A Court Decision Is No Law At All

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”  – Marbury v Madison 1803.

Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

Void –  having no legal force or effect;  not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual, and unenforceable.

Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three-year-old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty-bound to follow it?

If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10-year-olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10-year-old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…well…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

For instance, the recent Obamacare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.” How can an opinion be enforceable–especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832, famously said: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

Sorry, I know that I am all over the place with this communication–so let me try to bring it together.

The United States is veering aimlessly off course because we have lost control of our government. This has happened partly because we have ceded to the courts lawmaking powers that they were simply not intended to possess.

A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

Friends, courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

Here is my point: All the hubbub over homosexual marriage is a cleverly-designed smoke screen. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? They are merely rendering their “opinion.” The people of Alabama and 30 other states have already spoken on this issue. No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people. Did anyone vote to give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg the power to change the institution of marriage? I don’t think so, Tim!

Who do they think they are? No wait…who do WE think they are?  Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama? I think not. At some point, this is gonna get ugly…and I believe we are nearing that point.

The right to get “married” based solely on who one chooses to copulate with is one of the most short-sighted “opinions” in the history of the world. Liberty is not licentiousness. You have no God-given right to do that which is wrong.

Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America. You know it, I know it, and heck, even the homosexuals know it. They don’t want to get married…they just want to destroy marriage.

At some point, if we are to remain free, we are going to have to cast off the chains of government. That’s what our forefathers did. That is what they told us we would have to do.

Jefferson told us “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”  What do you suppose he meant by that?

“Are you proposing violence, Coach Dave?” I hear you asking. Of course not. What a foolish assumption to make. I am, however, proposing resolute, peaceful resistance. I am proposing open defiance against the tyrannical arm of government. I am proposing that Christians obey God rather than man.

Metaphorically speaking, Montgomery, Alabama, will be the Gettysburg of Gay Marriage after the Supreme Court hands down their tyrannical “opinion” in defiance of the will of the people of Alabama and in direct conflict with the Supreme Court Justice of the Universe.

The question is, what will the people of America do? Will they obediently acquiesce to the un-Constitutional edicts of the homsexualists on the Supreme Court? Or will they, as their forefathers did, stand in open defiance to a tyrannical, over-reaching, amoral Federal Government?

I am reminded of a monument that you will find commemorating what took place at Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. Carved into stone are these immortal words of Captain John Parker, the lead elder at the assembly of Pastor Jonas Clark, who ordered the men from his congregation to rise and resist the Redcoats:

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Not one of our key “cultural” issues has ever been changed by a vote of the people. Abortion, marriage, prayer in schools, sodomy laws, free speech…they’ve all been “changed” by “court opinions.”

In summary, courts offer opinions. Legislatures and we the people make the laws. Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are.

Defy them! Nullify them! Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand!

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Coach Dave and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

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

BREAKING: What This Judge Just Did For The First Time Gives A Nonhuman Constitutional Rights

Since when have nonhumans enjoyed legal rights afforded to humans; specifically constitutional protections granted to citizens of the United States? Well, if a judge’s ruling in New York is proven to carry the legal weight that an animal rights group claims it does, that “when” could be now.

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) has declared in a just-issued press release that, for the “first time in world history,” a judge has recognized two chimpanzees being used for research purposes as “legal persons” and granted them writ of habeas corpus. That right is essentially a means by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment and is embodied in Article One, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The NhRP statement read, “Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe issued an order to show cause and writ of habeas corpus on behalf of two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, who are being used for biomedical experimentation at Stony Brook University on Long Island, New York.”

The statement went on to declare that Justice Jaffe has “implicitly determined that Hercules and Leo [the two chimpanzees] are ‘persons’” in the eyes of the law.

A post at The Verge notes that the animal rights group has been arguing for some time, and before several courts, that these two chimps, along with others, are being unlawfully imprisoned by the university researchers. The group kept up the legal fight until the case finally landed in front of the New York Supreme Court Justice who just issued what could prove to be a landmark ruling.

“Three lower court judges dismissed the cases as they were raised in 2013, but the Nonhuman Rights Project appealed, eventually convincing Jaffe that the animals were sufficiently intelligent to grant them what amounts to basic human rights.”

The next court action in the case involving Hercules and Leo is scheduled for May 6th, when representatives of Stony Brook University are supposed to appear before Judge Jaffe to respond to the animal rights group’s claim that the apes are being detained unlawfully. Even if that hearing fails to uphold the chimps’ “personhood,” the head of the Nonhuman Rights Project says a major victory has already been won.

“We have scientific evidence to prove in a court of law that elephants, great apes, and whales and dolphins are autonomous beings and deserve the right to bodily liberty,” she said. “[This ruling] strengthens our argument that these nonhuman animals are not property.”

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

Watch: Judge Gives Man Probation For Armed Robbery

youtube

An African-American man from Kentucky who pleaded guilty to robbery was only sentenced to five years probation Friday in response to the victims’ statement, which asserted a child was “in constant fear of black men.” The man committed forced entry into a house while brandishing a handgun.

On March 21, 2013, Marquis McAfee and Gregory Wallace, both 27, robbed the house of Jordan and Tommy Gray while armed at gunpoint. The victims’ 3-year-old daughter was home at the time watching “SpongeBob Squarepants,” The Courier-Journal reported. McAfee and Wallace were arrested three weeks after the robbery.

