Posted on 09/07/2015 3:07:04 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.
In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.
Opinions of the Court were kept "loosey-goosey" for decades, and not preserved with certified integrity. Actual statute was held officially and carefully, in order to preserve its certainty as law. In 1874, when Congress had decided to finally begin funding and overseeing the printing of Supreme Court opinions, while leaving their actual production to be handled privately, it moved its own code away from private printers to be solely handled by the U.S. government.
To this day, the actual production of Court opinions is done by contract to private entities. (You are apparently even invited, as a private citizen, to help out with any errors before the official printing!) By contrast, actual federal code, the statute that is "on the books" because it went through the constitutional process of lawmaking, remains meticulously and faithfully produced by the U.S. government, start to finish.
Supreme Court opinions have always been treated as inferior to the United States code--because they are not the "law of the land."
That's a modern mythThat's true if you consider 1803 to "modern".
The country has been functioning with the Supreme Court as the arbiter of the constitution for over 200 years.
This article reminds me of those that try to claim the the right to bear arms is a myth.
It has not proven to be a big step? Then what is the authority for judicial review of acts of Congress? It is distressing that for the past 200 years courts have misapplied this case.
BHO will be most pleased, as the reviewer lacks authority to review.
If Federal Code is meticulous then what about all that talk bozo used to change aspects of obozo care? Does any of THAT show up in the code?
Bump for later. So far this is a good read. Have to dig out my copies of “The Federalist Papers” and more importantly “The Antifederalist Papers”
Thank you for posting this EV. Whenever I mention the fact that no law has been changed, I get blank stares. I never thought to show an actual ruling which states right at the top that it is an opinion. There will be some heads exploding soon.
You’re welcome.
To believe the judicial supremacist lie, that the courts rule over us, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional their opinions, you have to believe some really unbelievable, ridiculous, and even frightening things.
You have to believe that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo were wrong. They should have gone ahead and bowed down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol.
You have to believe that the Apostles were wrong. They should have shut up about the Gospel of Jesus Christ when they were told by civil authorities to do so. .
You have to believe that the great Roman statesman Cicero was wrong, that there is no universally-applicable natural law which binds all men everywhere, throughout time.
You have to believe that Augustine was wrong when he said that, “an unjust law is no law at all.”
You have to believe that Thomas Aquinas was wrong when he said that, “Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”
You have to believe that William Blackstone was wrong when he said, “this natural law, being as old as mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, from this original.”
You have to believe that Samuel Adams was wrong when he said that, “[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”
You have to believe that Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he said that, “The Sacred Rights of Mankind...are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power,” and that “the judiciary... has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.”
You have to believe that Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he said that, “it is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
You have to believe that all of America’s founders were wrong when they challenged and defeated the supreme civil authority of that old tyrant King George III.
You have to believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong when, in his first Inaugural Address, he said that, “if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers...”
You have to believe that Justice Taney should have been obeyed into perpetuity when he pronounced in the infamous Dred Scott opinion that black men were not human beings.
You have to believe that it was fine for a tinpot probate judge to pronounce a literal death sentence by dehydration and starvation on a helpless disabled woman, and that it was acceptable to have the entire legal and political establishment of Florida and of the United States stand passively by as her tormentors tortured her to death by cruel and unusual means.
You have to believe that it’s just fine that, by judicial decree, and through the passive connivance of a whole generation of American lawyers and politicians, more than fifty-five million defenseless babies have been brutally slaughtered, even though those same politicians swore a sacred oath to God to provide equal protection for the right to life of every person under their jurisdiction
You have to believe that nobody can do a thing when judges, in gross violation of the laws of nature and nature’s God, and contrary to every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution of the United States, invent an imaginary “right” for a man to “marry” a man, or for a woman to “marry” a woman, even though such a perverted thing is physically, naturally, impossible.
You have to believe that our Constitution, and our republican form of government, with its necessary checks and balances, is a dead letter.
You have to believe that the sacred oath of office is nothing more than a formality or a photo op.
Please, quit believing nonsense. It’s killing people, and destroying American self-government in liberty.
Obama is an usurper and an oathbreaker, and the current court stinks.
Big news, right?
So, your solution is to ignore every Court decision you disagree with. Good luck with that.
No. My solution is for our representatives, and our executives, to keep their own oaths, no matter what some stupid, crazy, immoral judge says.
Because that’s the form of government our founders set up for this free republic, and it’s a very good one.
We will agree to disagree agreeably.
Your arguments are always well supported, and I learn something every time.
Have a good evening.
Thank you.
That’s how civil discussion and debate looks. Well done.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Most of the "landmark" cases of the first hundred and fifty years of our Republic are now seen as horrible. Here are a few of the highlights:
1. Marbury v. Madison: schools make this out to be a work of brilliance. In reality, it was SCOTUS usurping power that they were NEVER granted and NEVER intended to have.
2. Dred Scott
3. Civil Rights Cases of 1883
4. Plessy v. Ferguson
5. Buck v. Bell
In reality it wasn't until Brown v. Board of Education that the Court made a landmark ruling that everyone today can agree was right and there have been precious few since then.
When the Supreme Court rejects 5000 years of precedent, the court has left its role as neutral arbiter and has joined in the rush to destroy American Civilization.
This was an OPINION. They did not re-write the laws of the States. The laws of the various states which define marriage as an institution based on the union of one man and one woman are still on the books. The States should either ignore this ruling altogether (Like the EPA and Obama do all the time) or they should refuse to issue any marriage licenses at all.
If the Decision in Obergefell stands, then the institution of Marriage no longer exists. It must not stand. We must rebel against judical tyrannty.
Don’t forget Korematsu v US.
The Supreme Court in that case put every Japanese American on the west coast into concentration camps. A clear violation of the Constitution.
If they can do it to Japanese, then can do it to Christians.
Oh wait, they already started. Kim Davis is in Jail until she surrenders her faith.
Did you even READ what EV wrote ?
Yes, he said I was believing in nonsense.
He also stated several reasons why he thinks it nonsense.
He “argued” a position. That is what you are supposed to do in a debate and discussion.
We have a respectful difference of opinion.
Is that not how we are supposed to be to each other? Or should I have called him a name.
I was tired of the argument. Neither of us is going to change. We shook hands and left the field.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.