[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: 4410
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 # 37.

#3. To: tpaine (#0)

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

It is. Frequently law is evil and must be broken.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   13:03:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#3)

" Frequently law is evil and must be broken. "

Interesting. I would not have expected that opinion coming from you. I agree BTW

Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   13:19:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Stoner (#8) (Edited)

Frequently law is evil and must be broken. " Interesting. I would not have expected that opinion coming from you. I agree BTW

The only law that is really LAW is God's Law.

All OTHER "law" is human law. Human law is merely the opinions of men, imposed by deadly force. Men who want to preserve their lives, liberty and property have to be careful around human law, just like you have to careful around a live alligator or electricity, but men owe no ALLEGIANCE, either mental or external, TO the human law.

Human law is, by its nature, a usurpation, because it exceeds the Law, which comes from God alone. As such, men have the right to break it, and SHOULD ignore it, where they reasonably can, specifically in order to NOT serve it, for it has no true right to exist. It is imposed, and it is evil.

Where the human law PARALLELS the divine Law, what gives the human law force is the fact that it is divine Law. The fact that some body of men or other enact it gives it no legitimacy - it is the fact that God made that Law that gives it legitimacy. That some men in a building have repeated the words of God is nice, but their repetition doesn't increase the force of the Law. It merely makes it easier for people who follow God to live in that country, because the country's "laws" parallel, in some cases, the real Law, which comes exclusively from God alone.

That's the truth. It's a hard truth, and a subversive one. Men owe loyalty to God alone. Through God, men owe a duty of care to their families and their neighbors: THAT is part of The Law. However, God never granted men dominion over other men, and therefore men do not in fact HAVE dominion over other men. When they assert it by uniforms and guns, they are murderers or potential murderers. One has an obligation to always remember that: the state and its laws and force are usurpations of God. One may be forced, by practical realities, to pay taxes and obey state impositions due to the threat of death and loss, and the need to provide for one's family, but one must never mentally give assent, loyalty or a bent knee to anybody who imposes a law at gunpoint. It's always evil, and the minute that one can break free of it and end that authority, one should.

You cannot serve both God and mammon. You can serve God and live. Or you can serve mammon and die. Mammon pays well on this side of the grey curtain of death. To understand how well God pays is to understand that when you see an orchard full of oranges, and you are hungry, you actually have a right, under The Law, to walk in and pick an orange and eat it, and you do not have to pay for it. That's God's and he gave it to you.

That the human law says that that is theft merely demonstrates the extent to which men have violently stolen from you what is yours from God. And shows you how you should treat government: as a mob boss, an armed thief.

Men should never take oaths at all - God said so. Certainly they should not be taking oaths to government.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   13:45:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

Thanks for your reply, expansive as it is. Which I have come to expect from you. As expansive as your replies usually are, you must either be a politician, or a lawyer, LOL, for you seem to be unable to give a short & simple reply! I enjoy them though.

Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   14:07:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Stoner (#11)

you seem to be unable to give a short & simple reply

The only law is God's law. It is about 8%, by volume, of the text of Scripture, and it is repeated three or four times, so it amounts to about 40 pages of ideas, three quarters of which applied only to operating the state of Israel, which God removed.

So there are ten pages of law to learn.

That's the only law.

Don't watch sports. Don't work out. Do no leisure activity until you've memorized the ten pages of the law.

Then apply them. And reject everything that gets in the way of them. Which means rejecting much of your organized religious denomination's doctrine, and your country's claims, and the human law, and human norms, and the incessant self-interest demands of women, and following God's law.

There.

Short enough? Or still too long.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:13:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

" Short enough? Or still too long. "

LOL, no, that is quite fine, but I think you do get my point, and I do get yours. LOL. Thanks again.

Stoner  posted on  2015-09-05   14:25:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Stoner (#14)

but I think you do get my point, and I do get yours.

Reality is complex, and lies spawn on all surface area. To straighten out the kinks requires a lot of words.

Example: the law is "Don't kill."

Know what that means? It means "Don't kill."

Good enough?

Or will you have to have pages and pages of explanation as to why "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill? Because, you know, if you can't KILL, you can't build powerful countries.

But actually, that's right: you can't build powerful countries. You can't build anything if it requires you to kill.

I could summarize: God is. Serve him alone by following all of the law. Marry for life and have kids. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't be sexually immoral. Don't amass wealth. You are your eighbor's keeper. Forgive everybody everything. Don't add any laws to this list. Don't take any laws to this list.

That's not even ten pages.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-05   14:39:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

"Or will you have to have pages and pages of explanation as to why "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill?"

I don't know. How many pages was Roe v Wade? That's where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "Don't kill" really means that it's ok to kill a baby as long as it's still in the mother's womb.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-09-08   20:54:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 37.

        There are no replies to Comment # 37.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 37.

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