Thread: ALABAMA JUDGE: LET WASHINGTON RUN 'MARRIAGE'

ALABAMA JUDGE: LET WASHINGTON RUN 'MARRIAGE'

'Federally created civil rights have always been administered exclusively by the federal government'

October 10, 2015
BOB UNRUH

Supreme Court that created ‘same-sex marriage’

A state judge in Alabama is arguing that since the U.S. Supreme Court – a branch of the federal government – created “same-sex marriage,” Washington can just go ahead and administer the licenses.

The arguments come in a new court filing from Probate Judge John Enslen. In Alabama, probate judges are the only ones authorized to issue marriage licenses.

WND reported just days ago that in Alabama, the state Supreme Court still has pending a case regarding how the state should implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage ruling.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision, a federal judge in Alabama had demanded endorsement of “same-sex marriage,” and the Alabama Supreme Court issued a permanent injunction forbidding it.

When the Supreme Court’s ruling was announced, the state Supreme Court said it would accept comments on how the decision would impact in the state. But the state Supreme Court has not ruled yet.

Several probate judges now are asking the state Supreme Court to rule, and in a new filing with the state court, Enslen suggests the issue can be resolved.

He said he “petitions this Supreme Court of the state of Alabama to issue a declaratory judgment, order, and decree holding that the state of Alabama will honor and recognize same-sex marriage license that are duly issued by the federal government of these United States, or duly issued by a state government that has adopted the civil right of same-sex marriage as a matter of that state’s law.”

But, he said, the ruling should further say “that the state of Alabama will not issue state same-sex marriage licenses or recognize purported state same-sex marriage license that have been issued in contradiction to the current Constitution of the state of Alabama or the current state law of any other sister state.”

He explained that the federal government created “same-sex marriage” and, therefore, can administer it.

“A search of the Code of Federal Regulations reveals that there are 19,169 sections that contain the word ‘license,’ ‘certification,’ ‘ permit’ or a combination thereof,” he wrote. “Federal agencies, boards and commissions have been established by the federal government to regulate the exclusive issuance and administration of a multitude of federal licenses.”

He said, “The federal government and its many agencies are accustomed to issuing and administering licenses that have for their creative basis a grant of authority that is grounded in the federal constitution or a judicial interpretation thereof.”

He argued that the proper handling of the Supreme Court’s creation is to have the federal government deal with it.

“The Obergefell ruling gave birth to a new, federally created, U.S. Constitution-based, civil right to same-sex marriage or, as some have referred to it, sodomy-based marriage,” he said. “But the recognition of a new, federal civil right is an entirely different matter from the federal government’s authority to compel the state of Alabama, or any other state, ot issue that particular type of federal-based marriage license.

“This petition relates to the proper manner in which to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell.”
He questioned whether the federal government could force states to issue other types of licenses, such as for “those to intend to acquire explosive materials.”

‘Child of the federal government’

“The new same-sex marriage license is a child of the federal government, not the state of Alabama,” he wrote.

WND reported a day earlier when dozens of top legal scholars from the likes of Washington & Lee, Boston College, Kansas State, Notre Dame, University of Texas, Villanova, Vanderbilt, Hillsdale, University of Nebraska, Catholic University and Regent University said state and federal officials should treat the Supreme Court’s recent creation of “same-sex marriage” as “anti-constitutional and illegitimate.”

“It cannot … be taken to have settled the law of the United States,” said the statement by the American Principles Project.
“We call on all federal and state officeholders: To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case. To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions. To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons. To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evidence in Obergefell.”

Robert George, founder of the project and the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, said: “We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is. We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”

In the marriage case, the lawyers explain, the five justices who joined to create same-sex marriage, “by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure or original understanding of the Constitution.”
They noted the four justices who dissented didn’t simply disagree, they feared severe harm would result.

For example, Justice Antonin Scalia called it “a naked judicial claim to legislative … power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.”

Justice Samuel Alito said it is “beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among … rights” rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.

Opponents pose a number of problems with the Obergefell decision.

For example, two of the justices in the majority were asked to recuse themselves from the case because they had openly advocated for same-sex marriage, violating standards to preserve judicial impartiality.

Reversed

Then there was the U.S. Supreme Court’s own opinion just two years earlier, in the Defense of Marriage Act case, in which the court said states have exclusive power over marriage.

And there are those who point out that the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people.

Eunie Smith of the Eagle Forum of Alabama and John Killian Sr., former president of the Alabama Baptist State Convention contend in a newly published commentary that the judicial branch doesn’t have the constitutional power to legislate a right to “same-sex marriage.”

“Five ‘unelected judges’ – as Chief Justice Roberts called them in his criticism of Obergefell – dealt an arrogant blow to God, the family, nature, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States and the democratic process,” they write. “Simply because their opinion has been accepted as the ‘law of the land’ by the media and the left, doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to close our eyes to the truth or pretend that the Constitution allows the judicial branch to legislate a new right to same-sex marriage.”

WND reported after the Obergefell decision was released that Liberty Counsel, in a brief on behalf of several family groups, explained to the Alabama judges there is precedent in the U.S. for a state Supreme Court to reject a “U.S. Supreme Court mandate which is unlawful.”

“There is existing precedent for a state’s highest court to reject an unlawful mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, Mat Staver. “The hope of our constitutional Republic rests upon state officials and American citizens who will refuse to allow five, black-robed judges to rob us of our free, representative form of government.
“A judicial opinion without constitutional basis is not law and should not be followed by any state or citizen,” he said.

