not what the written text demands. But it is what the courts have now decreed. We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.

Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will. A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges' latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate. A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides 'the very foundation of all written constitutions;' that is, that the Constitution is 'a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.' Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).

2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.

Under the 'new Constitution' drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not 'demean' the sexual practices of 'consenting adults' that are closely connected to individual views regarding 'the meaning of life' and 'mysteries of the universe.' (For those of you who either aren't familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.) To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people. In their place, the Justices have given us a poem - a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.

This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter. It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act. But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the 'least dangerous branch' because it does not create policy but merely exercises 'judgment.' The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.


Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can't be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution. If the 'correct' answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be - indeed, can only be - resolved by legislative action.

The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution. By inventing and enforcing 'rights' nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people's popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.

The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts. But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance. Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court - and not the people - ultimately will determine what marriage means. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.

The question is: What does the Constitution demand? I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution. The Founders did not do it. But the courts have.

By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people. The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power. It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order."

Steve Farrell writes: "We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them."

References:

Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment

Earl Taylor Jr, "Marriage and the Constitution", NCCS, April 2004. Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html

W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Newsmax, March 3, 2004. Referenced at: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml

Steve Farrell, "Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?," Federal Observer, April 29, 2012. Referenced at: http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369

"California Proposition 8," Wikipedia. Referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

Diane Rufino, "Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights," August 2010. Referenced at: http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article was originally written as a response to an article written in the Fayetteville Observer which bashed the NC Marriage Amendment (Amendment 1). In fact, I submitted the first few paragraphs of my article in response to that article. I was inspired to do so by Pastor Jeff Long, who had emailed me and who himself had responded with a powerful message, which is attached below.

Response to Article in Fayetteville Observer Bashing the Marriage Amendment --

Jeffrey Long (Former NC Public Health Study Commissioner)

Another ANTI-Marriage Amendment opinion piece which denies social realities unfolding all around us which threaten to bring a negative "sea change" to North Carolina society and culture in days to come if we do NOT reinforce OUR state law by putting it in our constitution--as 30 other states have already!

Virginia adopted a Marriage Amendment more restrictive than ours in 2006. The Old Dominion is not in social turmoil as a result, nor are perceived "inconveniences" imposed upon homosexuals there appearing to be so insuperable because they are not allowed to be called "marrieds," nor accorded official status, benefits and privileges traditionally given to espoused men and women.

Plus, upon constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court of that state has since upheld it!

The Obama Administration has now unilaterally determined that its Justice Dept. will not defend any more cases under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Bill Clinton. This blatant act of Executive non-feasance now sets the stage for the perfect storm of judicial activism which will ensue shortly--most likely after the November election--in which our little statute restricting state recognition to only man-woman marriage will be gobbled up as has been the fate of similar laws in other states (cf,: Prop 22 in California).

When Proposition 8 was passed in a referendum vote by a majority of Californians, homosexuals were allowed to have their state recognized "civil unions." BUT, in short order this did not prove to be enough for them as they walked off in a snit and demanded full recognition and DEFINITION IN LAW as marrieds with marriage licenses identical to that of men and women.

A case was promptly brought by deep-pocketed homosexual activists against Prop 8 which succeeded in getting it overturned. The case was presided over by homosexual judge Vaughn Walker, who unethically did not recuse himself from sitting in judgment, and in a case of bald judicial activism he wrote an opinion overturning it.

<> (Wiki)

A three-judge panel of the most liberal federal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth District, took up the appeal and by a 2 to 1 vote upheld Walker's decision. However.....

<< Judge N. Randy Smith, noted in his dissent that states do legitimately prohibit sexual relationships condemned by society such as incest, bigamy, and bestiality, and impose age limits for marriage without violating constitutional rights.[195] He stated that "gays and lesbians are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class" and are thus not entitled to the courts' increased scrutiny of laws that affect them.[195] He wrote, "The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children." He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in "a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples" because only they can have children.[195] He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.[196]

<>

In the meantime, statesmen in 30 states who years ago wisely foresaw these types of shenanigans on the horizon, began reinforcing their own marriage laws by incorporating them in their own constitutions. And they succeeded in doing this with a show of overwhelming support of their states' voters, in some cases by over 70%.

North Carolina voters must move now to protect our families and children from a movement which is well-funded and which is bent on redefining marriage as a genderless institution and which will (is already in other places and on many college campuses) bring in its wake demands for acceptance and approval of pedophilia, transgenderism, self-mutilation, etc., not to mention give official government sanction to reprehensible disease- (read: AIDS) transmitting activities -- NONE of which we want to see incentivized in the Tar Heel State!

This is why not only a religious person, but a rational and sound thinking--and yes, a truly compassionate voter --will VOTE FOR the Marriage Amendment on May 8th