It is so refreshing to finally see at least one state (Alabama) stand up and push back against the tyranny of the federal government and judicial activists.
From Fox News:
The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state’s probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, a decision that flies in the face of numerous rulings by federal judges in Alabama and other states across the country who have said banning gay marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t alter the judges’ duty to administer state law, which defines marriage as between only one man and one woman.
Six justices concurred in the 134-page opinion, which wasn’t signed, but the court’s most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, recused himself.
This is what ALL state officials (going all the way back to the 2003 judicial activism in Massachusetts when Governor Mitt Romney rolled over and began the domino of counterfeit marriage in America) should have been doing all along, as Leftist tyrants have been usurping the federal and state constitutions, the rule of law, and the will of the people (not to mention usurping the institution of marriage itself). State governors, attorneys general, judges, court officials and anyone else involved in upholding the law in a state should have been telling these judicial activists where they can shove their tyranny (i.e. the same place homosexual activists like to shove things).
As I have pointed out before, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that supports counterfeit marriage. The U.S. Constitution is completely silent on marriage. Why? First, the founders of our country 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.” Further, regulating marriage is not found in the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Also, 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.
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.
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.” Indeed, 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.
Hopefully, the courage and backbone of a few good men in Alabama will help good people in other states to grow some anatomy and start to push back against this tyranny and usurpation. Our nation’s founders would be aghast and ashamed of their posterity for the cowardly way so many of us have behaved. These actions in Alabama (and hopefully a new and growing number of other states to follow) may yet restore some of the faith of the founders.
Hint: South Dakota governor, attorney general and judges (and legislators), take note: good people expect this kind of leadership of YOU!
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.