Scroll To Top

States’ Rights Versus Judicial Tyranny

Posted in Culture, Government Tyranny2 years ago • Written by Defender Of LibertyNo Comments

There is not a syllable in the plan (U.S. Constitution) under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81

The opinion which gives to judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. – Thomas Jefferson 

 

     The federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, do not have the power to make or nullify federal, state, and local laws. The federal courts should be powerless against the Legislative Branch (Congress), the law making branch, but Congress has allowed tyrants in black robes to usurp its power.

     I don’t know exactly when the federal courts became the final arbiter of federal, state, and local laws, but it has happened. The federal judiciary has proclaimed it has the power to make law despite the United States Constitution, states’ rights, and the will of the people. We the People has become We the Federal Judges.

     Judicial tyranny has never been more pronounced than in relation to same sex marriage. Federal judges have assumed a power that it does not possess by redefining marriage to correlate with their personal beliefs. Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it provide any branch of the federal government the power to define marriage.

     States have the right to determine whether they will allow same sex marriages. States’ rights and the doctrine of nullification explained by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions gives states the power to nullify any federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional. Jefferson wrote:

According to the plain intent and meaning in which it (U.S. Constitution) was understood and acceded by the several parties (States), it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness and prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others…

 Twenty-one states have banned same sex marriage and subsequently bowed to the mystical authority of federal judges by issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians after a federal judge declared that their bans were “unconstitutional.” Federal judges have asserted that states do not have the authority to ban same sex marriage because somehow the federal judiciary has the authority to define marriage and strike down any state laws contradictory to their definition. Thus far, forty-four (44) federal rulings have nullified states rights, and sent a clear message to states and their citizens that they are powerless against judicial tyranny.

     The State of Alabama has chosen not to submit to the tyranny of the federal judiciary. When a federal judge, Callie Granade, ruled that Alabama’s constitution, specifically its Sanctity of Marriage Amendment (approved by 81 percent of voters), is “unconstitutional” the response by top Alabama officials was to ignore the judge’s ruling and stand pat. The Christian Examiner has indicated that Granade’s “family preference” quite possibly influenced her decision because it appears as if she has a gay son.
                                               

Chief Justice Roy Moore

     The Chief Justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court, Roy Moore, responded to the ruling by sending a letter to Governor Bentley reminding him that Alabama’s constitution compels him to ignore the ruling of the federal judge. Moore wrote:

As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage. The people of this state have specifically recognized in our Constitution that marriage is “a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman;” that “a marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state…”

     The battle over same sex marriage will have implications that go far beyond the morality of the issue. Federal judges have positioned themselves as the final arbiters over disputes related to state constitutions and laws. Granade’s ruling that struck down Alabama’s constitutional amendment on marriage is a power grab that, if allowed to stand, will effectively give the federal judiciary the power to nullify state constitutions in their entirety. The consequences of this judicial tyranny will be the end of states’ rights, state sovereignty, and self-government. I hope and pray that Alabama will continue to exercise its right of nullification by virtue of the Tenth Amendment. and fight against tyranny in defense of states’ rights.

TAGS: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave A Response

Contact Us

Don’t Miss The Latest Articles

Disclaimer:

Links on this site may be affiliate links. This site participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, which is an affiliate advertising program that helps this site earn advertising fees by linking to Amazon.com.
Show Buttons
Hide Buttons