Overruling the Supreme Court: ‘Constitutional Resistance’
Legal scholars and university professors, led by Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, along with the American Principles Project, are leading a ‘Constitutional Resistance’ movement.
As such, they urge every federal and state judicial office holder, civil magistrate and government employee to reject the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges. As well as encouraging others to join them in refusing “to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.”
They declared in a joint statement:
“We have great respect for judges. We have even greater respect for law. When judges behave lawlessly, it is the law that must be honored, not lawless judges.
“The Supreme Court is supreme in the federal judicial system. But the justices are not supreme over the other branches of government. And they are certainly not supreme over the Constitution.”
These scholars emphasize the foundation to American jurisprudence rests in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, and also in the separation of, and a balance of power among the three branches of government. And, the Supreme Court is only part of one of these three branches.
The Supreme Court holds no final word on any legal matter. Its opinion can be overturned.
Any Supreme Court ruling that violates the U.S. Constitution, must, and can be legally over turned by Congress, by the states, and ultimately by the people. (However, the constitutional right of each state to define and determine marriage laws, based on constitutional provisions, is significant reason enough to systematically reject the Court’s ruling on Obergefell.)
These scholars affirm: “all officeholders in the United States … are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”
They cite President Abraham Lincoln, who warned:
“that for the people and their elected leaders to treat unconstitutional decisions of the Supreme Court as creating a binding rule on anyone other than the parties to the particular case would be for ‘the people [to] have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’”
They also cite James Madison, who emphasized the necessity to institute separation of powers to begin with:
The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.
For those who “constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell,” these scholars pledge to provide “full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.”
Additionally, they insist that each 2016 presidential candidate pledge to uphold a four-fold mandate:
- Consider Obergefell “an abuse of judicial power” not the law of the land;
- Refuse to recognize Obergefell as a binding rule by which other cases or laws are decided;
- Appoint judicial nominees who respect the constitutional limits of their power; and
- Support the First Amendment Defense Act, which protects freedom of conscience and speech for those who attest that marriage is solely the union between one man and one woman.
Finally, they are urging members of the public to join their efforts to affirm that the Constitution and “We the People” determine the laws of the land, not the U.S. Supreme Court.
First published at Constitution.com
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.