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

ALERT: What The Supreme Court Just Did About Same-Sex Marriage Could Ignite Wide Outrage

gay marriage

No doubt advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage will both be disappointed and frustrated…some will likely be outraged. The Supreme Court has passed up its first opportunity to re-enter the national debate on the contentious issue, putting off a decision on whether to hear any new cases on constitutional grounds.

USA Today reports that the justices have delayed taking any action on petitions from five states where a same-sex-marriage ban is in dispute:

The justices are considering state bans on same-sex marriage in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin that have been overturned in lower courts. They must decide whether to hear any of those cases or let the latest court rulings stand, which would legalize gay marriage in 11 additional states.

If the court ultimately agrees to hear one or more cases, oral arguments would be held early in 2015 and a ruling rendered before the court adjourns in June. It is unlikely that the justices will decide before their next conference on Oct. 10.

Nationallawjournal.com helps to put the high court’s non-action into perspective:

The justices on Thursday issued their first orders list before the official start of the new term on Oct. 6. That list, which contained cases that they plan to decide, followed their private conference on Monday in which they culled through several thousand petitions filed during the summer.

Although conventional wisdom says the court will take up the same-sex marriage question this term, some court scholars and litigators had suggested the court would not act on the petitions during its first conference.

As of now, nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit same-sex marriage, and the high court ruled last year that the federal government cannot deny benefits to such couples. It sidestepped the remaining state laws by taking no position on the merits of California’s ban, which had been struck down by lower federal courts.

Again, from the usatoday.com report on the Supreme Court’s ongoing involvement in one of the biggest social, cultural, political, legal and religious issues of our time:

Since those decisions were handed down, six additional states have legalized gay marriage, and federal and state judges in 14 more states have overturned marriage bans. All those rulings have been put on hold during the appeals process, leaving 31 bans in place.

According to an article in The Washington Post, one Justice hinted that the high court will, in fact, soon grapple once again with the issue:

At an appearance in Colorado Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked when the court would take up the same-sex marriage issue. According to the Associated Press, Scalia quipped, “I know when, but I’m not going to tell you.” When the crowd of about 1,500 laughed, Scalia added, “Soon! Soon!”

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

Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder?

Photo credit: US Embassy (Flickr)

After 5 1/2 bumpy years of controversial service, the besieged but bolstered attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned. But is this close friend and confidant of President Barack Obama really stepping down for some benign reason at a critical time for our country, or is there a sinister and strategic plan behind it all?

First, it’s far more than a coincidence that the United States’ chief lawyer is leaving office with more unanswered questions about crucial life-and-death national dilemmas than any previous attorney general. Though most have been accused of sitting on issues, none has been so assailed as Holder for personally stonewalling investigations, covering up government involvement, and refusing to deal with politically explosive controversies. Holder has not prosecuted such monumental and rights-infringing crimes as the Fast and Furious debacle; the Benghazi, Libya, tragedy; National Security Agency wiretappings; press infringements; drone attacks on U.S. citizens; and the Internal Revenue Service scandal.

The Bronx, New York-born 63-year-old Holder proudly boasted that he had “taken steps to protect the environment”; taken swift action in Ferguson, Missouri; and even opened a broad probe into the police department in Ferguson. However, he — like our president and even Secretary of State John Kerry — hasn’t said a single word over the past six months about Marine reservist Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi’s being wrongly imprisoned in Mexico.

Eric Holder Might Not Say A Word About Sgt. Tahmooressi, But There’s Nothing Stopping You From Signing This Petition To Demand His Release!

Sadly, it has been recently reported that Tahmooressi, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, is “highly despondent” because of the drastic deterioration of his mental health. And still, Holder refuses to speak up on behalf of this suffering, imprisoned American patriot.

Can you say resignation of denial and avoidance?

If Obama invoked executive privilege when Holder sat before Congress to protect him from his role in Fast and Furious, who’s to say he isn’t protecting him again — or vice versa — through Holder’s resignation? What better way to avoid the line of fire than to move completely out of the way? And what if Obama and Holder are not only protecting themselves from some past public sin through his resignation but also prepping Holder for some future position by his absence from the public stage?

That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh proposed this past week. He explained the scary scenario this way:

“After you perform your six years of government service, you then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it. People hire you who are grateful for what you did, or you go back to your law firm, where you are a rainmaker, don’t even have to do any work.

