SUPREME COURT – SAME SEX MARRIAGES_OBERGEFELL v. HODGES_Post 30

“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. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insights” into “the nature of injustice.”. . . Just who do we think we are?” Roberts, C. J., dissenting, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas

“So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million American, coast to coast, is a majority of nine lawyers in the Supreme Court. . . . 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.” Scalia, J., dissenting joined by Justice Thomas

“The court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which the nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of “liberty” that the framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty that they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea – captured in our declaration of independence – that human dignity is innate and suggests that it comes from the government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic.” Thomas, J dissenting joined by Justice Scalia

“Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their states should recognize same-sex marriages (Footnote shows that this is shorthand for issuing marriage license). The question in these cases, however, is not what states should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each state…. The court has held that “liberty” under the due process clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights . . . The justices in the majority claimed that authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe that it is fundamental.” Justice Alito, dissenting, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas

Judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.
“… There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823 Thomas Jefferson
Judiciary usurping the powers of the legislature as unconstitutional judicial tyranny.
“… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.” Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825 Thomas Jefferson

FORWARD

Our journey in this article will cover many bases. My sources were foundational. What I mean by this is that I used the actual Supreme Court ruling of OBERGEFELL et al. v. Hodges, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, which can be found here, the Declaration of Independence which can be found here, and the Constitution that can be found here. I urge the reader to download these documents and follow my reasoning. This issue is far deeper than same-sex marriage. This ruling is a direct attack on religious freedom in the United States and the Constitution of the United States.

A small set (5) of Justices representing the majority have ruled their “opinion” is the law with disregard the constitutional requirements as to what their jobs are and the Constitution itself. Read carefully the dissenting above opinions that I have selected. If this ruling is allowed to survive then the Republic founded on the Constitution with its different departments with different responsibilities has been destroyed. This is clearly legislation from the Judiciary and not judicial analysis in relation to the Constitution.

Our approach is to carefully review the majority opinion. By carefully, I mean to analyze the rationale of the five justices and to see how their reasoning led to their views. Then I will look at each of the dissenting opinions of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Currently there is a major schism in the Supreme Court. The majority has ruled based on their opinion, which according to the Constitution is not their job. The minority have dissented on the basis that their opinion has nothing to do with their job, which is to review laws and determine whether they can be justified on the Constitution or are in violation of the Constitution. The majority ruling is clearly their opinion of how society should be run. As jurists, it would not matter where they were from or what their beliefs were. However, their opinion is very significant since these men are legislating their views onto 320 million people who may not share them. The area of the country where they come from makes no difference if they are jurists. Remember, in this instance they wear the shroud of jurists but are acting as activists for a centralized state with a communist point of view. I use the term communist because the opinion denigrates religious freedom and the rights of individuals to believe and act according to their religious beliefs. No more. You can now “teach” religious views but you will be forced to live our views. Specifically, they are legislating their ideas upon areas of the country that they did not come from and are in direct conflict of what these people feel and want. We will show this statement to be true.

The argument of the majority opinion removes itself from Constitutional constrains of the first Amendment – freedom of religion and the “exercise” thereof – and sets four points as guidelines upon which their opinion is based. They use these four points to use the 14th Amendment to justify their arbitrary actions. These points are not in the Constitution. It is their method of justifying their reasons. Their conclusions are based on these arbitrary self-set guidelines and their opinions within those guidelines. It is strictly their opinion and has virtually nothing to do with law – other than it violates law.

Since these Justices have set themselves up as representing 320 million people and not jurists, I investigated the individual justices’ backgrounds, where they are from, their religion, and where their opinions were formed. We will go into the philosophy of government, specifically the founder’s argument for rejecting Plato’s philosophy of government which is based upon a benevolent King and Aristotle’s philosophy of government which is based upon a system of laws upon which even the President and the Supreme Court must adhere. The founders rejected Plato’s philosophy and accepted Aristotle’s philosophy. They designed the Constitution based on maintaining this philosophy of government.

In the process of doing this investigation, I discovered and then concluded that one individual on the court who is in the majority should have recused herself. I am talking about Justice Ginsburg. She has been on the board of directors and acted as the chief counsel for the ACLU, a communist organization, for nine years. The ACLU original founders and their communist philosophy will be examined and its subsequent policies examined. In the last 40 years, those policies were enforced by Justice Ginsburg. We will touch on the subject as to what those policies are, how they attack the Christian religion and our founders’ government and how closely they are associated to those of the illuminati philosophy. Finally, we will make a few recommendations.

Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States – Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer

Held: the 14th amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state. P. 1

supreme Court

The term marriage goes back millennia and represent religious customs of free people. The state has only entered into this custom in modern times. The state could have and possibly should have created civil family unions for same-sex couples, which are civilly the same but, are called differently than that of a marriage, which is performed, in a religious ceremony that calls the blessings of God upon the couple. Thinking about it, the civil Family union could be Democalled Family Union – Male or Female – FUM or FUF. The state instead encroached itself into church teachings and practices and aggressively interposed itself into the family life of America and its Christian teachings. This ruling is already causing demonstrations around the U.S. and the Supreme Court. It is a highly emotional issue when the state enters the religious sphere and says you must “Follow this even if it violates your fundamental Religious beliefs”. The Jewish population is also protesting this theft of our religious rights as shown in this video speech by a Jewish Rabbi on the steps of the Capital. here.

Let us now look how the majority reached their opinion. First, it must be noted they avoided the First Amendment, which specifically states, “Congress makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Rather, they redefine the term liberty that is not in the traditional sense of America and they use the 14th amendment to justify their actions.
First, they say that they return to the governing principles and precedents. In this sense, they state there are four principles and tradition that demonstrate the reasons why marriage is fundamental under the Constitution and apply equal force to same-sex couples that currently applies to heterosexual couples.

1. “The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” Pp. 3-4

2. “The right is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its important to the committed individuals.” Pp. 3-4

3. “It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of the child rearing for, procreation and education.” Pp. 3-4

4. “The nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the nation’s social order.” Pp. 3-4

I find that these are interesting points and fully debatable in a Sociology class but they are OPINION not LAW – unless the Justices use their opinion to make it into Law as they do in this instance. Then, they violate the Constitution that requires jurists perform judicial review of laws against the Constitution.
Article 3, section 2: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority . . .” [Emphasis added]

This clearly says the laws must be contrasted and tested under the existing Constitution. It does not say that the jurists have the responsibility nor the authority to extend the Constitution as is happening above. The reason is simple. In modern day parlance, if you establish the goalposts to be moving, then you can cover and get a goal no matter where the ball is on the field. This is what the majority has done. The petitioners have strong arguments rooted in social policy. However, this court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should not concern this Court. It is not their job to extend the Constitution. It is the job of State legislatures – 11 have agreed to do so but 39 have not.

The majority uses the 14th amendment as the basis for making its decisions.
The Majority opinion is best shown as opinion by the use of their own words. I will quote some of them:
• “It is the demeaning to lock same-sex couples out the central institutions of the nation society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”p.4
• “Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other.” P.4
• “The marriage laws at issue are in essence, unequal: same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right.” P.4
• “While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed wait legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.” P.5
• “Respondent’s argument that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage isn’t as an institution rest on a counterintuitive view of opposite sex couples decisions about marriage and parenthood.”p.5 [emphasis added]

I note that none of this refers to law other than the 14th Amendment and never to the 1st Amendment.

JUSTICE KENNEDY’S MAJORITY OPINION

His argument is that the institution of marriage has changed over the millennium and this is just another change. He does not note that these changes were accomplished within the confines of a religion, specifically, the Christian religion. His argument is that the importance of marriage underlies the petitioner’s contentions they want marriage because that would meet the goal of their relationship.
Kennedy points out the difficulties of same-sex marriages when the couple adopts a child. His views are that:
• In emergency schools and hospitals, they treat the children as if they only had one parent
• If something happened to either same-sex couple person, then the other person has no legal rights over the children.
These are valid points. However, these civil problems could be solved with a civil contract. That contract does not necessarily mean a religious contract. It is convenient to call the civil contract a marriage. He points out that gays and lesbians had a just claim to “dignity” where “dignity” was in conflict with both law and widespread social conventions.  Specifically, after World War II:
• Same-sex intimacy remains a crime. In many states.
• Gays and lesbians were prohibited from most government employment.
• Were barred from military service.
• Were excluded under immigration laws.
• Were targeted by police.
• Were burdened in the rights to associate.
For much of the 20th century, homosexuality was treated as an illness. In recent years, many cases have started reaching the court Gay Marriage

 

 

 

 

system. The states are currently divided on this issue. 13 states have enacted laws that allow same-sex marriage. They are in the Northeast and the West Coast. Either 37 states have disallowed or the issue is still under discussion.

The majority rest the case of the 14th amendment and the arbitrary 4 goals that they set for the argument. The 14th amendment states, “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Justice Kennedy holds that:

Principle 1: The fundamental liberties protected by this client include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In his conclusion, he states that this analysis compels that the same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The analysis is fraught with opinion that “I want” and that if the same sex couples feel ostracized and cannot participate in society in the same way as married heterosexual couples then “society should change its rules”. His contention is that per the 14th Amendment, their “Liberty” is denied them. Heretofore, liberty has always meant that the state cannot enforce its laws upon free men against their will. This is now reversed and the state in the form of the Supreme Court is enforcing its views upon 320 million people.

Principle 2: Marriage is a fundamental two-person union to society that is important to individuals. There is dignity in two men or two women who seek to marry in their autonomy. Same sex couples have the right to join that union. Note this is stated but no reference to the fact that marriage is a Religious institution between a man and a woman to procreate and for the safekeeping of their offspring to make good citizens. This has been the purpose of marriage for millennia. Nor is there a mention of the 1st Amendment.

Principle 3: “The right to marry, establish a home and bring up children is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.” P.14 Again this is a statement and may be a desirable social outcome; however, it needs to be debated in the State legislature before it comes to the Supreme Court. This is legislation not judicial analysis against the Constitution where Marriage is never mentioned. Under the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Principle 4: Marriage is the foundation of society. Gay couples deserve the right to join as members of that foundation. Again, we have the situation where Gays want to join and thus should be allowed to join but the rules will have to be changed to allow them in. This is legislation not Supreme Court jurist review.
“The limitation that marriage to opposite sex couples may long have seen natural and just, but it’s inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and the injury of the kind prohibited by our basic character.”

Summary

As one can see from the above that the majority does not really attempt to be jurists. Rather, they are sociologists. They look to change habits, social stigma and church practices. They make it clear that they will legislate these changes and enforce them through their rulings. Rather than doing legal analysis, they simply state that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherited by the liberty of the person under the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Jurists in the minority are properly upset, by the opinionated non-legal majority of five members. I find it interesting that the court uses the phraseology that an individual not be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power, yet at the same time, they are willing to legislate same-sex marriage on 320 million people where literally 80% disagree based on their Religion.
They finally mention at the end that Religions and those who adhere to religious doctrines can continue to “advocate” and “teach” that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. However, “the State does not bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”

DISSENT – ROBERTS JOINED BY SCALIA AND THOMAS

John Roberts says that this ruling is a matter of will not law. He is eloquent in his statements and is obviously the leader of the minority who say that the majority has ruled from the bench in a manner that creates law rather than evaluating law against the Constitution. In this instance, Roberts should not complain too much since he started the process with his rewriting Obama care as a tax bill and then writing the law again with respect to State exchanges. Again, I will quote from Roberts’s dissent so that the reader can get an intelligent feel of how strongly Roberts feels that what is taking place is wrong.
• “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not.” p.2
• “The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a state change its definition of marriage.” p.2
• “A state’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.” p.2
• “Those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.” p.2
• “Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success – through the democratic process – to adopt their view. That ends today.” p.2
• “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of America as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over the same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept”. p.2 will
• “The majority today…seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘understanding of what freedom is and must become’.”p.3
• “The real questions in these cases are what constitutes ‘marriage,’ or, more precisely – who decides what constitutes ‘marriage’?”
• “Justice Curtis explained that when the ‘fixed rules that govern the interpretation of the laws are abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control’ the Constitution’s meaning; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to be.” P. 12
• “The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. . . . As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioner’s wishes is not relevant.” p.15
• “The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that ‘it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them.’ Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution then did naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. [Lochner v. New York, 1905. “Liberty of Contract] • “If an unvarying social institution and during all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can?” p…22
• “Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change. In the majority’s telling, it is the courts, not people who are responsible for making ‘new dimensions of freedom…apparent to new generations,’ providing ‘formal discord’ on social issues, and for ensuring ‘neutral discussions, without scornful or disparaging commentary’.” Pp.24-25
• “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is – unlike the right imagined by the majority –actually spelled out in the Constitution. ”p. 27 [Emphasis added] • “Celebrate the achievement of the desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution, it had nothing to do with it.” p.29 [Emphasis added]