The brief submitted by Liberty Counsel to the state court notes that the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to follow the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Dred Scott, which “said that blacks were not entitled to full protection as citizens.”

‘Not a judgment’

In the Wisconsin case, the brief explains that even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the state Supreme Court, “in a final act of defiance,” the state court “never filed the mandates” which required people to return “fugitive slaves” to their owners.

At that time, the Wisconsin court opined, “I believe most sincerely and solemnly that the last hope of free, representative and responsible government rests upon the state sovereignties and fidelity of state officers to their double allegiance, to the state and federal government; and so believe, I cannot hesitate in performing a clear, an indispensable duty.”

The court also declared the federal law unconstitutional.

The Wisconsin court said, “Here is a distinct recognition of the power and duty of state judges, not to be bound by all the acts of Congress, or by the judgments and decrees of the supreme federal court, or by their interpretation of the constitution and acts of congress, but by ‘this constitution’ ‘and the laws made in pursuance thereof.’”

Simply put, they found, a Supreme Court opinion that wasn’t founded in the Constitution was not a judgment.
Impeachment

As WND reported, Ruth Ginsburg has performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements. Justice Elena Kagan also has performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights at Harvard’s law school while she was at its helm.

Critics contend the two justice appear to be violating judicial ethics rules that require recusal from a case in which there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

A brief from the Foundation for Moral Law explained that Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

The foundation pointed out in a submission to the Supreme Court: “Four weeks after this court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept same-sex marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: ‘I think it’s doubtful that it wouldn’t be accepted. The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous … It would not take a large adjustment.’”

Ginsburg’s interview was with Bloomberg News on Feb. 12.

The controversy resurfaced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.

The paper said that with “a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/alabama-j...WesGjdxBiQc.99

Oh, okay, so if you can't figure out the meaning of equal rights in the US Constitution and have to told by the US Supreme Court, then you surrender your States Rights to federal authority on your duties as public officials?! Really? That is just so unbelievable.

You brought this on yourselves because you believe your religion entitles you to discriminate against other people and invoke your personal views on others because of your personal religious beliefs, when in fact, you have no right to discriminate against other people because of your religion. If your religion forbids you from complying with federal constitutional law, then you have every right to resign your position so someone who can separate their personal religious beliefs from their state duties can do the job.

What is it? Are you all so hard up you can't find another job that pays as well as these government jobs?! Is that the deal? You won't trade in your gravy train for your own religion? REALLY?

As in all things, just follow the money.

Actually, I think that this Judge was making a point on State's rights and the overreach of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this instance, has dictated legislation rather than interpreted the existing law which is their job. Legislation is job of Congress, not the Supreme Court and this judge seems to have taken exception to it.

Personally, I think that when you elect a pack of lawyers to represent you in Congress, you wind up with unending lawsuits and very little resolution. I also think that if there is a problem with law, the Congress should re examine the law and make the necessary changes. It seem that all Congress does is churn out new laws instead of fixing bad ones.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Actually, I think that this Judge was making a point on State's rights and the overreach of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this instance, has dictated legislation rather than interpreted the existing law which is their job. Legislation is job of Congress, not the Supreme Court and this judge seems to have taken exception to it.

Personally, I think that when you elect a pack of lawyers to represent you in Congress, you wind up with unending lawsuits and very little resolution. I also think that if there is a problem with law, the Congress should re examine the law and make the necessary changes. It seem that all Congress does is churn out new laws instead of fixing bad ones.

Well, in this case there was no federal law, it was a States Rights versus constitutional rights issue. Like school segregation that was solved by the US Supreme Court in Brown vs the Board of Education or busing segregation that was solved by the US Supreme Court in Browder vs Gayle. This issue of gay marriage was settled by the recent case Obergefell vs Hodges. There is no basis in our Constitution for discrimination against gay people. Most of the desire for that is rooted in religious beliefs which can not be used to discriminate against other people. So the court actually made the right decision under the US Constitution. States have to treat citizens equally, they can't discriminate and refusing gays to marry under their state marriage laws was without question discrimination as clear as not allowing women to vote or blacks to attend white schools or ride anywhere on the bus they wanted to. It's all the same thing which is why over time all the state laws that pick on people for one reason or another usually get shot down by the US Supreme Court. It's unfortunate, horrible really, that the US Supreme Court made a terrible decision in the Dred Scott Case. The years of suffering and war that ensued to correct that wrong could have been settled by 9 people on the US Supreme Court doing the right thing, but they didn't because 6 of the 9 were slave owners. No surprise there I guess. Follow the money.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

Actually, I think that this Judge was making a point on State's rights and the overreach of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in this instance, has dictated legislation rather than interpreted the existing law which is their job. Legislation is job of Congress, not the Supreme Court and this judge seems to have taken exception to it.

Personally, I think that when you elect a pack of lawyers to represent you in Congress, you wind up with unending lawsuits and very little resolution. I also think that if there is a problem with law, the Congress should re examine the law and make the necessary changes. It seem that all Congress does is churn out new laws instead of fixing bad ones.

Well said! IMO, this is the key: "And there are those who point out that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage but does dictate that everything not mentioned in the document is left to the states and the people."

It's obvious, to even the casual observer, that the U.S. Supreme Court legislated from the bench.