Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Same sex marriage is now “the law of the land”? NOT SO!

1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) says that only the Constitution, laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.

2. Supreme court opinions are not “law” — they are OPINIONS on the cases [rightly or wrongly] before the Court. The ONLY ONLY ONLY federal law in this land is: The Constitution, Laws made by Congress which are permitted by the Constitution, and Treaties made by the President and the Senate which are permitted by the Constitution.

Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.

3. But the statists have managed to convince most Americans that the Supreme Court is THE highest law making body in the entire Country. If people would only read our federal Constitution and use their heads, they would have seen through this absurd claim 100 years ago.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

July 5, 2015 - Posted by | Article VI, clause 2, Supremacy clause, Supreme Court | , ,


  1. I don’t think gay marriage should be the law of the land in the U.S., however, I think the gay community should be left in peace. Same sex marriage does not devalue traditional marriage. To claim otherwise is absurd.


    Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | June 17, 2016 | Reply

    • The point of my various articles and posts on “marriage” & “homosexuality” is that our Constitution does not delegate to the federal government any authority (over the Country at Large) over marriage or homosexuality.

      These are among those powers which were reserved by the States or The People.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 17, 2016 | Reply

      • No person’s marital relationship is being devalued because a minority wants the same basic rights.


        Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 3, 2018 | Reply

        • The point of my paper is that “marriage” is not an issue which was delegated to the federal government to decide. It is one of the many issues reserved by the States or The People.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 3, 2018 | Reply

          • Publius Huldah, we agree on this. What galls me is how these people who claim to be conservative want to enact laws that define the issue of marriage. Since the Dictionary addressed this matter, this legal definition b.s. is pointless. Any person who makes the claim that 5 unelected Supreme Court justices are trying to change the definition of marriage clearly has not read the true definition of the word marriage.


            Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | June 13, 2018

          • Well, “marriage” is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at Large.

            So no branch of the federal government has jurisdiction over this issue. It is an issue reserved by the States or The People.

            Accordingly, all US Supreme Court opinions addressing “marriage” are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | June 13, 2018

  2. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court, however where does it establishes “justices”? Additionally, where does the Constitution establish the number of “justices”? I will answer both of my questions, it doesn’t.


    Comment by Bob | July 12, 2015 | Reply

    • Judges – justices – call them what you will – they usurp just the same. But I noticed with interest that in his dissenting opinion in the recent case where 5 of them “found” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment the power to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage, Scalia called the 5 “lawyers”.

      The Constitution does not determine the number of federal judges – that power is delegated to Congress: Art. I, Sec. 3, clause 9 and Art. III, Sec. 1.

      We have a bloated federal judiciary b/c of all the unconstitutional federal statutes which give rise to litigation. Eg., the Americans with Disabilities Act [what Article, Section, and clause authorizes that Act?] spawns litigation which helps clog the federal courts. And think of all the unconstitutional criminal laws Congress passes! Our federal prisons are filled with people convicted of unconstitutional federal laws. See this:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2015 | Reply

    • What business is it of society at large if 2 people of the same sex want to marry? This is an issue that many conservatives get wrong.


      Comment by Jeffrey Liakos | February 18, 2018 | Reply

  3. […] a Supreme Court majority opinion ruling on a case is not law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Only laws passed by Congress made in accordance […]


    Pingback by Christian County Clerk Refuse Orders to Issue Sodomite “Marriage” Licenses: "I Will Lean on the Lord" » Sons of Liberty Media | July 10, 2015 | Reply

  4. Folks:

    I don’t like some of the recent decisions either, BUT —

    When I was in the 6th grade, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas thought that Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (May 17, 1954) was just a meaningless opinion. Governor Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to stand in the doorway of the Little Rock Central High School to prevent nine African-American students from attending classes. This was on September 4, 1957. On September 24, President Eisenhower deployed paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division and, at the same time, federalized the Arkansas National Guard, thus removing the Guard from the control of Governor Faubus. The paratroopers were armed with their caliber 30 M-1 Garand rifles with 12-inch bayonets affixed. Governor Faubus quickly changed his mind for some reason and the school was integrated within a week. President Andrew Jackson got away with ignoring Chief Justice John Marshall, but no modern president would dare ignore John Roberts.