“They put your name on the letterhead, on the door, and you attract clients and get a percentage of what walks in the door. There is any number of ways this can happen. But there’s also another possibility regarding Eric Holder. I just want you to prepare yourself. It may happen. We still have two years to go.

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

Articles Of Impeachment For Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has once again violated her oath and the ethics of her office…

You won’t believe what she said about the Constitution.

And now she has violated the Judicial Code of Ethics….but guess what. The federal government has determined that the Judicial Code of Ethics DOESN’T APPLY to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court VOLUNTARILY submits to it.


Supreme Court Justices DO NOT have life time appointments. Pursuant to Article III, Section 1, Supreme Court Justices hold office for “good behavior” and are to be IMPEACHED if they conduct themselves otherwise.

Articles of Impeachment:

1. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has failed in her duty to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic” in denigrating the Constitution on the record within a foreign nation.

2. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has acted in a manner unbecoming a Justice of the Court of the United States in violation of Canon 2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or to appear to advance the private interests of others” by endorsing a position prior to a hearing on a matter to be addressed in the future by the Supreme Court.

3. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has acted in a manner unbecoming a Justice of the Court of the United States in violation of Canon 3(D) declaring, “A judicial employee should avoid making public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action” by commenting on the merits of a highly politically charged case to be heard before the Supreme Court.

4. WHEREAS, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg holds her office pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which declares. “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour.”

5. WHEREAS, any other judge of a court of law in the United States would be, without question, removed from office for such behavior.

It is THEREFORE concluded that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, having clearly and distinctly acted in “bad behavior”;

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is HEREBY IMPEACHED from her office of Supreme Court Justice with great prejudice.


Photo Credit: Stanford Law (Flickr)

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

“Rudy v. Lee” Supreme Court Case Could Put Spotlight On Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility

obama bummed

Last week, our firm filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a patent attorney’s claim that a law mandating an increase in patent application fees was invalid because it was signed into law by President Obama, who does not meet the constitutional requirement to be a “natural born citizen.” The lower courts in the case ruled that the question of President Obama’s citizenship is a “political question” and thus an issue for Congress, not the courts,­ to decide.

Until now, the question of President Obama’s qualifications as a “natural born citizen” has been dodged by the judiciary because those challenging his eligibility had not suffered any personal injury compensable by a court–and thus lacked “legal” standing. There is no such barrier in this case because the patent attorney suffered an out-of-pocket loss of $90.00 because of the new law signed by President Obama.

Also, until now, no one has questioned the validity of a law signed by the President. Rather, previous cases have sought the removal of President Obama from the presidential ballot or from office altogether. In this case, however, the complaining patent attorney is not seeking President Obama’s removal from office, but simply a refund of his $90.00 and a declaration that, unless he is a “natural born citizen,” President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to sign a bill into law. Yet, the courts are attempting to avoid declaring what the law is based on the judge-made expedient of labeling the issue a “political question.”

In addition to possessing the standing that prior challengers lacked, Mr. Rudy’s case comes at an opportune time ­ just two months after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning that an Order of the NLRB was invalid because three members of the board were constitutionally ineligible to serve.

Our amicus brief in Rudy argued that if the U.S. Supreme Court can decide whether members of the NLRB meet the constitutional requirements of their office, it can also decide whether the President of the United States meets the constitutional requirements of his office.

Further, as our brief demonstrated, the requirement that a President be a “natural born citizen” is a fixed legal principle prescribed by the Constitution, with the purpose to insulate the office from foreign influences that would compromise the President’s sworn oath to “defend, preserve, and protect” the Constitution of the United States.

Many object to any challenge to the eligibility of a president, or presidential aspirant; but if the law is to apply equally to every person, Presidents cannot be deemed to be above the law based on vague tests such as whether the case presents “political question.” Indeed, demonstrating that the term “natural born citizen” is a constitutional requirement that has continuing political significance that needs resolution are questions not just about President Obama, but also about Republicans Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and others.

Our brief was filed on behalf of U.S. Justice Foundation, Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Policy Analysis Center, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.

William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law
370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4, Vienna, Virginia 22180-5615
Phone: (703) 356-5070; Fax: (703) 356-5085
114 Creekside Lane, Winchester, Virginia 22602-2429
Phone: (540) 450-8777; Fax: (540) 450-8771

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