Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label homosexual marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual marriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Is America This Far Gone?


STUNNING CLAIM: U.S. AT POINT WHERE 'ELECTIONS DON'T MATTER'

'We will not survive another few years as a republic, irrespective of who wins'


image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/01/Paul-Bremmer_avatar.jpg
author-image PAUL BREMMER About | Email | Archive

rss feed Subscribe to feed

431
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/supreme-court-600-tw.jpg
The U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court
Could our republic be on its last legs?
If the judicial system continues to usurp power it doesn’t rightfully possess, then America’s current system can’t last much longer, according to Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz.
“We will not survive another few years as a republic, irrespective of who wins this election, if the courts are not stripped of their power,” Horowitz declared during a recent appearance on the Mark Levin Show.
Indeed, the nation is reaching a “cathartic moment in our history where elections don’t matter,” according to Horowitz.
This is because unelected judges are deciding most major social and political questions with finality. Horowitz details the danger posed by the courts in his new book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.”
Levin praised the book, calling it “a must-read” and “a terrific book” and deeming Horowitz “one of the smartest young men in the conservative movement today.”
Horowitz said he was inspired to write the book by two distinct events that happened Sept. 3, 2015. That was the day Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her Christian faith by issuing “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. This came after the Supreme Court in June created the constitutional “right” to homosexual marriage.
Then also on Sept. 3, according to Horowitz, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel invalidated the deportation of a criminal alien because the individual was transgender.
The judge applied international law to rule the alien could not be returned to Mexico because he might face persecution because of his gender identity. The judge then castigated the immigration officials in court for not using the proper pronoun to refer to the defendant.
So on the same day a federal judge threw a peaceful clerk in jail for following her Christian faith, another federal judge ordered the ICE to release a dangerous criminal illegal alien. This dichotomy was emblematic of a major problem Horowitz sees drawing near.
“I believe that we are reaching the final frontier of judicial tyranny,” Horowitz warned. “For years they’ve been codifying special privileges for protected classes, flipping unalienable rights on its head for protected classes of Americans. They’re now copying and pasting those rights to foreign nationals.”
This manifests itself, according to Horowitz, when judges rule in favor of birthright citizenship and counting illegal aliens in the census while ruling against common sense state voter ID laws.
“They are not only deciding every political and social question of our time that should be left to a legislature, they are preventing conservatives from even winning elections and having fair elections in the first place,” Horowitz said. “This is why I see this problem as pretty much the most imminent constitutional crisis we have to confront at this moment.”
Some conservatives believe all they need to do is elect a Republican president who will then appoint more conservative judges, but Horowitz views this as a fool’s errand.
For one thing, he said, it would take many years to replace enough liberal judges to make a serious difference, and Republican presidents do not have a great record anyway when it comes to appointing judges who turn out to be conservative.
Horowitz believes America has reached a point of no return and the only answer now is to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain issues. This requires no new law or constitutional amendment because Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to exempt and regulate the jurisdiction of the courts.
If Congress would only stand up and exercise this power, it would change everything, according to Horowitz.
“So the notion that the courts could say, ‘A man is a woman now for purposes of state law; a marriage is not a marriage; you have to fund Planned Parenthood; you can’t regulate abortion clinics’ – they do not have the power to do that if Congress protects the states and simply says no, they do not have the power to adjudicate,” Horowitz declared.
Indeed, the notion that one district or circuit judge can redefine marriage or throw out an immigration law is silly, according to Horowitz, because Congress created those courts and has power over their jurisdiction. He acknowledged his book has opened many eyes to the way the judiciary is supposed to work.
“A lot of people actually thought the courts are the final arbiter of everything,” Horowitz said. “That’s what even conservatives are trained to think, and this is something that is so dangerous because … there’s got to be some sort of limit to it.”
He pointed out early voting was a concept that didn’t exist in most states until about a decade ago, yet federal judges are now ruling that states violate the Constitution and the 1965 Voting Rights Act if they reduce their early voting periods.
“How do we allow this to stand for even one day when we have the authority to simply say the courts do not have jurisdiction over this issue?” Horowitz asked.
Horowitz lamented conservatives’ unwillingness to embrace drastic but necessary measures to save the American republic. Just as many rejected Levin’s suggestions in “The Liberty Amendments,” some have already rejected Horowitz’s suggestions in “Stolen Sovereignty.”
“This is not something foreign,” Horowitz reasoned. “We’re talking about pursuing constitutional remedies to combat unconstitutional coups throughout our government that the left has perpetrated for a hundred years, and our side says no to everything.”
Again, Horowitz warned simply appointing more conservative judges has been tried before, and it has failed to fix the systemic problems in the court system. In fact, he said having Congress restrict the courts’ jurisdiction is the one variable Americans have not yet explored. He recommends Congress at minimum strip the courts of jurisdiction over issues of sovereignty, most notably immigration.
Such a move would do far more than 10 to 12 years of Republican governance, Horowitz assured Levin’s audience.
“We need to do something now, and this notion that we’re going to continue banging our heads against the wall and just say, ‘Appoint better judges,’ this system is so flawed,” Horowitz insisted. “When we have this erroneous notion and we give in to the premise that the courts are not just a coequal branch to engage in judicial review, but they are above, they are the sole and final arbiter of every single important question of our time, we’ve lost our system of governance. It doesn’t matter; it doesn’t matter who wins the elections. I guarantee you – pick your favorite policy, why you want a Republican governor or president – that policy will be thrown out.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/stunning-claim-u-s-at-point-where-elections-dont-matter/#yWxY9Mm1TIddmqwo.99
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Supreme Court Changed Its Position On "Marriage". Why Would They Do That?