    U.S. Supreme Court decisions are accepted, sometimes begrudgingly, by sitting presidents, senators, representatives, and the American people. Fortunately, President Obama does not read Publius-Huldah. If he were an avid reader of her writings, he would ignore the recent SCOTUS opinion that the EPA had overextended its authority and say, “Damn the Court, full speed ahead.” Then, the U.S. House of Representatives, with complete justification, would immediately draft articles of impeachment. There would then be a trial in the U.S. Senate with Chief Justice Roberts presiding in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. There would be such outrage in the Senate that even many Democrats would vote to convict. Obama could very well be the first president convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office.

    Would Publius-Huldah come to the defense of President Obama and say, “Opinions of the Supreme Court are just that — opinions. Leave the man alone and let him run the country?” We all know the answer to that question. I understand and share the outrage over some of these decisions, but we cannot pick and choose; and have it both ways. Starting with Marbury v. Madison (1803), handed down when Thomas Jefferson was president, the Supreme Court has truly become an equal branch of the federal government. Over 200 years have passed since Marbury.

    I think that Publius-Huldah should keep her passion, but direct it in more meaningful ways. There are Article I, III (Sect. 2), and V remedies. I wonder what she is doing to insure the election of a conservative in 2016? Over the short-term, this is the immediate solution to the problem. Also, it will have long-term consequences.


    Comment by Robert Harris | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. Learn the original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. Actually read my paper you commented on and look up the hyperlinks especially to Prof. Berger’s book. The purpose of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern black codes which denied them basic God given rights. It had NOTHING to do with killing babies, homosexual acts, or same-sex marriage. Absolutely nothing.

      2. Andrew Jackson had [excuse me] balls. Modern presidents from the Republican Party don’t.

      3. If obama read my papers [he can read?], he would understand that the EPA is an unconstitutional federal agency b/c “environmental protection” is not on the list of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. He would also understand that ALL EPA regs are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1 which says that only Congress may make laws.

      4. The remedy for federal judges who usurp power is impeachment (Federalist No. 81, 8th para). The remedy for Presidents and other officials in the Executive Branch who usurp power is impeachment (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).

      5. You should actually read Marbury v. Madison and see what it actually stands for. The prevailing dogma about it – which everyone chants – is wrong. Each of the branches have checks on the other branches. But the supreme Court is the only branch which actually uses its checks. Congress cowers in a corner instead of using its check on the other two branches (impeachment). For a long time, we haven’t had a President who understand his Oath of office sufficiently to exercise his check on the legislative and judicial branches. The supreme Court was able to usurp the power it now exercises b/c the other two branches were too ignorant or cowardly to smack them down and exercise their checks on the judicial branch.

      6. Re your allusion to an Art.III, Sec. 2 remedy: Are you referring to the conservatives’ chant about how Congress can reduce the jurisdiction of the supreme Court? I answered that in response to earlier comments under this article:
      My answer to Spense dated July 5; and
      My answer to cbcamp dated July 6.
      READ THEM.

      What is the Article I remedy to which you refer?

      An Article V remedy? I have a number of papers showing that a convention is the worst idea since sin – especially today in this time of IGNORANCE and immorality.

      7. Elect “conservatives”? Read this and show me where I got it wrong:
      some of the hyperlinks are broken – sorry, I haven’t had time to look for new sources for the Jefferson quotes.

      James Madison instructs us that we ARE to elect faithful men of wisdom and virtue as representatives. But our people today are so ignorant and morally blind that they can’t tell the difference between a person of virtue and an utter scoundrel.

      There is no political solution to our problems: What’s required is a moral and spiritual and intellectual regeneration. That is what I am trying to bring about.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

      • Publius-Huldah: I have read Marbury. I am happy that you are impressed with Jackson’s manhood and his decision to ignore the Marshall Court and remove thousands of peaceful Indians from North Georgia, East Tennessee, the Carolinas and elsewhere. I suppose you think that the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians was collateral damage. If overturning the Dred Scott case offends your sensibilities, what can I say? Article V still remains in its entirety in the United States Constitution. I personally think that our founding fathers were brilliant. Sorry.


