Ted Cruz Has An EPIC Message For ‘Rogue’ Supreme Court Justices

Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz did not hold back in expressing what he thinks about the Supreme Court’s two most controversial decisions in recent memory.

Cruz told radio talk show host Sean Hannity: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”

“I couldn’t say it more eloquently,” Hannity responded.

“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism,” Cruz went on. “Neither decision — the decision yesterday rewriting Obamacare for the second time. Six justices joined the Obama administration. You now have President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and six justices responsible for forcing this failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oaths.”

“And then today, this radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up,” Cruz said. “It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamentally legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

“If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office,” Cruz reprimanded. “That’s the appropriate place to write laws — on this floor, not that courtroom.”

Cruz took to the Senate floor yesterday to express his profound disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Obamacare subsidies paid through the federal exchange.

“These rogue Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange ‘established by the state.’ This is lawless,” the senator asserted.

He quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in the dissent that “Words no longer have meaning” and that the law should be referred to as “SCOTUScare” because of the Supreme Court’s commitment to saving it using “somersaults” of statutory interpretation.

“Unelected judges have once again become legislators and bad ones at that,” said Cruz. “They are lawless, and they hide the prevarication in legalise. Our government was designed to be one of laws, not men.”

The senator then used the same metaphor Chief Justice John Roberts (author of yesterday’s Obamacare majority opinion) employed during his 2005 confirmation hearing to define the role of those who sit on the high court. “These justices are not behaving as umpires calling balls and strikes,” said Cruz. “They have joined a team, and it’s a team that is hurting Americans across this country.”

Roberts said in his opening statement at his confirmation hearing: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them…And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Both Cruz and Roberts began their legal careers serving as clerks on the Supreme Court for the conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a decade apart. Perhaps, Cruz invoked the memory of their former boss to highlight that Roberts had strayed from the beliefs about the rule of law and role of the court for which Rehnquist stood (though the former Chief Justice would have likely approved of Roberts’ stance regarding whether the court should redefine marriage. For those supporters of same-sex marriage, Roberts wrote “…celebrate today’s decision…but do not celebrate the Constitution. It has nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”)

“If Chief Justice Rehnquist could see this court today,” said Cruz, “he would be filled with sorrow at what has become of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The candidate then shifted his focus to what is next. “It is now up to us, to keep our promise,” he said. “I believe 2016 will be a national referendum on repealing Obamacare….I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of [it].”

h/t: Daily Caller and The Politistick

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obergefell v. Hodges: Illegitimate, Unlawful, And A Fraud On The American People

There is simply no other way to say it.

The Supreme Court’s decision today redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is wholly illegitimate and unlawful. A nullity. Worthy only to be disobeyed.

Anyone who says otherwise — that the rule of law requires recognition of same-sex marriage — is committing a fraud. And any State official — like Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama — who says that his oath of office requires unconditional obedience to the Supreme Court’s mandate to issue same-sex couples licenses to marry is mistaking his oath to the Constitution as if it were an oath of absolute obedience to five justices who happen to be sitting on the nation’s highest court.

As Chief Justice Roberts in dissent has described the action taken today:

“Five lawyers have closed debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people ….”

And just who are these lawyers? Justice Scalia reminds us that they are all educated at either Harvard or Yale, from the east- and west- coasts, not from the vast middle of the country, and not a single one an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, and then observes:

“The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.”

Indeed, from the outset of his bare majority decision, Justice Kennedy did not even act like a judge. Rather, he wrote as if he were an existentialist philosopher seeking the meaning of life, as if the “liberty” protected in the Constitution was a personal quest “to define and express [one’s personal] identity.”

But the Constitution is not some philosophical work written by Jean Paul Sartre. Rather, it is a political and legal document designed by America’s founders to secure the unchanging God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which are deeply rooted in the 18th century soil of the nation. Justice Kennedy showed no regard for these fixed principles, opting for an evolutionary approach to law — asserting that the existential definition of marriage changes with changing times.

However, the very purpose of our Constitution is, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, to make “permanent” those principles that the people desired. And, so that those principles would not be “mistaken or forgotten,” the people committed them to writing. Thus, Marshall wrote: “it is the province and duty for the courts to say what the law is,” not to make it up as we go along.

As today’s dissenting Chief Justice observed, “[t]hose who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role”:

“They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves.  They would have never imagined yielding that right on a social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges.  And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system of empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after ‘a quite extensive discussion.’”

And, as the capstone of his dissent, the Chief Justice concluded: “the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” In those nine simple words, Chief Justice Roberts explained why this decision of the Court is not law. If the Constitution had nothing to do with it, the Court had no jurisdiction to issue it. It is, therefore, a nullity.

In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, a brilliant jurist who understood the dangers of hubris on the highest court in the land — may Obergefell v. Hodges prove to be a “derelict on the waters of the law.” And it will be — but only if the American people rise up and resist this gross perversion of the rule of law.

