For those who are dedicated supporters and defenders of the miracle our forefathers created (the Constitution of the United States of America), the MAJORITY’S OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed down June 26, 2015, like a number of previous “precedent” setting opinions, will long be remember as another significant and major attack on the fundamental rules used to preserve and protect that Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absolutely correct when he emphatically stated a “. . . precedent should be of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.” SOURCE
With respect to fundamental rules used to determine the true and actual meaning of our Constitution, as it was understood by those who framed it and the States and people therein when ratifying it, the majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges casts such rules aside and substituted its own sexual oriented feels and predilections for the rule of law and reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage
Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion simply went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant platitudes and historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to “. . . discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." See, HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Unlike Israel’s “Basic Law” which states “There shall be no violation of rights under its Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required “, which in effect makes rights and limited powers granted meaningless, the Constitution of the United States contains no grant of such omnipotent authority to our federal government, and that includes an un-elected majority sitting on our Supreme Court.
In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and it requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.
Have three-fourths of the States and people therein agreed to cast aside the traditional meaning of marriage, which dates back 4,000 years, and forbid the States to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicant’s sex?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absolutely correct when he emphatically stated a “. . . precedent should be of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.” SOURCE
With respect to fundamental rules used to determine the true and actual meaning of our Constitution, as it was understood by those who framed it and the States and people therein when ratifying it, the majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges casts such rules aside and substituted its own sexual oriented feels and predilections for the rule of law and reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage
Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion simply went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant platitudes and historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to “. . . discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." See, HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Unlike Israel’s “Basic Law” which states “There shall be no violation of rights under its Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required “, which in effect makes rights and limited powers granted meaningless, the Constitution of the United States contains no grant of such omnipotent authority to our federal government, and that includes an un-elected majority sitting on our Supreme Court.
In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and it requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.
Have three-fourths of the States and people therein agreed to cast aside the traditional meaning of marriage, which dates back 4,000 years, and forbid the States to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicant’s sex?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.