        Comment by Robert Harris | July 7, 2015 | Reply

        • Rubbish! Your comment is totally illogical:

          1) My comment that Jackson had “balls” [do you dispute that?] does not constitute an endorsement of anything he did. The fact is, Jackson had spine. Recent Republican Presidents – and politicians in Congress – have none. That was my point.
          2) From where do you dream up the fantastical notion that I oppose overturning the Dred Scott case? Cite something I wrote in support of your bizarre assertion.
          3) Who disputes that the Framers – well, some of them – were brilliant? Your last comment does peg you as a COS groupie.

          If you keep up silly comments such as your last, I will be forced to conclude that you are one of the swine before whom pearls must not be cast.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  5. Basic fact, the rejection of which is causing virtually all our problems today and throughout history: The Creature cannot rule its Creator. The Constitution created the Supreme Court, and therefore the Constitution rules the Supreme Court – not the other way around.


    Comment by HappyClinger | July 7, 2015 | Reply

    • Your words are Pure Wisdom! Amazing really how you correctly summed it up in one sentence. Where have you been all my life?
      I would like to quote you: To what name shall I attribute this quote? “HappyClinger” is fine, obviously; but if you have another preference, let me know.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  6. […] Same sex marriage is now “the law of the land”? NOT SO! […]


    Pingback by [New post] Same sex marriage is now “the law of the land”? NOT SO! | | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  7. Reblogged this on Sensible Views Weblog and commented:
    Something very important I think a LOT of Americans are forgetting about concerning the “Same Sex Marriage” ruling.


    Comment by sensibleviews | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  8. Reblogged this on The Lynler Report.


    Comment by Alfred E. Neuman | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  9. Could the ruling be considered judicial review?


    Comment by crispinrobles | July 6, 2015 | Reply

    • “Judicial review” occurs anytime an appellate court reviews the Judgment of a trial court or the opinion of a lower appellate court. So there is nothing magical about the term, “judicial review”.
      The wrongly maligned Marbury v. Madison case stands for the proposition that where there is a conflict between an Act of Congress and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. And it is the duty of the Courts to uphold The Constitution when such a conflict arises.

      In the same sex marriage cases, SCOTUS made no pretense of following the Constitution. Throughout the majority opinion, they cited only their previous Opinions in other cases as “authority”. The majority opinion is really astonishing in its blatant substitution of the personal views of 5 of the Justices for The Constitution. Be sure to read my paper on marriage and the 14th amendment:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  10. Oregon Revised Statutes

    § 336.057¹
    Courses in Constitution and history of United States
    In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:
    (1)Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.
    (2)Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002 (Public universities), except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1; 2011 c.637 §114]

    § 336.067¹
    Topics given special emphasis in instruction
    (1)In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
    (a)Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.
    (b)Respect for all humans, regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, age, sex or disability.
    (c)Acknowledgment of the dignity and worth of individuals and groups and their participative roles in society.
    (d)Humane treatment of animals.
    (e)The effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs and controlled substances upon the human system.
    (2)The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools. [Formerly 336.240; 1975 c.531 §1; 1979 c.744 §13; 1993 c.45 §75; 2005 c.209 §22]

    § 352.002¹
    Public universities
    The following are established as public universities in the State of Oregon:
    (1)University of Oregon.
    (2)Oregon State University.
    (3)Portland State University.
    (4)Oregon Institute of Technology.
    (5)Western Oregon University.
    (6)Southern Oregon University.
    (7)Eastern Oregon University. [1987 c.246 §1; 1995 c.162 §74; 1995 c.612 §§10,11; 1997 c.11 §1; 2001 c.382 §1; 2011 c.637 §58; 2013 c.768 §24]
    Note: The amendments to 352.002 (Public universities) by section 24, chapter 768, Oregon Laws 2013, become operative July 1, 2014. See section 171, chapter 768, Oregon Laws 2013. The text that is operative until July 1, 2014, is set forth for the users convenience.
    352.002 (Public universities). The Oregon University System established in ORS 351.011 (Oregon University System established) consists of the following public universities under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Higher Education:
    (1)University of Oregon.
    (2)Oregon State University.
    (3)Portland State University.
    (4)Oregon Institute of Technology.
    (5)Western Oregon University.
    (6)Southern Oregon University.
    (7)Eastern Oregon University.

    Several polls have been conducted by yours truly over the last 12 to 15 years. Not one public institutions that I visited had any curriculum which even came close to what the law says in supposed to be. When our high school and college graduates are ignorant of the state and federal constitutions what can you expect. They can be told anything and they will believe it especially when it comes out of the mouths elected officials, judges, politicians, and lawyers with an agenda. How does your state fair, mine has flunked Constitution 101. The Constitution doesn’t work because the people are not taught it in school. Need I say more. Regards Douglas R. Smith.


    Comment by Douglas R. Smith | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • So WE must fill the void. WE must do what the public schools failed to do.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  11. Hi PH, There are people who are saying that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States; : “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” makes it possible for congress to nullify the recent SCOTUS opinion on same-sex marriage.

    Here is one such statement: ” Congress has the CLEAR and UNDENIABLE authority and power, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, to NULLIFY the recent lawless decree by five unelected black-robed tyrants that elevates perversion to the status of marriage. All it takes is a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate and, once it is done, the courts have no power to rule on it and Barack Obama has no authority to veto it. If Congress votes… IT IS DONE.”

    What say you?


    Comment by Spense | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, lists the categories of cases the federal courts may hear.

      Clause 2 divides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court into “original” (trial) and appellate jurisdiction. So don’t forget, clause 2 deals ONLY with the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.

      So think about what these conservatives are saying about how we can fix our problems by having Congress reduce the jurisdiction of the supreme Court – eg., by making a law saying SCOTUS may no longer hear cases on certain subject matters. Even if Congress could do that by making a law, how would that solve the problem? We would still have the lower federal courts coming out with CRAZY decisions – such as the US Circuit Courts of Appeals opinions saying States may NOT require applicants for voter registration to prove they are citizens.

      2. I have no doubt but that in the last 4 paras of Federalist Paper No. 81, Hamilton is talking about the power of Congress to prescribe rules of appellate procedure for the supreme Court. Any appellate litigation atty will tell you that his “bible” is the Rules of Appellate Procedure for the courts he practices in. I’ll illustrate:

      3. Originally, the federal court system consisted of the federal district courts (the trial courts in the federal system) and the US supreme Court.

      But in 1891, Congress created 9 circuit courts of appeals [we have more now]. These handle appeals from the federal district courts (the trial courts). So appeals which before 1891 which went directly from the federal district court to the supreme Court now go to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

      The Rules of court or appellate procedure already determine what appeals SCOTUS will hear. See e.g., attached on page 3 of the pdf file: The rule on Writs of Certiorari explain procedures for using this Writ. The next rule discusses “certified questions” [when a lower court formally frames a question to a higher court and asks the higher court to decide it] and extraordinary writs, etc. SCOTUS also has appellate jurisdiction in cases of direct Conflict between the Circuits.

      I need to write a paper on this to clarify the issue.

      4. The irony is that the federal courts have no constitutional jurisdiction to hear most of the cases they hear. I explain in my recent paper here: that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over “marriage” over the Country at large.

      5. So it is a complicated issue; and most of the conservatives who write about it have it all wrong. The solution is NOT to get Congress to “reduce the jurisdiction of the supreme Court”, but for The People to elect to the Presidency, people who won’t appoint loons to the federal courts (as all our recent presidents have done); and to elect to Congress people who will impeach federal judges who usurp powers.

      Meanwhile, the States need to man up and nullify these loony federal court decisions.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Congress ordains and establishes all lower courts, this includes setting the parameters on cases they may hear. How can you establish a lower court system and not specify it’s powers ?


      Comment by cbcamp2014 | July 6, 2015 | Reply

      • Right, and the categories of cases the federal courts may LAWFULLY hear are itemized – enumerated – at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1. See this paper:

        As the paper shows, the federal courts have usurped power to decide cases they have NO AUTHORITY TO HEAR b/c the cases are not on the list of the powers delegated at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1.

        The REMEDY for these judicial usurpations of power is to impeach and remove the federal judges (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

        So conservatives who say Congress must “reduce the jurisdiction of the federal courts” via the “exceptions clause” at Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, are seeking the wrong remedy. The federal courts already lack jurisdiction over those issues!

        We need to send to Congress people who will impeach and remove these usurping federal judges.

        Meanwhile, States need to man up and nullify these unconstitutional SCOTUS opinions. I’m working on a nullification bill for the marriage issue – I’ll send it to you when it’s done.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | July 6, 2015 | Reply

  12. Thank you! I think that all three branches of our Government forget that the U.S. Constitution, and that for which it stands, still exists. Nonetheless, there will be further attempts to redefine marriage, religion, and, wait for it, … the Commerce Clause …

    Their ‘opinion’ is pretty much a form of judicial bullying. The Supremes know very well that they can’t make laws, however their ‘opinion’ imposes the ‘fear’ of very expensive lawsuits into the laps of those who will not submit.
    Now then, where do we go from here?


    Comment by usnveteran | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  13. Dear Publius:

    Why couldn’t SCOTUS invoke an interstate commerce clause to resolve the differences in legal marriage definition between states?

    How does the IRS decide marital status when a couple moves to a different state’s jurisdiction? What was their opinion on different states determination of interracial marriage legality?

    Why can’t we resolve this dispute with the concept of a legal civil union and leave the subject of “matrimony” out of the question? (As I thought Canada had handled the problem. The IRS uses “Head of Household” to define single parentage family!?)

    Just wondering.. Bill F.


    Comment by wlfoote | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • The federal courts HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER MARRIAGE OVER THE COUNTRY AT LARGE. None. This paper explains it:

      The interstate commerce clause has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. The original intent of that clause is proved here:

      The IRS does whatever they want – I cannot justify anything they do.

      The homosexuals demanded “marriage”. And 5 of the justices on SCOTUS were determined to let them have what they wanted.

      Good point, your last. Marriage was originally a family/church matter. Only recently, in the United States did State government start demanding state licenses. See one of the footnotes to my linked paper where I address this.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  14. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.


    Comment by gamegetterII | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  15. I’m certainly no authority on the Constitution, but it seems to me that Article 3, Section 1 says the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and Section 2 says that power shall extend to controversies between two or more States, or citizens of different States. Please enlighten me.


    Comment by Bob Thompson | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Bob, What is “judicial power”? It is nothing more than the power to participate – like a referee in a sporting contest – in lawsuits.

      Article III, Section 2, clauses 1 & 2, are the only parts of our Constitution which the intelligent layman can not fully understand on his own. It requires knowledge of litigation to fully understand. But the intelligent layman can read those two clauses and know that the jurisdiction of the federal courts IS LIMITED AND RESTRICTED TO ENUMERATED KINDS OF CASES.

      I have several papers on federal court jurisdiction. Start with this one:

      Then read this:

      The powers of the federal courts are LIMITED AND NARROWLY DEFINED. That is why our Framers referred to it as the least powerful branch of the federal government.

      Stay in touch.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  16. 1) The Constitution cannot be read in isolation – you’ve read one clause and concluded vastly too much (deductive conclusion without warrant of your evidence).

    The Supremacy clause says the Constitution is supreme. Article III then vests the judicial power in the SCOTUS. Generally speaking, the judicial power is to decide controversies and act as the meaning of the law. Marbury v. Madison then explains more clearly what that judicial power entails.

    SCOTUS construes what the Constitution means. SCOTUS said the 14th Amendment prohibits laws discriminating against gays in issuing marriage licenses. Discrimination against gays in issuing marriage licenses is proscribed by the highest law of the land (14th Amendment to the Constitution). Therefore, gay marriage is the law of the land.

    SCOTUS opinions are not law; but that is ignoring about 3/4 of the Constitution to confirm your bias.