Approximately one month ago, the U.S. Justice Foundation began to organize the writing and publication of a series of articles in a series entitled “Building the Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” This project was undertaken in the hope that the Supreme Court would not recklessly decide the same-sex marriage case–but nonetheless, we prepared for the worst; and sadly, the Supreme Court has disappointed us again. Hopefully over the coming weeks and months, state and local government officials and the people at large will be able to draw from these articles justification and techniques to resist the Supreme Court’s lawless decision.

In Article II, we established that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way addressed the issue of same-sex marriage. In Article III, Robert Reilly explained how poorly these cases have been litigated by government lawyers supposedly defending same-sex marriage. In Article IV, Pastor James Taylor explained the biblical and moral basis for traditional marriage. In Article V, Houston attorney J. Mark Brewer anticipated how courts will manipulate today’s rulings to penalize those in business and the professions who embrace biblical marriage. In Article VI, former Congressman John Hostettler explained that if a soldier has the duty to disobey an unlawful order, how could a state official not have that same duty? In Article VII, former federal magistrate Joe Miller discussed why it would be a violation of federal law and judicial ethics for Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to participate in the decision–yet both did so today.

In Article VIII, Pastor Matthew Trewhella provided a historical context for Christian resistance by lower government officials to illegal actions by higher government officials, known as “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate.” In Article IX, we discussed the apparent efforts of the Supreme Court to bury the motion for recusal filed by the Foundation for Moral Law so that Justices Ginsburg and Kagan could more easily disregard their duty. In Article X, constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira explained how decisions like today’s decision violate the Constitution’s “good behavior” standard, leaving them susceptible to removal. In Article XI, former U.S. attorney Tom Ashcraft laid out the process by which Congress can limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, using the power Congress was expressly given in the U.S. Constitution. In Article XII, Senior Virginia Delegate Robert G. Marshall discussed how Congress could immediately use the Appropriations Power to prevent implementation of an unlawful decision such as that issued today. And lastly, in Article XIII, former Oklahoma Representative Charles Key described the responsibility and duty of every citizen, when serving on a jury, to decide both the facts and the law in every case, known as jury nullification.

This series of articles has demonstrated that a Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage would be illegitimate. As Blackstone said, it would not just be bad law; it would be no law at all. That decision has now transpired. These articles also demonstrate that the American people and our elected officials have many ways to resist the unconstitutional decision of the Court. The question now is, will our political leaders abandon the true Constitution to embrace the decision of the Court?

In the coming days, we will continue to be releasing articles further discussing the justification for and techniques that can be used by Congress, state officials, and the American people to resist today’s unlawful decision. We urge supporters of traditional marriage to view today’s loss as a setback, but by no means a final decision of anything. The battle continues.

 

Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School. William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. Together, they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues. They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at traditionalmarriage@lawandfreedom.com or twitter.com/Olsonlaw.

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Supreme Court Is NOT The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Constitution

SCOTUS is NOT the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution; the STATES hold that power. How does it make any sense that one part of the federal government holds the authority to determine the power of the whole?

It makes no sense; and as a matter of fact, James Madison told us that in no uncertain terms:

“…that the ultimate right of the States, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.” Virginia Assembly Report 1800

However, that is exactly what has happened with Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in King v. Burwell. It seems that the Supreme Court has forgotten that we are a Constitutional Republic–and that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, not Congress. Interestingly, all you need to know about the King v. Burwell decision is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the majority opinion. Consider these words:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”  (emphasis mine)

IF we were a democracy, as Roberts is asserting, this opinion would be absolutely correct–Obamacare would result from an absolutely lawful use of federal power, and we would have no real argument to make. However, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. In a Constitutional Republic, the Legislature is NOT unlimited in its power and authority. Article 6, clause 2, The Supremacy Clause, makes it perfectly clear that there is a hierarchy to the federal system and that the Legislature is NOT on top; the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

When Roberts says, “But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done,” he is asserting that whenever the Legislature makes a law, we are bound by it without question. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the Supremacy Clause, we have an obligation to undo what Congress has done if what they are doing is not “made in pursuance” to the Constitution.

Additionally, if the “Laws of the United States” are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, then they cannot legally exist. To allow Legislative Acts contrary to the Constitution to remain law would elevate the Congress ABOVE the Constitution, destroying the Constitution itself and transmuting the nature of our Republic into an Oligarchy.

There is no specific enumeration in the Constitution for the federal government to provide healthcare to the States or the people. There is only errant interpretation of clauses to justify such an exercise of power.

Because there is no specific enumeration for healthcare, the Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that healthcare is not a power to be exercised by the federal government.

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.” (emphasis mine)

But what does Roberts use to justify this federal encroachment? Not a clause from the Constitution, but an opinion by the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison. How convenient that the Supreme Court can write opinions that declare themselves the ultimate rulers of the universe and then be allowed to credibly use those opinions to justify their emperor-like behavior! Ironically, the most important role of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the Congress acts within its Constitutional limitations. But since it is ridiculous to believe that any entity of power would act on its own to limit itself, our framers didn’t trust these federal employees with that task. They trusted the States.

Madison declares in 1789 that the STATES are to be the ultimate control against the expansion of federal power, the greatest opponents to the federal government necessary to preserve the Liberty of the people:

“The State legislatures will…be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty.” House of Representatives 1789 (emphasis mine)

But, when the States REFUSE to live up to their obligations and allow any branch of the federal government to expand power and limit the people and the States, they are simply declaring that they believe we are not a Constitutional Republic, but instead a Federal Kingdom built of 50 colonies subject to the whim of the feds.

Justice Roberts told the States in the original PPAC opinion:

“We look to the States to defend the their prerogatives by adopting the simple expedient of not yielding to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own. The States are SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. Sometimes they have to act like it.” (emphasis mine)

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the federal government is limited by specifically enumerated powers. It is time for the States to ACT like States, instead of cowering like colonies. It is time for the States to fulfill their obligation to be the SURE GUARDIANS OF THE PEOPLES’ LIBERTIES.

It is time to dethrone the Supreme Court. It is time to STAND for the Constitutional Republic and defy this theft of State Power and destruction of the Constitution.

Healthcare is NOT a specifically enumerated power delegated to the federal government. The exercise of that power is therefore contrary to the Constitution. According to the Supremacy Clause, any law by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution is NOT the law of the land. That makes the law null-and-void of any force. Since the Affordable Care Act is NO LAW AT ALL, when we REFUSE TO COMPLY we are not breaking the law…we are enforcing the Supreme Law of the Land, defending our Republic, and guarding our Liberty!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Stunned Judge Napolitano Reveals How Supreme Court Just Pulled The Wool Over America’s Eyes

Judge Andrew Napolitano believes Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion in King v. Burwell engaged in “bizarre and odd contortions” to reach its decision.

“My immediate reaction is that the chief justice has yet again resorted to a nearly unheard of construction in order to save the statute,” Fox News’ senior judicial analyst told Bill Hemmer.

He noted that Roberts has now saved the law twice, first ruling in favor of its constitutionality and now in re-interpreting the plain language of the statute. “Last time around when the government said it was not a tax and the challengers said it was not a tax, the chief justice ruled it was a tax and that saved it,” the judge said.

“This time around he took the plain meaning of ordinary words, ‘established by the states,’ and somehow held that they were ambiguous, and that he could — and that that the majority could — correct the ambiguity according to what they thought the drafters meant.”

“The court is now in the business of saving a statute in order to save its reputation,” Napolitano said, sharing the view Justice Antonin Scalia put forward in his dissent.

Napolitano found Scalia’s dissent–joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas–to be “as compelling and stinging as any dissent as I have seen.”

Scalia writes of the majority’s opinion: “Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.”

“The Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers,” he posits.

Roberts, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer, ruled in favor of the subsidies being available to those who purchase insurance through the federal health exchange. In his opinion, the chief justice relied heavily on the overall intent of the law and the negative impact ruling against the subsidies would have.

Scalia, in turn, relied on the plain meaning of the words “established by the State” regarding Congress’ apparent plan to get the states to participate in the Affordable Care Act.

Roberts concludes: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

Scalia instead finds the majority engaged in “somersaults of statutory interpretation” to save the law. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” he adds.

“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges,” Scalia argues.

Going forward, the originalist jurist believes these cases “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Rush Thinks He’s Found The Real Reason The Supreme Court Let Obamacare Slide — And It’s Sinister

Fresh off of a seemingly clairvoyant prediction that the ongoing controversy surrounding the Confederate flag would spread to a denouncement of the American flag, radio host Rush Limbaugh this week made a bold assertion regarding Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding ObamaCare. The 6-3 vote upheld the use of federal tax subsidies in assisting poor Americans in need of health insurance.

Expressing his disappointment with Chief Justice John Roberts over his decision to side with the Obama administration, Limbaugh determined the generally conservative justice was influenced by outside forces. Thursday’s decision was the second in which Roberts voted with the majority to protect the largely unpopular federal healthcare law.

The venerable host prefaced his analysis by insisting that he is “not accusing anybody” of wrongdoing, going on to explain that surrounding details seem to suggest Roberts is influenced by money. Building on reports that show shares of healthcare-related stocks jumped in the wake of the high court’s ruling, Limbaugh hypothesized that this was the result Roberts might have been pursuing.

He continued by suggesting that “when you follow the money, a lot of questions that seem unanswerable become clear.”

Reader comments on leftist sites like Media Matters were predictably upset by Limbaugh’s monologue. The pithy retorts scribed below an article on that site included one critic’s assertion that those in the conservative media realm “are real morons.”

Within the social media realm, however, reaction was more balanced as many Obamacare opponents shared Limbaugh’s incredulous take on Roberts’ vote.

Capture

Did Chief Justice Roberts base his vote on an interpretation of the Constitution or some outside force? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth