We need to be very cautious of trying to pass laws granting rights or restricting government when we already have those rights, restrictions and laws.

When liberals find freedom and liberty obstructing their goals of controlling citizens in order  to ‘protect them,’ they often violate standing law, statutory or constitutional.  For example, laws requiring city police to turn over illegal aliens to ICE is not regularly done because the president ‘stated’ it was optional. The word ‘shall’ was used, clearly meaning must.

Some people want all illegals turned over to ICE and too often their solution is to pass another law.  This new law replicating the existing law has to overcome another vote and a veto to become law.  If the new bill does not successfully become law, the executive branch is morally empowered to not only ignore that current law but expand the same tactic on other laws. 

This is not only used in the negative, but in the positive.  While the executive often ignores properly enacted laws, they also go far beyond the law and implement programs or procedures not authorized by law.  There are many instances where the EPA or the ACA (Obama-care) among many other agency created “laws’ that was not authorized by legislation.  The KING V. BURWELL (U.S. SUP. CT.) 

Too often legislators try to pass laws to ‘stop’ them.  They are creating a system where the executive does what they want until the legislature passes a law and overcomes a veto to stop those in the executive versus the constitutional way of the legislature creating the law and the executive department executing the laws passed. 

Much of the ‘Convention of the states’ (COS) movement is doing this with the constitution.  They see the Supreme Court not protecting the constitution, as is their duty when the Congress, the executive, or even the judiciary infringes on rights clearly in the constitution or creates ‘rights’ clearly not considered during the ratification of the Constitution or Amendment such as gay marriage or abortion. ​

The COS leaders see Congress acquiring power beyond the enumerated powers such as Social Security, welfare, education and regulations and think that they need to pass an amendment to the constitution to clarify what the constitution clearly states.  If the 10th amendment were not in the constitution, it would be the perfect new amendment to clarify the limited nature of the federal government’s scope of power and authority.  However, it is in the constitution!

Given the entrenched nature of decades of infringements with little pushback from the states or the legislature, much less the judiciary, the COS is needed.  However, it must be very carefully done.  See the page:   Fighting Federal Control

Big organizations need the ability to observe issues and correct them quickly, and the government is clearly not good at this.  The government is often a monopoly which compounds the problem by not allowing new innovative business models to emerge and compete for the business of regulations.  Congress’s bad job is not a reason to give more latitude and leeway to the regulatory bureaucracy of the executive department but the reason to turn over these services to the free enterprise system.  Please see ​Competitive Regulatory Agencies.  

This is not a call to ‘never’ pass these laws but to do so only after exhausting all judicial remedies and using the power of the executive when ‘We,’ who favor limited government, are in the executive.
​
Other current concerns are liberal interpretations and implementation of anti-discrimination laws when we have very powerful Freedom of Association Rights clearly stated in the US Constitution. 

The KING V. BURWELL (U.S. SUP. CT.) (2015) case clearly shows judicial incompetence and unwillingness to protect the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.  While the court has upheld the ACA twice in significant decisions, the ACA violates the constitution in dozens of other very profound ways.​

SUPREME COURT OR SUPREME BEING –

WHO WILL YOU OBEY?

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

Ricki Pepin© - July 2015

Since the Supreme Court rendered its irrelevant and irreverent opinion approving homosexual marriage, the mainstream media has been gleefully declaring that it is now “the law of the land.”  Is it?  Several “conservative” organizations are calling for political action:  “Call your Congressman and get a Constitutional Amendment passed that defends/defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”  Should you?

 

Though their sentiments may be sincere, this is NOT the right way to approach this Unconstitutional/criminal act on the part of five Supreme Court justices.  If Americans want to restore our Constitutional, republican form of government, we the people need to do so within the boundaries of the Constitution, not within “conservativism.”

What is the difference, you may ask.  What would Constitutional action look like?

• The Supreme Court does not make law.  Article I, Section 1 clearly states that all legislative authority rests with Congress.
• Congress, who does have the authority to make law, has no authority over marriage.  It is not within their 18 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.
• Any marriage regulations/laws (e.g. bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc.) are the State government’s jurisdiction.  See Amendments 9 & 10.
• Many states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts - DOMA – their citizens voting to define marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.  The federal government has no authority to overrule State governments and their citizens in this regard.  Once again, see Amendments 9 & 10.
• Lastly, but actually primarily, no one…repeat - NO ONE has the authority to overrule the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God – the foundation for all law in America as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Marriage between one man and one woman was established by God as both natural and scientific law.  No man can overrule this law any more that they could overrule the law of gravity.  Our founders referred to any such attempts as “pretended legislation.”  Check out grievances 13 & 19 of the Declaration of Independence. 

Sir Thomas More, during his trial for treason for refusal to acknowledge Henry VIII as head of the Roman Catholic Church in England, expressed this principle well:

        “Some men say the earth is flat.  Some men say the earth is round.  But if

        it is flat, could Parliament make it round?  And if it is round, could the

        King’s command flatten it?”




Sir William Blackstone, renowned English jurist who played a leading role in forming the basis of law in America said it even more succinctly:

“…This law of nature dictated by God himself is…superior in obligation to any other.  It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times:  no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.” [emphasis added]

Simply stated, man cannot alter God’s created order – the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God -  by “pretended legislation” or bogus, arrogant court decrees.  

 It is time for Constitutional action!  To seek a Constitutional amendment is a “conservative” idea and validates the federal government’s counterfeit claims to have authority over marriage.  Bad idea!  To invoke State sovereignty to rein in lawless federal mandates is both appropriate and Constitutional.

What if all the State representatives whose citizens have voted for DOMA would properly represent those citizens by initiating Nullification resolutions or legislation, letting the feds know their States have no intention of obeying an Unconstitutional, therefore illegal, federal mandate.  Five individuals have no authority to overrule the will of the people.  Five individuals have no authority to overrule the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.  The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.

What if other State representatives followed the lead of Alabama whose Senate just passed SB-377, ending State-issued marriage licenses?  This changes marriages to contracts that are filed with Probate Judges to constitute a legal record.  This eliminates both State and federal law, a best case scenario as individual citizens should not be required to ask permission (get a license) from any government official before they marry.  Marriage is a highly personal matter between individuals and families. Removing  civil government involvement also means there can be no lawsuits or court cases filed regarding marriage because no law is broken if anyone chooses NOT to perform a marriage ceremony, or chooses NOT to participate in any other way in this wedding (providing flowers, cake, etc.).

What if every patriotic American contacted their State Representatives to share this information, demanding immediate action on their part to slap down this Unconstitutional usurpation?  Haven’t law-abiding Americans’ rights been trampled long enough?  We the people have the power and authority to overturn this IF we will exercise it.  Who will you obey?  The Supreme Court or the Supreme Being?  Isn’t it time to push back?

Something to think about.

Learn more about your Constitution with Ricki Pepin and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Ricki Pepin© - July 2015