While McAfee was sentenced to 10 years in jail because he was on probation for a previous crime at the time of the incident, Wallace was only sentenced to five years probation by Circuit Court Judge Olu Stevens.

Jordan Gray wrote about her daughter in a victim impact statement: “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave,” adding it “has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

The father added that probation was not a sufficient punishment, and the daughter had become terrified of African-American males.

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

The Courier Journal

 

But Stevens was directing his angst primarily toward the victims, rather than the criminal. “I am offended… I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” contended Stevens, who was appointed to the bench in 2009 and re-elected last year.

This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels…My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.

Stevens’ further rationale for keeping Wallace out of prison was that he had no prior convictions up until this incident and also had strong support from family and friends who noted he won an athletic scholar award while in high school. He reportedly stayed out of trouble during his time in prison leading up to the sentencing.

The judge defended himself on his Facebook page. “Victims need no defense from me. I stand on my record. My exception was with particular words, not victims. If you do not know me, it is your right to criticize me. If you do know me, you know that what was written in the paper is not me,” Stevens continued:

I am not in the business of shaming toddlers and victims of crime. And my exception was not a factor in the ultimate decision. As for my ‘wrath’, I had none. I leave wrath to the Commonwealth’s Attorney and others disgruntled by the ultimate decision.

I did not criticize the child. I cautioned the parents against racial stereotyping. I also admonished the Commonwealth that it should review its pleadings for sufficiency and appropriateness before filing them.

h/t: Right Wing News

Share this if you believe no armed robber should walk away easily.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Mike Huckabee Has A Strong Message For Republicans

Mike Huckabee

In his opening monologue this weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told fellow Republicans to “grow a spine” when it comes to judicial activism.  Huckabee was referencing the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear petitions from five states where bans on same-sex marriage was overturned in the lower courts, including Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

On Sunday, a federal judge overturned a same-sex marriage ban in Alaska, a law that had been in place since 1998.  It had been the first law of its kind, according to CNN.

Huckabee stressed that his position on same-sex marriage is the same position President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden had until two years ago–“that it was inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.”

“I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

“Well can I assume everyone knows that we’ve got three branches of government, and each are equal to the other? The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome; but it’s based on the longest used Constitution in human history.

“The Congress controls the purse or the money, the Executive branch controls the sword, and the Judicial branch watches over and offers opinions as to the Constitutional compliance of the other two.

“My friend Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny, and he says this and I quote: ‘The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional makeup does not give the minority veto rights over the majority.  The major…political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny.’

“Well this week, the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

“The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite the confusion that exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, ‘Well, that’s it. That’s the final word.’ Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it’s the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn’t superior to the other two.

Pages: 1 2

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Huckabee Picks The Toughest And Most Important Fight

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

Once and likely future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee may have been the last speaker at the recent “March for Marriage,” but what he had to say made the most lasting impression. For it was the winsome Huckabee, whom his detractors believe is “too nice” to take on the Left, who took on a fight even the boldest conservatives have shied away from for far too long.

“Judicial supremacy is a curse upon this great republic and is the greatest heresy of our time,” Huckabee said.

He went on to say that the executive and legislative branches are not required to impose every violation of “natural law,” no matter what “nine people in black robes” decree.

Regardless of whether you like or dislike the idea of Huckabee 2016, every single word he said is true. And until we take his words to heart and act upon them, we cannot undo the damage the cultural Marxists have done to our constitutional republic.

Imagine trying to win a war without dismantling your enemy’s most fearsome and effective weapon. The odds for ultimate victory would be slim, for every gain you make would be eradicated every time your adversary unleashed this weapon. Yet this is exactly what we’ve been trying to do against the Left for at least a generation.

Come now, let us reason together. We’re all friends here. Can we be honest with one another? Can we be the critical thinkers we claim to be? Good. Then I’d like to pose a few questions for us to ponder.

Despite the fact we’ve sold a lot of books and gotten a lot of people elected to office, how come our movement has almost no substantive domestic policy victories to speak of? How come the Reagan era was the zenith of our movement, and not its vanguard? How come we conquered statism in the Soviet Union, but have barely stunted its growth in our own country?

There are several uncomfortable answers to these questions, but undoubtedly one of them is certainly our unwillingness to confront the most potent weapon the Left uses against us over and over again. A weapon they have put in place so they could unravel the intent and foundation of our constitutional republic without risking the scrutiny of the voters. This way, they could impose “pretend laws” on a defenseless citizenry that would never see the light of the day if they had to pass lawfully.

I’m referring to judicial supremacy, which is really just a tyrannical oligarchy by another name. The federal judiciary has become America’s Politburo, where elites gather to impose pagan morality and anti-constitutional injustice on what’s supposed to be a free people. The notion that the judicial branch is superior to all the other branches flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers intended, and is one of the statists’ most pernicious lies.

Indeed, the framers explicitly said from the outset that this was not the intent of an independent judicial branch.

In “The Federalist No. 78,” Alexander Hamilton writes: “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. This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.”

Pages: 1 2

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 – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom