Firearms And Liberty - Shade's Landing Inc. Carry Permit MN

Where Conservatives Gather

And then then there were NINE

How an activist court suprised us all...

The TRANSFORMATION of America

There is so much to talk about, to discuss and to disagree about, I hardly know where to start. But let’s start with two of the major cases the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on at the end of June 2015:

  • KING ET AL v . BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL (Affordable Care Act – ObamaCare)
  • OBERGEFELL ET ALv. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL (Same Sex Marriage)

In the first case of KING, six of the nine justices cleared up the obviously ambiguous term “State Exchange and determined that it really could also mean “Federal Exchange”. Proving once and for all that words have no meaning, and because they lack any mean, the laws can mean anything we, the legislature, a cop or a court may make them mean. “What IS the meaning of the word IS?” comes to mind.

Here’s the rub: If the words mean not what an obvious reading of them would indicate, then how the hell do we, the American public ever hope to follow the law? Scalia dissented along with Thomas and Alito. Scalia wrote:

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” “

He later writes:

“The Court’s decision reflects  the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them. This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. We must always remember, therefore, that “[o]ur task is toapply the text, not to improve upon it.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp., 493 U. S. 120, 126 (1989).“

The majority has taken the legislative function upon themselves to fix a discrepancy in the law. Forgetting as Scalia reminds them that to do so, is not their job.

Scalia later laments that the ACA should be called SCOTUScare.

Now that the liberal majority has seen fit to uphold Obamacare a second time for a more tenuous reason than they did the first time, they move onto gay marriage.

In OBERGEFELL the majority has now reshaped American society by declaring marriage a RIGHT found under the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. I read and re-read the amendment to no avail. I saw nowhere that it mentioned same sex (gay) marriage was a right.

The court’s reasoning is as follows.

(b)

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.

(1)   The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v.  Baird , 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

.What is interesting here is that the court also holds that homosexuality is a CHOICE (i.e. “to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.”) We will come back to this in a moment.

Roberts, Scalia and Thomas however dissented.

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be al lowed to affirm their love

and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples.  …


But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex  marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).”

“Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. “

“The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. “

Scalia said in his dissent:
“Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves”

What this ruling tells us is that other rights we have should likewise be protected under the due process clause. Perhaps if we have a permit or license to carry a firearm on our person in one state, it should be a recognized right in all 50 states least we be deprived of our “dignity” as the majority has written.

And Thomas said this about dignity in his dissent:

“Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples.  Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28. 8 The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the  Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.  Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. “

Dignity is endowed by the Creator, not government. Nor can government take the dignity of an individual according to the reasoning set forth by Thomas.

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away”

I truly get what he is saying and agree completely. Even if Government attempts to devalue humans, through slavery, torture, unwarranted confinement, a person’s dignity is never taken away by the state.

One may define dignity as Webster’s defines it as: “the quality of being worthy of honor or respect” and to that end, ALL human life is worthy of honor or respect as seen through a non-secular view of the world.

Thomas has stirred up quite a bit of controversy because of his dissent. Openly gay actor George Takei said this about Thomas in an interview with a local Fox news station:  “He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court,” said Takei. “He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there.”

“For him to say slaves have dignity, I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains? That they were whipped on the back?” Takei said. “My parents lost everything that they worked for in the middle of their lives, in their 30s. His business, my father’s business, our home, our freedom and we’re supposed to call that dignified?… This man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.”

The Supreme Court in both of these historic cases acted more on “feelings” than on law. To not recognize how the majority in both opinions deviated from the law, made law, usurped the legislative function of our duly elected representatives is to live in a land even further removed than the majority in these two cases. What the gays could not get through representative government they got by going to court.

The fallout of Obergeefell is that the full LGBT agenda still has not been realized. On their list of priorities are:

  • Change people’s thinking –
    • Say something against same sex marriage and you’ll be labeled a hater
    • Ban charitable status of Ministries and churches if Pastors, Reverends, Priests refuse to conduct same sex ceremonies
    • Replace sexual morality with sexual relativism: Anything goes
    • Pass hate crime laws, hate speech and hate thought laws
    • Redefine the language: Marriage now is anything the Supreme Court says it is.
    • Remove all laws governing the age of consent (from the 1972 Gay Rights platform)
    • "Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." (from the 1972 Gay Rights platform)
    • "Anti-homophobic curriculum in the schools." (1987 March on Washington)
    • "The government should provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations and education just as protection is provided on race, creed, color, sex, or national origin." (1987 March on Washington)
    • "The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. ... Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding." (1987 March on Washington)
    • "Public and private institutions should support parenting by lesbian or gay couples." (1987 March on Washington)

So they are not quite done. They’ll be back.

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."
— Thomas Jefferson

Written by Shade

Tuesday 07 July 2015 at 7:53 pm

Posted in News & Editorials

Used tags: , , ,

Comments are not enabled