Bryan Fischer
On marriage, it's time for the master to tell the servant what to do
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on AFR Talk, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
State legislatures are our last, best hope of resisting the tyrannical usurpation of power by the Supreme Court and defending natural marriage.
The Supreme Court is almost certainly about to make an attempt to impose sodomy-based marriage on the entire United States. This would represent judicial tyranny on an unprecedented scale. In only 11 states have the people themselves or their elected representatives chosen to recognize same-sex "marriage." But in 26 others, unnatural marriage has been imposed on its people against their will. This is not how the Founders designed America to work.
What is the solution to this brazen government overreach? How do we break the back of this judicial leviathan?
By working through the legislatures, which consist of the chosen representatives of the people of the individual states, we can preserve our republican form of government within the parameters of the Constitution. This approach creates the possibility that the overreach of the federal government, including the Supreme Court, can be slapped down through a deliberative and representative process, rather than through chaos and civil unrest, which I fear is the alternative.
If the tyrannical overreach of the federal government is not just stopped but reversed, eventually certain and serious social dislocations and violence will result. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the DNA of the American people to permit tyranny to continue unchecked forever. The solution: state legislatures rediscovering their constitutional authority under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Texas is showing the way by considering legislation that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriage in the Lone State State no matter what the Supreme Court does. Other states are following suit.
Can states do something like this – stand up to the federal government and refuse to follow an unjust and unconstitutional directive? Absolutely. And both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would agree.
The central thesis is this: our central government is a government of limited, prescribed, and proscribed powers. It legitimately, legally, and morally possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states in the federal Constitution. When it exercises authority beyond the limits established by the states in the Constitution, its exercise of authority is immoral, abusive, tyrannical, and most importantly, of no legal weight.
More to the point, the states are under no obligation of any kind to submit to such abuses of power. We must never forget that the central government is the creation of the states, not the other way round. The states cautiously delegated certain prerogatives to the federal government for the sake of preserving the unity of the fledgling Union and strengthening its ability to defend us against foreign threats, but they reserved every other right of action for themselves.
The powers assigned to the central government were strictly defined and limited by the Founders. They are "enumerated powers," meaning you can list them using numbers. Eventually you run out of delegated powers, and get to the end of the list. Any power that the central government tries to exercise that's not on that list is an exercise of power which has no moral or legal force.
Such an exercise of power is itself a violation of the Constitution, turns the the slave into the lord over the master, elevates the created thing above its creator, and as such is certainly and wholly immoral. Elevating the created thing over the creator is nothing less than age-old idolatry.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the central government tried to impose its will on the states in an unconstitutional manner almost immediately after the founding, through the "Alien and Sedition Acts" of 1798.
The Kentucky legislature adopted a series of resolutions, known as "The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798," to respond to this overreach. Years later, it was revealed that the resolutions were actually authored by Thomas Jefferson.
James Madison wrote the parallel Virginia Resolution of 1799. We may presume that Madison, who is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution," had some idea what he was talking about.
Thus they give us a window of insight into their perceptive thinking on constitutional issues.
What's critical for our purposes is not so much the particular provisions of the "Alien and Sedition Acts," but the the issues of governance they raised. They clearly represented an overstepping of constitutional limits, and this is what animated Jefferson and Madison and the legislators of the Bluegrass State and the Old Dominion.
Here is the first of the resolutions, with salient components bolded:
We have become so accustomed to the gargantuan size and power of the central government that we think of its obese and grotesque size as normal, accepted, even appropriate in some way, and we mistakenly think that whatever authority states have is authority the central government has allowed them to have. Once again, this is 180 degrees out from the vision of the Founders.
But the states are the source of whatever power the central government has, since the states created the central government through the compact which we know as the Constitution. The states do not have only that freedom of action which the central government allows them to have; rather, the central government has only those powers which the states allow it to have.
Since dictating marital policy is not among the "enumerated powers" listed in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, the federal government has no constitutional, legal, or moral right to do it.
We the people of the United States have never delegated to the federal government the authority to dictate marriage policy to the states. Any such effort is, as Jefferson pointed out, "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." I stand with Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison on this one, and every state legislature should do the same.
State legislatures can and should stand on their Tenth Amendment rights and stare down the Supreme Court in its unconscionable attempt to to use a "rod of iron" to impose same-sex "marriage" on the rest of us.
Jefferson correctly wrote that when "powers are assumed (by the federal government) which have not been delegated, a nullification of the acts is the rightful remedy: every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power" beyond what that compact, the Constitution, authorizes.
Otherwise, he adds, "without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise the right of judgment for them."
He points out that the states and the states alone have the right to make this determination, since the states alone are "parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it." The federal government, he observes, is not even a player in making this determination, since the federal government is "not a party, but merely the creature of the compact."
If Jefferson and Madison are correct – and they certainly are – then deciding what is constitutional or not is ultimately not even a matter for the Supreme Court, since it too is a creature of the states. The states and the states alone have the moral and legal authority to decide when the federal government has violated the Constitution, and have every moral and legal right to ignore the federal government, including the Supreme Court, when it transgresses its proper boundaries.
If the states allow unconstitutional acts to stand, Jefferson writes, in essence they would be allowing the federal government, including the Supreme Court, to "place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution." This would make the central government a government of "unlimited powers" and transform it from a servant into a tyrant.
No, said the good gentlemen of Kentucky in the words of Jefferson, "this commonwealth is determined...to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth."
It's time once again for every state in the Union to say "No" to tyranny and "Yes" to self-government. No less than six times, the Kentucky Resolutions loudly declare that any act of the federal government which "assumes powers...not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." Read those words again: "is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."
Each one of these declarations is like a fresh ringing of the Liberty Bell, celebrating liberation from tyranny and the rod of an oppressive central government. In Jefferson's eloquent words, we must once again "bind (the federal behemoth) down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
It's time for a modern stand for freedom and against the tyranny of an overweening central power. It's time for a second Independence Day. Let freedom ring.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
May 15, 2015
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
Host of "Focal Point" on AFR Talk, 1-3pm CT, M-F www.afr.net
State legislatures are our last, best hope of resisting the tyrannical usurpation of power by the Supreme Court and defending natural marriage.
The Supreme Court is almost certainly about to make an attempt to impose sodomy-based marriage on the entire United States. This would represent judicial tyranny on an unprecedented scale. In only 11 states have the people themselves or their elected representatives chosen to recognize same-sex "marriage." But in 26 others, unnatural marriage has been imposed on its people against their will. This is not how the Founders designed America to work.
What is the solution to this brazen government overreach? How do we break the back of this judicial leviathan?
By working through the legislatures, which consist of the chosen representatives of the people of the individual states, we can preserve our republican form of government within the parameters of the Constitution. This approach creates the possibility that the overreach of the federal government, including the Supreme Court, can be slapped down through a deliberative and representative process, rather than through chaos and civil unrest, which I fear is the alternative.
If the tyrannical overreach of the federal government is not just stopped but reversed, eventually certain and serious social dislocations and violence will result. Freedom is too deeply ingrained in the DNA of the American people to permit tyranny to continue unchecked forever. The solution: state legislatures rediscovering their constitutional authority under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Texas is showing the way by considering legislation that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriage in the Lone State State no matter what the Supreme Court does. Other states are following suit.
Can states do something like this – stand up to the federal government and refuse to follow an unjust and unconstitutional directive? Absolutely. And both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would agree.
The central thesis is this: our central government is a government of limited, prescribed, and proscribed powers. It legitimately, legally, and morally possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states in the federal Constitution. When it exercises authority beyond the limits established by the states in the Constitution, its exercise of authority is immoral, abusive, tyrannical, and most importantly, of no legal weight.
More to the point, the states are under no obligation of any kind to submit to such abuses of power. We must never forget that the central government is the creation of the states, not the other way round. The states cautiously delegated certain prerogatives to the federal government for the sake of preserving the unity of the fledgling Union and strengthening its ability to defend us against foreign threats, but they reserved every other right of action for themselves.
