Judge Roy Moore Stands for the Rule of Law
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is doing what officials should have been doing since judicial tyrants in 2003 in Massachusetts first declared open war on marriage: just say no.
From the Rapid City Journal:
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, in an 11th hour move to keep the weddings on hold, sent an order to state probate judges Sunday night telling them to refuse to issue the marriage licenses to gay couples. Moore argued that judges are not bound by the ruling of a federal judge that the gay marriage ban is unconstitutional.
It was a dramatic return to defiance for Moore who was removed as chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal court order to remove a washing machine-sized Ten Commandments from the state judicial building. Critics lashed out that Moore had no authority to tell county probate judges to enforce a law that a federal judge already ruled unconstitutional.
“This is a pathetic, last-ditch attempt at judicial fiat by an Alabama Supreme Court justice_a man who should respect the rule of law rather than advance his personal beliefs,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign.
“Effective immediately, no probate judge of the state of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama probate judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent with (the Alabama Constitution),” Moore, who serves as head of the court system, wrote in the letter sent Sunday night.
Actually, Judge Moore IS respecting the rule of law. There is no legal obligation whatsoever for any official in Alabama to obey the edicts of lawless tyrants–and every reason for them to reject judicial activism and stick with the law.
Why? First, the rule of law in Alabama (and almost all of the states) says marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman. The overwhelming majority of the states constitutionally passed laws making this abundantly clear, and most of the states went so far as to enshrine this common-sense recognition in their state constitutions. What’s more, when Bill Clinton was president, the federal government passed a law that said the same thing at the federal level.
Ergo, the rule of law says marriage is a relationship which can only be formed by a man and a woman. Judge Moore is respecting and upholding the rule of law against federal thug tyrants who hold the rule of law in contempt.
What’s more, not only is affirmative state law on the side of marriage, there exists no authority for federal judges to mandate anything regarding marriage.
You see, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would even remotely support counterfeit marriage. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is completely silent on marriage. Why? For one thing, the founders of our great nation would not have even imagined that a culture could become so insane as to consider that two men sodomizing each other might be considered “marriage.” What’s more, regulating marriage is not found in the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (and the people of the vast majority of the states have made it clear that they believe what every civilization in human history has always recognized: that marriage can only be formed by a man and a woman). Finally, as “Father of the Constitution” James Madison made abundantly clear about the federal government in Federalist No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
No, in our constitutional republic, the legislative branch is empowered to create law, and that law is finalized by the signature of the chief executive of the executive branch. The judicial branch, as Alexander Hamilton made clear in Federalist No. 78, is not an equal branch of government (note that the legislative branch has ten sections outlining its powers, the executive four, and the judiciary three) and does not have the power to make law: “the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.” It can only adjudicate according to the Constitution and the law that has been constitutionally passed. It cannot create law. It cannot make up law. It cannot impose its will as if it were law. We are not an oligarchy; we are a constitutional republic where the legislative branch makes law.
Would you submit to the “authority” of your butcher to pull you over on the road and give you a traffic ticket? Would you submit to the “authority” of your dentist to cite you for a building code violation in your home? Would you submit to the “authority” of your legislator to put on a judge’s robes and declare you guilty of something? If so, why? If not, then why would you submit to the pretended authority of someone who clearly does not have authority to make laws? The obvious answer is: you wouldn’t! You’d ignore them, if not react somewhat forcefully to their usurpation of authority which did not belong to them.
Indeed, James Madison recommended this approach to federal usurpation and tyranny in Federalist No. 46:
should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
Refusal to cooperate with the federal officials who seek to impose their tyrannical will on the states. Yes, we need a whole lot of refusal to cooperate with these tyrants, just as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr. and their fellow civil rights champions refused to cooperate with the Democrats who were trampling freedom and the Constitution.
Any state official who does not resist illegal and unconstitutional edicts from the federal government has become complicit in in those crimes. We the people should hold them accountable along with federal usurpers.
Every state should have already been taking this approach and telling judicial tyrants where they can stuff their lawless opinions–going all the way back to the 2003 Massachusetts decision that the gutless Governor Mitt Romney should have ignored. That would have kept the finger in the dike of the attack on marriage and denied it its first foothold.
We cannot look to others to take up the fight to defend marriage. Each of us must do what we can, for we cannot look to the federal government for help–especially among the gutless “Republicans” that pass for the political defenders of family and traditional values these days.
The Supreme Court is useless, with Chief Justice John Roberts having revealed himself to be less reliable than even Justice Kennedy, and the court majority in general having already proven its hostility toward marriage and the rule of law.
Congress could explicitly remove marriage from the dirty hands of the federal court system (it is within the constitutional authority of congress to limit the authority of the courts), but it is obvious that gutless RINO John Boehner isn’t going to lift a finger to defend the American people or the rule of law.
The founders of our great nation knew that a time comes when people must rise up and resist tyranny. They fought “pretended legislation” that fraudulently set itself up to have the authority of law that it did not have. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence itself was a long list of examples of resistance to an out-of-control government that had demonstrated overt hostility to the rule of law. Can we really be such cowards as to turn our back this legacy of courage and allow tyranny from our own government on our own soil?
State judges, governors, and other officials should simply ignore unconstitutional and lawless edicts from judicial activists. They have no basis whatsoever in constitutional authority, in law, or in our constitutional republic. Good people are under no obligation whatsoever to obey illegal edicts.
What’s more, good people should insist that judicial activists be impeached and removed from office for violating their oath of office and for their attack on law and the Constitution.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.