Theology is important. In fact a very wise man once said, "Everyone is a theologian, some are just bad at theology." We see this almost daily as we go through life, and we see people live out what they believe. It is no different when we get to jurisprudence. We either have a firm grasp on what it means to uphold the law or we do not. We understand how legitimate authority is exercised, or we do not. It is good to see that some of our best legal minds get these concepts.
Christian News reports:
A group of over 60 legal scholars have signed a statement calling upon American citizens and public officials alike to reject the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion declaring that states must legalize same-sex "marriage."
"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," said Robert George, founder of American Principles Project, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and one of the authors of the statement. "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."
As I have stated numerous times, there is a difference between an ordinance of the State (Local, State, and/or Federal laws) and Law. The State can speak an ordinance as if it was law, and can even make you comply with that law, but these actions do not make that ordinance legal. It does not mean that that command is a Law.
Our founders understood that, and this is why they had two safeguards. First, they had the Constitution. This, much like Scriptures for the Christian, was a place to appeal. The second was the ability to write amendments. This gave the people, through their representatives, the ability to correct or add that which was lacking in the law.
Never was the Supreme Court to be allowed to read back into the Constitution what they wanted it to say. This is a clear breach of the law. These Justices essentially made law, which is not their job. Our recourse is simple; we are to ignore or reject this unjust ruling.
Christian News continues:
"The Court's majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court's own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife," the statement reads.
The reason the Supreme Court could not supply these things is because they simply are not there. Nowhere in the Constitution is marriage mentioned. Nowhere is the Federal government given any power concerning marriage. Then the only thing that the Supreme Court could do was to either send the case back to its state courts or write law from the bench. Unfortunately, they chose the second option. Therefore, these scholars call on the elected officials and judges to uphold the law by ignoring their ruling.
Christian News reports:
"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," they wrote.
When we understand that all rule and authority comes from God, then we understand that any rule or authority in opposition to God is abortive. God has given the people ruling us their position, but they have rebelled against the source of that authority. Therefore, we are no longer obliged to obey these rebellious authorities.
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:29Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.