Skip to comments.ALAN KEYES: Iowa Supreme Court Joins Judicial Insurrection
Posted on 04/05/2009 2:37:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Loyal to Liberty
This week the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion declaring its view that a state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. News articles reporting the opinion state that "the ruling becomes effective April 24." Many news services and publications reporting the story use language that suggests that this opinion makes same-sex marriages legal in Iowa.
The Iowa Court's opinion, like all such rulings, constitutes a judicial insurrection that assaults unalienable right in a fashion that threatens the existence of democratic self- government in the United States. (I have elsewhere made the arguments, based on American principles of justice, that support this conviction.) More immediately insurrectionary than the Court's opinion, however, is the notion that in and of itself it somehow establishes what is lawful in Iowa. This notion overturns the republican form of government required by the Constitution of the United States, substituting in its place a form of tyranny all the more dangerous because it is imposed by abusing the forms of legality.
From the beginning of the United States it has been universally acknowledged that the republican form of government mandated by the U.S. Constitution requires "a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments." This language in Madison's famous article number 51 of the Federalist describes the twin safeguards of liberty we call "Federalism" and the "separation of powers." The sovereign power of the people is divided through a specified delegation of limited powers to the United States government. But in both the State and U.S. governments it is also divided among three separate branches, the legislative, Executive and the Judicial. Of these, only the legislative branch, composed of elected representatives of the people, has the power to make laws. Only the Executive branch has the power to carry out the laws. Only the Judicial branch has the power to render judgment on specific cases arising under the laws. As Hamilton writes in Federalist 78 "The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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."
Obviously, the separation of powers requires that, with respect to the power allotted to it, each branch has an independent obligation to the constitution from which its authority is derived. Thus those elected or appointed to participate in exercising one of the powers swear an oath to uphold and preserve that constitution, and consistently with this oath they may do nothing that violates its terms. The Executive is therefore required to obey laws constitutionally enacted by the legislature, and to carry out judgments constitutionally rendered by the judiciary, and so on. However, none of the branches can have the power by itself to decide for the others what the constitution requires. To presume such a power in the hands of any one of the branches would be to acknowledge that branch as the Supreme Arbiter of the whole power of government. It would thereby hold despotic sway over the other branches and the people themselves. This would defeat the main purpose of constitutional government, which is to prevent such unchecked tyranny.
Instead of this irrational presumption, the American republics reflect the essential unity of sovereign power by explicitly acknowledging the inherent power of each branch to check (that is hinder and oppose) and neutralize any unconstitutional action (that is, any action it considers unconstitutional) taken by one of the others. Such generally recognized inherent powers include the veto power of the executive (refusal to execute unconstitutional laws and judgments); the impeachment power of the legislature (action to override the Executive veto, and to remove officials of either of the other branches when a sufficient majority of the legislature believe they have acted contrary to the laws or the constitution); and the Judiciary's power to adjudicate specific cases arising under the laws or the constitution. No such inherent power operates automatically, however. In no case can one branch be required reflexively to accept the constitutional opinion of another. Indeed they stand apart and are separate from one another only to the degree that they each have the inherent potential to refuse what they conclude are unconstitutional demands.
Of course, it's not hard to imagine situations in which the three branches arrive at a stalemate. For example. the Judiciary issues a constitutional or other judgment which the Executive, on constitutional grounds, refuses to implement. Members of the legislature may be inclined to side with one or the other, but are so divided as to prevent effective action (impeachment for example) against either. In such cases, the issue must be decided by the people (they can elect a legislative majority sufficient to act against either the Executive or the offending Judges; they can elect an Executive that agrees with the Court, etc.) Though it may temporarily or even permanently affect the government's ability to act in a given area, such inaction precisely corresponds to the overall intention of constitutional government, which is to prevent the consolidation of effective, arbitrary (that is, governed by no will but their own) power in the hands of any individual or group of individuals. On the issues most essential to the maintenance of liberty, this includes anything short of a constitutionally overwhelming majority of the people themselves. Ordinarily, however, it simply guarantees that elite groups are restrained from acting in the people's name while really disregarding their views.
Of course, this latter result is exactly what the promoters of gay marriage seek to achieve. Time and again the people have expressed their opposition to the implementation of a concept of marriage that in principle disregards its connection with procreation and the attendant natural rights of parents. Now the elites seek to force the issue, making use of arrogant judges willing to reach for tyrannical power. People who read my last post on this blog, and understand its implications, will realize that this elite assault against the crucial pillar of the people's moral sufficiency (the natural family) is no accident. Neither is it merely a coincidence that the chosen weapon for the assault involves overturning the constitutional mechanism that prevents elites from wielding power without formally consulting the wishes of the people.
The wisdom reflected in the constitution of the American Republics goes beyond some merely mechanical arrangement of government institutions. It reflects the insight the American founders would have derived from reading Machiavellian philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, whose work on citizenship is introduced by a letter in which he writes: "It was the speech of the Roman people (to whom the name of king had been rendered odious, as well by the tyranny of the Tarquins, as by the genius and decretals of that city) that all kings are to be reckoned amongst ravenous beasts. But what a beast of prey was the Roman people so that Pontius Telesimus cried out, that Rome herself was to be razed; for that there would always be wolves and depradators of their liberty, unless the forest that lodged them were grubbed up by the roots. To speak impartially, both sayings are very true; that man to man is a kind of God; and that man to man is an arrant wolf." (Hobbes, De Cive, The Epistle Dedicatory) By preventing the consolidation of sovereign power, except under the most extreme provocations, the separation of powers assures that the wolves (elites inclined to act without regard to right) keep one another at bay unless and until one pack (branch) or another of them convinces the people that their action accords with the natural disposition to do right that aligns human action with God's will.
Of course, it is the constant effort of the ambitious elites to distract people from this overriding purpose of constitutional government, until eventually the people forgets it altogether. Demagogues, like Obama, use plausible rhetoric to convince people that the most important thing is to get things done. Therefore we must make sure government has the power to act immediately, even though this means acting without respect for the constitutional structures that ultimately call for the mediation of the people themselves. Because it effectively camouflages tyranny with the outward appearance of lawful process, the judiciary is the perfect implement for this elite effort. Pretending that acceptance of gay marriage can be imposed by judicial dictation adds the force of passion to the intended distraction, by dangling before minds weakened by corrupted appetites the titillating prospect of officially licensed sexual indulgence, unburdened by respect for its natural consequences, which include the responsibilities of procreation. (The movement for gay marriage pretends to be about homosexuality, when in fact it's main objective is to remove the last trace of guilt or shame from heterosexual selfishness so as to destroy the moral prerequisites of the natural family. Thus, on the specious grounds that it somehow demeans homosexuals, the forces of political correctness seek to eliminate the very idea that the family takes a form that reflects natural, and therefore unalienable, right.)
The people of Iowa, and of any other state where the Judicial branch is used for this maneuver need to know that it is simply an abuse of power. Courts cannot fabricate and then impose new law, nor can they unilaterally decide what is constitutional. The elected representatives of the people in the Executive and legislative branches have the power to object, and to oppose or nullify such court opinions. They therefore have the responsibility to use this power to defend the conscience of the people they are supposed to represent. They are not bound to respect or obey court judgments they believe to be unconstitutional abuses of power. They are in fact oath bound to resist them by all the constitutional means at their disposal.
People who say this somehow overturns the rule of law are actually themselves cooperating in the overthrow of constitutional self-government. In Iowa this means that Iowans who oppose the Iowa Supreme Court's abusive judgment have the right and duty to bring maximum pressure to bear on their Governor and legislators to do what their oaths require in order to defend the laws and constitution of Iowa from this attack upon the people's right of self-government. They should demand that the Governor and all state and local officials refuse to implement the decision. They should demand that the legislature threaten and then act to impeach the usurping Judges. If their representatives fail to act accordingly, at the next opportunity they should be voted out of office. The people must speak and act until they get the attention of their representatives. If they fail to do so their inaction must be construed as acquiescence. Like their representatives, citizens of Iowa who support the natural family have a duty to perform. For the sake of right and liberty, all who are loyal to liberty should pray they will not fail in it.
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit: www.LoyaltoLiberty.com!
The vast majority of judges (federal, State and local) believe the law is whatever they rule it to be from time to time. They respect no other part of any other government and definitely have no respect for the People.
Or our various Constitutions, obviously.
All very well in law, but in fact...
Four years ago, an innocent woman was put to death by a relatively petty probate court judge, after appeals upheld his decision. She had committed no crime whatsoever. She had not reflected on her situation and requested to be killed. She was killed brutally, slowly, over 13 days.
The state governor did not dare lift a hand to interfere.
The governor, by the way, had all the intellectual ammunition he needed to interfere. Alan Keyes provided some of the finest.
Indeed he did.
Alan Keyes does indeed know what he is talking about regarding the Courts. It is simply Judicial Tyranny
Is there some particular purpose for your posting that?
If the alive unborn had the threat power of O ba ma’s ACORN goonsquad, we would not be living under Roe v Wade. Because the alive unborn are powerless, judges authorize they be slaughtered indescriminately at the whim of a female avoiding responsibility for her actions. The blackrobed oligarchy saunters onward and we the people are shown more and more to be mere subjects of the ruling federal oligarchy now infested with democrats.
Alan Keyes wrote this? It is the most powerful, articulate statement that I have seen from him.
You’re right on. A perfect example is that when you go to court, in front of a judge, no matter how right or wrong you are, you only have a 50/50 chance of winning. It’s all in the hands of the judge. Regardless of the law, it’s the judges decision.
Why is Iowa paying 50 people to be members of its state senate and 100 people to be members of its lower house? The judges will decide what the laws will be—why bother having a legislature? It’s a needless expense.
Thanks for posting that Les. It shows how two-faced the republicrats are. Yet another reason I joined the Constitution Party.
It’s not so much “Judicial Activists impose same-sex marriage on Iowa” as “The Iowa Constitution imposes same-sex marriage on Iowa”. The decision was unanimous, and obvious. If people don’t like it, and there are very, very many who don’t, then the constitution must be changed.
Now that we have addressed and rejected each specific interest advanced by the County to justify the classification drawn under the statute, we consider the reason for the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage left unspoken by the County: religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The Countys silence reflects, we believe, its understanding this reason cannot, under our Iowa Constitution, be used to justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
While unexpressed, religious sentiment most likely motivates many, if not most, opponents of same-sex civil marriage and perhaps even shapes the views of those people who may accept gay and lesbian unions but find the notion of same-sex marriage unsettling
This contrast of opinions in our society largely explains the absence of any religion-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowas same-sex marriage ban. Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 3 (The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .). The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute declares, Marriage is a civil contract and then regulates that civil contract. Iowa Code § 595A.1. Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with civil marriage.
All of the secular reasons for banning same-sex marriage were dealt with by the court, and found to be inadequate - though that is of course debatable. It should be a matter of fact and evidence though, not philosophical, religious or political belief.
What is needed is to change the Iowa constitution so that particular religious beliefs are favoured over others. It’s quite possible, even probable, that the majority of Iowa voters want that, but if so, they need to say so explicitly, and amend their constitution accordingly.
Baloney. The only way you can make that case is to change the meaning of the word marriage. Which is exactly what these people are doing.
Constitutions and laws have NO meaning if the meaning of words is a moving target.
I knew I really didnt like romney, for numerous reasons
but it's very enlightening to hear coulter loose it in defending the guy...
she may be a funny and affective writer with a conservative angle, but she now is very tainted in my mind, having heard her attacking true conservative Christians this way
by the way, I love Alan Keyes and appreciate reading his take on the black-robed mafia...
I know, IA joins the list of disappointing states. Pretty soon she will have 44 or 45 sister states on the list.
It was these same kinds of Republicans that sunk Joe McCarthy in 1954 too — they don’t learn in 55 years either. I believe McCarthy was at least 90 percent right.
People in IA are some of the most cautious individuals in the nation. They have intense trouble making up their “minds”. That kind of “mindset” though usually eventually translates to “liberal”. They like to be trendy.
Keyes knows, but he frightens the sheeple, just like Joe McCarthy did.
Hear A Good Interview With Ambassador Dr. Alan Keys
Douglas V. Gibbs, Interviewer
McCarthy’s main problem was in accurately identifying the instigators. Quite often he only managed to finger useful idiots. The Red agents themselves would go undetected for decades, by which time they had done their harm and left.
I disagree with Keyes on this point, but only insofar as he thinks heterosexual factionists are moving this agenda forward.
In fact, there has been a biggish battalion of homosexual lawyers, according to a story I saw at 365gay.com a few years ago, working on this project to overthrow marriage for more than 25 years, going back to challenges that were organized and thrown up against Texas's sodomy laws in 1981 (the same laws that were finally struck down, after being affirmed in 1985, in 2003's Lawrence decision).
The object of the campaign is to obliterate the heteronormative institution of marriage, precisely because it is society's recognition of natural order and its imprimatur on heterosexual marriage as the proper arena for procreation and cohabitation, and all the supports that society offers normal families -- supports both moral and substantive, of which homosexuals are insanely jealous.
The Iowa governor has no intellect. We should change our sign that welcomes you to the state to read,”Welcome to the prairie all you fairy’s”.
Although the speed at which this will be legislatively addressed is exceedingly slow, ZoeBrain makes the point that secular marriage does exist in Iowa. Because of that, the ISC makes its decision. It is now time for the conservative people in Iowa to build or repair the Maginot Line, of which they have been exceedingly lazy. Many will watch, and hopefully implement.
A perfectly reasonable disagreement. And you’re certainly right about the homosexuals who are driving this. But I must say that without the “heterosexual factionalists,” as you so aptly call them, the homosexual fraction wouldn’t be able to forward their agenda. There just aren’t enough of them. I seriously doubt that the members of the Iowa Supreme Court are all homosexuals after all.
Even taken together of course, they are still a minority, but have managed to co-opt the power centers in the “major” parties, the media, and in government, particularly in the courts.
No matter how you slice it, if there was ever a tyranny of a minority, this is it.
The so-called “conservative” leadership in Iowa does remind me of a bunch of French generals.
He had to be made to realize -- quickly -- this issue will cost him any chance at reelection if he doesn't stop it. Does the majority in the state that opposes gay marriage care enough to get that message across to him?
I hope they do but I am not going to be holding my breath until it happens. If it were possible I would move out of this state and leave it to go down the rat hole.
Yes, and minoritarian tyrannies will do anything to maintain their power, since the alternative of reverting to powerlessness is unthinkable.
Groups like that kill millions.
Hundreds of millions. And they enslave billions. That’s the history of the last century.
He would be this nation's first LEGITIMATE black president!!!
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.