AMERICA 'PUNKED' ON 'GAY MARRIAGE'

Supreme Court had to ignore its own words to reach conclusion

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/09/SUPREME-COURT.jpg
SUPREME COURT
A well-known pastor says America was “punked” on homosexual “marriage,” and he is trying to rally resistance to the Supreme Court with what he believes is a “smoking gun.”
Carl Gallups, author of “Final Warning: Understanding the Trumpet Days of Revelation,” argues the Supreme Court ruled only two years ago the right to define marriage belonged exclusively to the states.
Then suddenly this year the justices found that contention was wrong – that the states did not have that right. Instead, the justices ruled 5-4 that the federal government has the right to redefine marriage – even to the point of throwing out the votes of millions of Americans.
Gallups says this “nefarious” legal reasoning opens the door for legislative action by the Republican-controlled Congress.
He said it was the case of United States v. Windsor in 2013 that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act.
There the issue was that the federal law provided that marriage was between a man and a woman, but in New York state, there was a demand to include same-sex duos in that designation. Thus, the Supreme Court threw out the federal law.
It found “the responsibility of the states for the regulation of domestic relations is an important indicator of the substantial societal impact the state’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs of its people.”
But now, Gallups notes, the Supreme Court is saying in 2015′s Obergefell v. Hodges case that homosexuals have an inherent “right” to marry and the state does not have the right to determine “domestic relations.”
Gallups says he finds it odd these same justices apparently didn’t notice this only two years ago.
Gallups, a former law enforcement officer, told WND, “The U.S. v. Windsor case is evidence to many who are examining the redefinition of marriage in America that there is a potentially nefarious agenda afoot with this entire issue. How can it be that the same five justices, who ruled against DOMA on the basis that the definition of ‘domestic relations’ belonged to the states alone, could just two years later could completely reverse their stance and with the gay marriage ruling declare that the definition of marriage was entirely a federal matter? In a sane world – it cannot be.
“These five justices declared in the DOMA ruling that to take the definition of marriage out of the states’ hands would be a ‘federal intrusion on state power’ and that it would be, ‘a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.’”
He said, “The matter is clear. The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, in the words of SCOTUS itself, was unconstitutional and therefore – illegal.”
Some legal experts agree the Supreme Court is directly contradicting its reasoning from the relatively recent time frame of only two years ago.
Douglas Wardlow, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told WND the court’s recent imposition of “gay marriage” is “fundamentally lawless, not based on sound reasoning and isn’t good jurisprudence.”
Wardlow, who possesses a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and was admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the bar of the District of Columbia and Minnesota, argues the court was motivated by “the end they wanted to reach and not by sound reasoning.”
He observes, “The reasoning in the Obergefell decision says the court can determine new standards of liberty to overturn precedent and legal restrictions.”
The court’s decision, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, boasts, “Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.”
Wardlow argues Obergefell was grounded in the supposed constitutional right to express one’s identity and be granted a sense of dignity.
“Apparently, the court is the body that can define what forms of identity are protected by Constitution,” he said.
But Wardlow warns the decision goes beyond even just redefining a core institution like marriage. Observing how easily the court was able to contradict its own reasoning in the two years from United States v. Windsor to Obergefell v. Hodges, Wardlow says the court has done nothing less than redefine liberty itself and undermine the rule of law.
“Liberty is now defined as the expression of identity, instead of liberty meaning freedom from forms of government control. Fundamental liberties are no longer defined by history or the traditions of the nation but are free floating concepts, concepts that the court can assess for itself,” he said.
Wardlow says such an approach to jurisprudence could prove dangerous.
“Just think of a fundamental right and the Supreme Court could expand it, redefine it, or shrink it. The reasoning of the decision fundamentally undermines the rule of law because rule of law depends on constancy of the law. Now, it becomes difficult for people to plan their behavior and you move toward a lawless state.”
Paul Kengor, a professor and author of “Takedown: How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage,” argues Kennedy’s “commitment to a relativistic, individualistic view of everything from marriage to life to existence to meaning itself ultimately won out.”
Kengor says Kennedy’s legal reasoning has put almost everything in the law up for grabs, “and that’s no exaggeration.”
“Really, if you want to understand what Justice Kennedy did in the gay-marriage decision, simply look at his ‘reasoning’ in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that reaffirmed Roe in all 50 states. Kennedy wrote then: ‘At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’”
He said, “That explains Kennedy’s willingness to redefine marriage. If Anthony Kennedy interprets liberty in America to mean that every American possesses his or her own right to define one’s own singular concept of existence, meaning, the universe, and life itself, then why can’t Americans come up with their definitions of marriage? Really, redefining marriage is small potatoes after all that.”
Wardlow says the rationale used to impose homosexual marriage “opens the door to a lot of different problems” because now the law seems to state, “whatever you want the world to look like, you can make it look like that.”
Bemoaning how “a concept ultimately destructive of social order” is now at the heart of constitutional law, Wardlow says the only way the decision is likely to be reversed is with better justices.
He argues, “It’s even difficult to make arguments to federal courts when the decision isn’t based on logic or reason or precedent, which are things lawyers traditionally use. It appears the governing standards are lawless themselves.”
Yet Gallups argues the answer is “reining in a runaway federal court through congressional action.”
He blasts Republican presidential candidates who are unwilling to take action to defend traditional marriage.
“What is particularly disturbing to many, is that the vast majority of the so-called ‘conservative’ Republican candidates running for president have declared that they would not seek a constitutional amendment to properly define marriage and nullify the SCOTUS decision. Their paraphrased consensus declaration is, ‘The law is the law. SCOTUS has settled the issue.’
“Hogwash! The SCOTUS also ‘settled’ the issue in Dred Scott, and it also ‘settled’ the issue in Roe v. Wade. Now, years later, we know the horrific consequences of both of these ‘settled law’ cases. To make matters worse, it seems that Congress is not going to intervene in this legal travesty as well. One has to wonder if Congress even knows about the legally inconsistent SCOTUS rulings that took place only two years apart. Where is the mainstream media on this travesty of constitutional law?”
See Gallups’ report:

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/america-punked-on-gay-marriage/#SPBXERvXBWm0TAMJ.99Sup
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)