The powers assigned to the central government were strictly defined and limited by the Founders. They are "enumerated powers," meaning you can list them using numbers. Eventually you run out of delegated powers, and get to the end of the list. Any power that the central government tries to exercise that's not on that list is an exercise of power which has no moral or legal force.
Such an exercise of power is itself a violation of the Constitution, turns the the slave into the lord over the master, elevates the created thing above its creator, and as such is certainly and wholly immoral. Elevating the created thing over the creator is nothing less than age-old idolatry.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the central government tried to impose its will on the states in an unconstitutional manner almost immediately after the founding, through the "Alien and Sedition Acts" of 1798.
The Kentucky legislature adopted a series of resolutions, known as "The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798," to respond to this overreach. Years later, it was revealed that the resolutions were actually authored by Thomas Jefferson.
James Madison wrote the parallel Virginia Resolution of 1799. We may presume that Madison, who is known to history as the "Father of the Constitution," had some idea what he was talking about.
Thus they give us a window of insight into their perceptive thinking on constitutional issues.
What's critical for our purposes is not so much the particular provisions of the "Alien and Sedition Acts," but the the issues of governance they raised. They clearly represented an overstepping of constitutional limits, and this is what animated Jefferson and Madison and the legislators of the Bluegrass State and the Old Dominion.
Here is the first of the resolutions, with salient components bolded:
-
1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
We have become so accustomed to the gargantuan size and power of the central government that we think of its obese and grotesque size as normal, accepted, even appropriate in some way, and we mistakenly think that whatever authority states have is authority the central government has allowed them to have. Once again, this is 180 degrees out from the vision of the Founders.
But the states are the source of whatever power the central government has, since the states created the central government through the compact which we know as the Constitution. The states do not have only that freedom of action which the central government allows them to have; rather, the central government has only those powers which the states allow it to have.
Since dictating marital policy is not among the "enumerated powers" listed in Article I, Section 8, or anywhere else in the Constitution, the federal government has no constitutional, legal, or moral right to do it.
We the people of the United States have never delegated to the federal government the authority to dictate marriage policy to the states. Any such effort is, as Jefferson pointed out, "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." I stand with Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison on this one, and every state legislature should do the same.
State legislatures can and should stand on their Tenth Amendment rights and stare down the Supreme Court in its unconscionable attempt to to use a "rod of iron" to impose same-sex "marriage" on the rest of us.
Jefferson correctly wrote that when "powers are assumed (by the federal government) which have not been delegated, a nullification of the acts is the rightful remedy: every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power" beyond what that compact, the Constitution, authorizes.
Otherwise, he adds, "without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise the right of judgment for them."
He points out that the states and the states alone have the right to make this determination, since the states alone are "parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it." The federal government, he observes, is not even a player in making this determination, since the federal government is "not a party, but merely the creature of the compact."
If Jefferson and Madison are correct – and they certainly are – then deciding what is constitutional or not is ultimately not even a matter for the Supreme Court, since it too is a creature of the states. The states and the states alone have the moral and legal authority to decide when the federal government has violated the Constitution, and have every moral and legal right to ignore the federal government, including the Supreme Court, when it transgresses its proper boundaries.
If the states allow unconstitutional acts to stand, Jefferson writes, in essence they would be allowing the federal government, including the Supreme Court, to "place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution." This would make the central government a government of "unlimited powers" and transform it from a servant into a tyrant.
No, said the good gentlemen of Kentucky in the words of Jefferson, "this commonwealth is determined...to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth."
It's time once again for every state in the Union to say "No" to tyranny and "Yes" to self-government. No less than six times, the Kentucky Resolutions loudly declare that any act of the federal government which "assumes powers...not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force." Read those words again: "is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."
Each one of these declarations is like a fresh ringing of the Liberty Bell, celebrating liberation from tyranny and the rod of an oppressive central government. In Jefferson's eloquent words, we must once again "bind (the federal behemoth) down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
It's time for a modern stand for freedom and against the tyranny of an overweening central power. It's time for a second Independence Day. Let freedom ring.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