DISSENT – SCALIA JOINED BY THOMAS

• “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.” p.2
• “The opinion is candid and startling (in its) assertion: no matter what it was that the people ratified, the 14th amendment protects those rights that the judiciary in its reasoned judgments thinks the 14th amendment are to protect.” P.4
• “A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.´p.5
• “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.” p.7
• “The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinions has to diminish this court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis. [Emphasis added] DISSENT – THOMAS and Joined by SCALIA
• “In the American legal tradition, liberty has been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.” P. 7
• “Whether we define ‘liberty’ as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have no way been deprived of it.” p.9
• “As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental actions, not an entitlement to governmental benefits.“ p. 13
• “. . . The majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our nation has long sought to protect.” P.14
• “. . The majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision would advance the ‘dignity’ of same-sex couples. The flaw is that in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no ‘dignity’ clause and even if it did, the government would be incapable of the bestowing dignity.” p.16
• “Our Constitution – like the Declaration of Independence before it – was predicated on a simple truth; one’s ‘liberty’, not to mention one’s ‘dignity’, was something to be shielded from – not provided by – the state. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority miss applies a clause focused on ‘due process’ to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of ‘liberty’ protected by that clause, and distorts the principle upon which this nation was founded.” P.18

DISSENT – ALITO JOINED by SCALIA and THOMAS

• “To prevent five unelected justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the court has held that “liberty’ under the due process clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S.701, (1997) And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. p.2
• “The justices in the majority claimed the authority to confer constitutional protection upon that right simply because they believe it is fundamental.” p.3
• “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.”p6
• “I assume that those who cling to the old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”p.7
• “Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is hold their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.” p.7

THE MAJORITY JUSTICES

After reading the decision and thinking about it. It struck me that I needed to investigate the justices who were in the majority in order to determine why they thought that way. Doing this analysis led me to a surprising conclusion that Ruth Canonsburg should have recused herself from this decision. Let us see why. One should understand that this ruling is
1. A major attack on the Constitution as discussed above in the dissenting opinions.
2. It is an attack on Christianity itself as the predominant religion in this nation.
Let us see why the facts lead to this conclusion.

Supreme Court Justice analysis

 Exhibit 1, Analysis of the Majority Supreme Court Justices

In Exhibit 1, Analysis of the Majority Supreme Court Justices, we have analyzed the Justices that formed the majority opinion. The results were striking as noted below:
• There were 3 Jews, 2 Catholics but NO Protestants in the majority on an opinion that strikes at the heart of their Christian beliefs.
• They are all lawyers from elite East Coast law schools.
• Harvard and Yale but no state schools are represented.
• Jews help each other get up the legal chain – (Kagan – Mikva), (Ginsburg – U.S. District Judge), (Breyer – Goldberg)
• Jews are 68 % of the majority but only 2.1 % of the population.
• Ginsburg has a long-term relationship to the ACLU – an anti-Christian communist organization.

 

Judaism_Denominations Exhibit 2, Church Denominations in America

In Exhibit 2, Church Denominations in America, examination of the spreadsheet leads to the following conclusions:
• 88% of all Jews believe that same sex marriages are acceptable.
• 100% of the Supreme Court Justice Jews believe that same sex marriages are acceptable. There are no Orthodox Jews on the Court.
• Two Catholics on the Court are Catholic in Name only and do not follow their Church teachings in this area of religion.
• Protestants are not on the Majority Court but represent 77.1 % of the population.

ACLU_Founders_Analysis

 Exhibit 3, ACLU Founder Analysis

In Exhibit 3, ACLU Founder Analysis, we find the following:
• The founders were Communist, Socialist or Progressive (socialist by another name)
• The source of money to start and run the ACLU for over 20 years was Albert DeSilver who was Skull and Bones (Yale) Illuminati organization.
• Harry Ward, Chairman, was a Communist and ran ACLU from 1920 to 1940

Communist beliefs
* He believes in no God
* He believes in centralized government
* He believes in no private property
• Illuminati Goals were the ACLU goals and possibly still are.

Illuminati goals – From my forthcoming book – Who’s Next?, Book II
* Abolition of all ordered government
* Abolition of private property
* Abolition of inheritances
* Abolition of patriotism
* Abolition of family
* Abolition of religion

In order to analyze the ACLU, I went to Wikipedia and found their fundamental Positions and activist thrusts over the last 40 years. This is important since these positions were created and fought for by Ruth Ginsburg, who was on the Board of Directors and Chief Counsel for the ACLU for 9 years from 1971 to 1980. These

ACLU_Positins

 Exhibit 4, ACLU Positions

were the formative years for these positions of the ACLU. The results of the analysis are shown in Exhibit 4, ACLU POSITIONS. In this spreadsheet, I have stated the ACLU position and the Christion belief. I also noted the Commandment in the Christian Beliefs that are being attacked. You conclude that
• The ACLU has attacked Christian beliefs for at least 40 years. They do this under the wraps of “Civil Rights”. In fact, they are fundamental Christian beliefs.
• The ACLU positions are consistent with Communism where the “state” is God and gives out all rights rather than the rights are “Natural or unalienable” God given rights.

It is my belief that Ginsburg, based on her beliefs and her record of association with the communist ACLU, should have recused herself from a position that is in fundamental contradiction to the Communist beliefs that she instigated and promoted for many years.

RELIGION IS THE BREAD OF LIFE OF AMERICA

The Justices in the majority do not understand the backbone of Bread of LifeAmerica. It is her foundational Christian Religion. It is what makes us different in the world of nations. We live our religion. We love our personal God in Jesus and we love our fellow man as ourselves. The centrists, socialists, progressives push for a central government and the removal of religion from our society so that they can have more power because they are in office. De Tocqueville understood this. Some quotes form his book – Democracy in America – are refreshing:
• “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
• “When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.”
• “I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and are ample rivers – and it was not there…in her fertile fields and boundless force and it was not there . . .in her rich minds in her vast world commerce – and it was not there…in her Democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and her pulpits aflame with righteousness that I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

CONCLUSIONS

We have traveled a long path. On that path, we discovered that there is a major split in beliefs on the Supreme Court. On the one hand, we have the majority, which uses opinion and creates new law not based on the Constitution to make rulings that in their opinion are correct for the nation. The minority on the court insists that this is not the Supreme Court’s job and that their job as jurist is to evaluate situations with respect to the Constitution. This was not done. This ruling is opinion.

We have five jurists with two Catholics and three Jews, but NO Protestants, all from the elitist law schools, all from elitist thinking, with only one from the West Coast, the rest being New York City. This would not be important if the Justices were acting as jurists, with a deep knowledge of the law. In fact, they are not acting this way, they are legislating their opinion upon 320 million people as being the law of the land. They do not represent the people and do not have a feel for what the people want. As shown in the above map. There were no members on this majority opinion from the south, the Southwest nor the Central states where deep religious feelings prevail. For this reason, Justice Scalia called this a legal “Putsch”. He is right. Justice Roberts said these are interesting social positions, but they are not law and this ruling needs to be overturned as soon as possible.
Upon reading the majority opinion, one cannot help but feel the arrogance of this majority. “We say it is this way so therefore it must be”. That is not America is not per the Constitution and is not law and is bad minority opinion.

Not being a jurist, I do not know what alternatives lie ahead. After this analysis, I feel that if the ruling is not overturned, then our system of government has been destroyed. It is no longer based on law that all men must abide. It is now based on opinion that is pronounced as law. This is what the founders fought to get rid of – it is a kingship – run under a Platonian form of government.

Consider the facts. Our country now has
• An Executive that rules by executive order, does not enforce laws that he does not like (immigration) and changes law when he wants without Congressional approval (Obamacare), creates anti-Christion regulations when he likes (men in combat on land or sea are not allowed to have bibles in the field)
• A Congress that gets laws handed to them by corporation lobbyists that write them. They do not bother to debate or read before they vote on them(Dodd, Frank law; Patriot Act; Obamacare, TPP)
• A Supreme Court that ignores Constitutional law and their job and legislates from the bench (Obamacare is a “tax”, Obamacare “exchanges” are extended to states when they do not want them, Same sex marriage that ignores the 1st Amendment and attacks Christian beliefs)
This describes a Fascist state with Communism as the end goal within the nation. The “state” must become the “God” of the people before this occurs. The state provides all rights not God. Our Republic only exists in form not substance if we allow these trends to continue. The New World Order requires this form of government to rule the world. Think about it.

For your convenience, I have included the URL for the documents referenced in this article.

About Raven

<script async src=”//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js”></script>
<!– button ads –>
<ins class=”adsbygoogle”
style=”display:block”
data-ad-client=”ca-pub-4712743579149728″
data-ad-slot=”5376571808″
data-ad-format=”link”></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>