Posted on 09/04/2015 4:15:38 PM PDT by yongin
have said these past couple of days that as gay rights and the ideology at its heart continues to conquer our culture, I expect us small-o orthodox Christians to have to take a hard, sacrificial stand against the state and society, for the sake of religious liberty. Kim Davis’s situation, I’ve said, is not the hill to die on.
The reason for this is certainly contestable, but here it is, in a nutshell.
1. Kim Davis’s position is unwinnable. Nobody seriously expects her to get gay marriage overturned, or even to succeed in carving out a special zone of protection for public officials who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to carry out lawful decisions of the courts. Even if we believe that the Obergefell decision lacks moral legitimacy, there can be no doubt that as a matter of legal procedure, the Supreme Court’s decision is the law. Our side lost that battle decisively. Kim Davis’s stance, while it may be personally courageous, is going to result in another defeat, because it cannot be otherwise in our system. The only point of backing it is to flip the bird to the state and to the broader culture — something I have great sympathy for, but it’s a pointless gesture that can only hurt us in the battles to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
Here's a couple of things that could be done immediately:
1. Using Republican legislative power that already exists in a majority of the states, impeach and remove every state level judge who opines against the laws of nature and nature's God, and/or our constitutions, or any of our constitutionally-valid laws. Do the same to any executive branch officer who refuses to do his sworn duty. Lather, rinse, and repeat as required. The Republican majority in Congress must be required to do the same concerning federal executive and judicial officers.
2. Using the executive branch power that the Republicans already possess in a majority of the states, begin to shut down the abortion clinics, all of them. Every executive officer swears an oath to support and defend their state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Both the U.S. Constitution and all of the state constitutions absolutely, explicitly require equal protection for every person. Start to act accordingly.
Going to need a lot of new Andrew Jacksons to do that, i.e. a kind of civil disobedience, but in officialdom. Rotsa ruck...
The real answer, I believe, is not going to look like something happening on the level of elites, but from the grassroots up.
The founders were quite clear that in the end, the only power that could stop usurpers is the people themselves.
"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."-- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, 1788
Bottom up. Top down. It’s got to come from every direction possible.
It’s going to have to look a lot like a revolution, because it will be.
It’s the only way...IMO...and that hill to die on, is going to be continuous until it begins and ends...whenever that is..
Far as I am concerned it started a while back, but for others it will be the day they figure it out.
By the elections of more faithful representatives...
Well fine, but how does that achieve the desired end. Unless the impeachment power were used vastly more than it is today, not in theory impossible, but imagine the manpower needed even if Congress suddenly wanted to do this. They’d be doing nothing BUT impeaching.
Not trying to be gratuitously difficult, just trying to channel thinking in some effective direction.
Not legitimately.
The Constitution confers no legislative or veto powers on the judiciary.
The only constitutional authority they possess is the authority to adjudicate individual cases that come before them, and that only within the confines of the Constitution and all constitutionally-valid laws. No more. No less.
Actually I like to think it would be like a redneck revolution :-)
But anyhow. What kind of medicine could be applied to the plague that doesn’t give us an anarchy?
That would be another model, render the USSC incapable of deciding questions of what comports with the Constitution.
The lack of some sane, responsible mechanism to do that is a problem that was baked into the original Constitution.
Our system and our Constitution are only as good as the character of those who take the oath. Personnel IS policy.
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"-- George Washington
Unfortunately, we might endure a period of it, assuming we were to mount a successful revolution.
All successful revolutions have a nonviolent platform, but at some point, the state employs violence to protect the status quo, and then it’s game on.
Well fine, convert the whole to Christianity willingly...
Now what. What happens to all the legacy law.
The mechanism is checks and balances. In other words the officers of the other branches interpreting and implementing the Constitution, instead of kowtowing to what the founders intended to be the weakest branch.
Define “legacy law.”
Obama might unwittingly have proven a help if that is the safety valve, because he has sold the people on the idea that it’s okay (lesson in being careful in what one wishes for, one might get it).
Actually the constitution give congress the power to set up all the lower courts and to regulate scotus, if they had the balls to pick up that club.
Are you trying to be difficult. I mean that seriously. I sense a smart answer, not a wise one, coming on.
I’m not trying to be difficult at all. You used a phrase, “legacy law,” that I’ve never heard of before. So I asked you to define what that is. Can’t attempt to answer your question if I’m unclear on what that question is about.
Well, the essential question of what comports with the Constitution got put on the back of the USSC, for lack of a different body or mechanism. To let the executive and legislature be on their honor for that might be an equally vexing problem down the road.
This is one of the things that the Bork Amendment has been proposed to get around.
You’ve heard of legacy software haven’t you.
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.