[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’ ?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 5, 2015
Author: Gary Demar
Post Date: 2015-09-05 12:43:51 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 4409
Comments: 41

godfatherpolitics.com

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

Let’s ask Thomas Jefferson. . .

Posted on September 2, 2015 by Gary DeMar Filed under 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Christianity, Homosexuality, Law, Law Enforcement, Liberal Bullying Share1.3K Tweet414 Share2.1K Email26

Did our founders, after drafting a Declaration of Independence, fighting a war with England, and then sitting down to pen a national governing document (the Constitution) put in that document the right of a majority of federal judges to make laws for the entire nation?

Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis is testing the claim that five unelected Supreme Justices have the authority to overrule a state constitution that she took an oath to uphold and a federal Constitution that says nothing about same-sex marriage.

Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, had this to say on the issue in a Facebook post:

“Inasmuch as SCOTUS so obviously overreached and acted as though it had the power to amend the Constitution (and certainly as legislators), Kim Davis should not comply. I disagree with my friends Maggie Gallagher, Rod Dreher, and Ryan Anderson on this one. The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day. Civil disobedience is commendable. The only problem with Kim Davis's position (aside from the fact that she would better ground her rationale in the illegitimate action of the Five Lawless Justices than in religious liberty; h.t. Brian Troyer) is that mass resistance has not occurred on the part of Christians.”

The states have rolled over on the question of judicial supremacy, and Congress is too busy solidifying its power base to take on a nation-dividing fundamental issue. Governors don’t want to make waves and get involved in a protracted legal battle with the Federal government that has unlimited money to spend and ways to hold back federal funding (money it took from the states in taxes). Wouldn’t it be great if a dozen or so states banded together and said no to the usurpation of their states’ authority?

As I've been reminded several times, since the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the land," the Tenth Amendment is part of the Constitution:

"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."

The power to regulate marriage was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.

But back to the constitutional question about the Supreme Court being the final authority. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the issue in a letter to William Charles Jarvis (28 September 1820).

I chose Jefferson because he is a liberal and neo-conservative icon.

_________________

You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem” [it is the part of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

Jefferson_jarvis

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. …

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.

#22. To: tpaine (#0)

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

Yes, when interpreting the Constitution, as in Obergefell. Try passing a state law criminalizing abortion, wingnut opinions notwithstanding.

Article 6, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is.

Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000)

But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997).

nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-05   15:17:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#22) (Edited)

Is an Opinion of the Supreme Court the ‘Law of the Land’?

Yes, when interpreting the Constitution, as in Obergefell.

Not true. Both States and officials of every branch at any level of govt have the power to reject SCOTUS opinions, at their own peril.

Try passing a state law criminalizing abortion, wingnut opinions notwithstanding.

The wingnuts that passed RvW made it clear in their opinion that killing a viable fetus could be prosecuted as murder. Two bits you cannot refute that fact..

Article 6, Clause 2: ------- This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Nothing in that Article gives the SCOTUS the power to make law.

The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is.

Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion.

Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997).

That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it...

"The Obergefell decision has no more validity than the Dred Scott case (or the Fugitive Slave Law) had in Lincoln's day."

The Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott was correct. Dred Scott was returned to the Chaffees as a slave. The lawyers are lucky they were not sanctioned.

And Dred Scott was probably the last slave returned under that opinion.

Everyone else ignored it.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-05   18:38:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: tpaine (#25)

The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is.

Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion.

Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997).

That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it...

Dickerson and Boerne and host of others are binding Supreme Court opinions and you know it.

Your ostrich approach to Supreme Court opinions make them no less binding. SCOTUS did its job and said what the law is.

The Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, even the imaginary laws of tpaine nothwithstanding.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-09-08   13:24:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 34.

#35. To: nolu chan (#34)

Nolu opines : ---

Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution is binding on all, and cannot be superseded by State or Federal legislation. SCOTUS gets to say what the law is

Not true. You cannot cite anything written in the Constitution that supports your opinion.

Dickerson v United States, 530 US 428, 437 (2000) ------- But Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution. See, e. g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507, 517–521 (1997).

That quote is just another court opinion, and you know it...

Dickerson and Boerne and host of others are binding Supreme Court opinions and you know it.

"Opinions" are not "binding" in normal legal English usage. You're making up your own usage. -- And you know it..

Your ostrich approach to Supreme Court opinions make them no less binding. SCOTUS did its job and said what the law is.

SCOTUS did its job and gave us their opinion. It is NOT BINDING, and nothing in the Constitution says it is.

The Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Yep, laws made in "pursuance thereof". ----- That's our issue here, whether the laws were made in "pursuance thereof", -- and, -- whether the SCOTUS opinions about those laws are thus binding.

Many constitutional scholars disagree with your take. Face that fact.

The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, even the imaginary laws of tpaine nothwithstanding.

The laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, the imaginary opinions of nolu chan nothwithstanding.

tpaine  posted on  2015-09-08 19:49:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com