    2) Same error as in 1. But in addition, you’re also misunderstanding that court cases are not just *the law of that case* – Supreme Court decisions also construe the larger application of the law. Those are the two major functions of SCOTUS – to decide the law of the case and to determine the meaning of the law.

    3) You are correct that in many instances, judicial activism has created law and is illegal aggrandizement of SCOTUS power. King v. Burwell is an example of judicial activism. The law passed by Congress said one thing and the SCOTUS changed the text of that law to say something else. That is the creation of a new law.

    Obergefell v. Hodges explained, correctly, that as soon as a state passes a law to license marriages, it cannot unreasonably discriminate against homosexuals in those laws. Without a rational basis for the state law, the law violates due process in depriving one of his liberty.

    The moment the 14th Amendment was penned, gay marriage was the law of the land. It took 147 years for SCOTUS to properly apply the 14th Amendment.


    Comment by Matthew | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Matthew! Forget what you were told in law school about federal court jurisdiction and look at Art. III, Sections 1 & 2, and Federalist Papers No. 80 and 81. You repeat the prevailing dogma about Marbury v. Madison – which dogma is wrong.
      Read these papers:

      I have written more on the issue of federal court jurisdiction as set forth in the Constitution, but these are a good place to start.
      In short, the prevailing dogma about federal court jurisdiction is wrong – I am restoring the original intent. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off our Constitution and learn the Truth. Then help restore the original intent.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • Matthew, absolutely no one was discriminated against by the traditional marriage laws…. EVERYONE was equal under that law. No one has to choose to a same-sex partner to marry. Homosexuals are not born homosexual, in fact all reputable experts will tell you its “post birth factors” that cause people to explore homosexual behavior. You presume what has never been proven. The fact that some people choose not to select an opposite sex partner does not mean they were discriminated against by traditional one man one woman marriage laws. According to your argument, then those who want to marry more that one person and those who want an incestual marriage are discriminated against too . Also, in 1868, when the 14th amendment was ratified, homosexual contact was a crime in every state in America. So, suggesting that the original meaning and intent of the 14th amendment was to grant a same-sex marriage right is ridiculous.


      Comment by Spense | July 5, 2015 | Reply

      • What the hell does it matter if the behavior is picked up later or by birth? Is there a difference?

        I think you assume that somehow the behavior is aberrant or “bad.” Which means you get your morals and judgments from a book that teaches people to murder and hate. Which means you’re an idiot and will do nothing for anyone and will be forgotten. Good for you.


        Comment by Procinctus | July 7, 2015 | Reply

        • Procinctus! Read what you wrote – the “hate” comes from you.
          Spense shows no “hate” – you can’t point to one “hateful” word in his comment.
          But you, on the other hand, call Spense an “idiot” and tell him, in effect, that he is insignificant.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 7, 2015 | Reply

  17. We know that the greatest share of these judges are dishonorable men and women in the fact that they violate their oath of office. The mediocrity of this court has become the norm, and where mediocrity is the norm it also becomes the ideal. Article III states that these judges serve during good behavior, and I believe that violating your oath of office does not constitute good behavior.


    Comment by L.E. Liesner | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • You are correct! Hamilton said federal judges who usurp power should be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 5, 2015 | Reply

    • There are far too many immoral and corrupt politicians in the house & senate for that to work…


      Comment by Spense | July 5, 2015 | Reply

      • And it doesn’t solve the problem by “We the People” continually electing and re-electing these very same immoral and corrupt politicians.


        Comment by L.E. Liesner | July 7, 2015 | Reply

        • For they know not what jurisdiction they are voting in or for.  


          Comment by Douglas Smith | July 8, 2015 | Reply

  18. Too bad our electeds don’t appear to understand this.


    Comment by dpwelden | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  19. As always, bless you my friend. I was encouraged yesterday when seeing a response to this issue by someone who also said, “NOT SO!” He/she received many Thank you’s! Carol


    Comment by Carol Boggs | July 5, 2015 | Reply

  20. THANK YOU! Some SANITY, finally!


    Comment by John | July 5, 2015 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: