Alan Keyes
Judge discards the rational basis for America's liberty
Why Oklahoma marriage decision is 'legalistic deception'
By Alan Keyes
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...." (U.S. Declaration of Independence)
"But if there are certain actions that all human beings are obliged by lawful authority to undertake, then as all are under the same obligation, all may invoke the authority of that obligation to justify their action, to prove that it is right. With all justly claiming the same authority to act, all have the right to do so. The 'rights that everyone has' are therefore connected with the duties and obligations imposed upon them by the law to which they are all subjected." (my column "Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right")
Most of my thinking about the crisis of America's liberty has been predicated upon the evident fact that a substantial portion of America's elite has rejected the fundamental premise of liberty and justice in the United States. There is no mystery about that premise. It was clearly articulated in the words with which the American people, as such, stepped onto the stage of history.
As stated in the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, quoted above, this premise has been at the heart of all the various struggles for justice and right that have advanced the true cause of liberty for people in the United States, as individuals and as a nation.
The Declaration's logic provides the rational foundation for America's institutions of government, including the Constitution of the United States. At its core, that logic depends on three essential concepts: self-evident truth, the existence and authority of the Creator, and the Creator's endowment of unalienable rights, vested in every individual included in the name of humanity.
The elitists' push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America's way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America's historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people, and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.
The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State's recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal, and institutional basis for just government – i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.
Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples who are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. ("In principle" means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. A same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.
Judge Kern purports to discuss natural procreation, but he omits to discuss its connection with natural right. He also omits to discuss the fact that the whole people of the United States have a vital interest in the meaning and significance of actions and activities that human beings are moved by their nature (i.e., the way the Creator made us) to undertake.
But where there is no respect for the authority of the Creator, there is no concept or claim of unalienable right. Where there is no concept or claim of unalienable right, legitimate government is not inherently required to respect it. Where government is not inherently required to respect antecedent, unalienable rights, there is no limit, in rational principle, to the use and abuse of the powers of government.
If the prerogatives of our natural condition give rise to no obligations, and if those obligations give rise to no special (i.e., of or related to our species, our humanity) claim of right, the whole logic of our liberty disintegrates. So our nation's claim to liberty is at stake in the issue of what our laws and governments do in respect to the natural basis for marriage.
When human beings act to fulfill the special obligations that arise from their nature as human beings, special prerogatives attach to their activities. Those prerogatives are rooted in the transcendent authority of the Creator. As human beings act at the behest of the highest possible authority, no (necessarily subordinate) human authority may simply countermand their action.
This is precisely the logic that in principle limits the just authority of all human governments whatsoever. Such governments exercise just power only insofar as they respect the prior determinations of the Creator (referred to in the American Declaration of Independence as "the laws of nature and of nature's God"). In light of this natural limitation, federal judges and justices can have no authority to interfere with the actions state governments take to give due respect to the prerogatives of the natural family.
America's founders relied on this natural reasoning when they resisted the authority of the British government at the time of the American Revolution. Judge Kern, and indeed the whole so-called jurisprudence by which the U.S. Supreme Court purports to vest marriage rights in same-sex couples, omits and discards this logic of natural right. They tacitly assert that there is no rational basis for defending the unalienable rights that arise from the special prerogatives (i.e., the Creator's natural and supremely authoritative demands for action, inherent in human nature and antecedent to all human law and government) of the natural family.
But if the obligations of natural right do not rationally substantiate the claims of the natural family, neither do they substantiate the special prerogatives of the people of the United States, including their sovereign authority. Yet only by this natural authority, exercised in and through the Constitution of the United States, do they lawfully limit and distribute the powers of government, or elect those who make and carry out the laws.
By the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to disparage or deny the antecedent rights retained by the people. In addition, the First Amendment withholds from the U.S. government any lawful basis for actions "respecting [with respect to] an establishment of religion." The U.S. Supreme Court is, in our day, continually violating these constitutional provisions.
In its Defense of Marriage Act, the Congress of the United States sought to protect against these judicial abuses. In doing so, it sought to fulfill the U.S. government's overriding obligation to secure the antecedent unalienable rights of the natural family.
By the First Amendment, the power to make law with respect to an establishment of religion is withheld from the federal government; by the 10th Amendment it is "reserved to the States, respectively and to the people." This reservation defines one of the most vital privileges and immunities of American citizens. So when they act in defense of the natural family, both the U.S. Congress and the state governments fulfill the 14th Amendment's injunction against state actions (including neglectful inaction) that abridge such privileges and immunities.
By contrast, the judges and justices deny and disparage authoritatively antecedent unalienable rights retained by the people (e.g., the heterosexual couple's exclusive prerogative of procreation, which gives rise to the institution of marriage and its attendant rights). They seek to establish an unconstitutional regime of constraint upon one of the powers of government constitutionally reserved to the states, respectively, or the people (i.e., the power to make laws "respecting an establishment of religion"). The will to resist such abuses called the American people into existence as a nation. If today that will has failed, its failure will be the headstone that marks our nation's demise. Be advised, this tragic conclusion is the purpose of the whole "gay marriage" maneuver.
It is irrational to assume that the same Judiciary that has been the source of these abuses will now suddenly cease and desist. To stop their attack, we must implement the Constitution's provisions for the impeachment / removal of civil officers who persistently violate their constitutional oath of office. Want to know more? Follow this link.
January 20, 2014
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...." (U.S. Declaration of Independence)
"But if there are certain actions that all human beings are obliged by lawful authority to undertake, then as all are under the same obligation, all may invoke the authority of that obligation to justify their action, to prove that it is right. With all justly claiming the same authority to act, all have the right to do so. The 'rights that everyone has' are therefore connected with the duties and obligations imposed upon them by the law to which they are all subjected." (my column "Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right")
Most of my thinking about the crisis of America's liberty has been predicated upon the evident fact that a substantial portion of America's elite has rejected the fundamental premise of liberty and justice in the United States. There is no mystery about that premise. It was clearly articulated in the words with which the American people, as such, stepped onto the stage of history.
As stated in the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, quoted above, this premise has been at the heart of all the various struggles for justice and right that have advanced the true cause of liberty for people in the United States, as individuals and as a nation.
The Declaration's logic provides the rational foundation for America's institutions of government, including the Constitution of the United States. At its core, that logic depends on three essential concepts: self-evident truth, the existence and authority of the Creator, and the Creator's endowment of unalienable rights, vested in every individual included in the name of humanity.
The elitists' push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America's way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America's historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people, and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.
The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State's recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal, and institutional basis for just government – i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.
Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.
He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples who are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. ("In principle" means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. A same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.
Judge Kern purports to discuss natural procreation, but he omits to discuss its connection with natural right. He also omits to discuss the fact that the whole people of the United States have a vital interest in the meaning and significance of actions and activities that human beings are moved by their nature (i.e., the way the Creator made us) to undertake.
But where there is no respect for the authority of the Creator, there is no concept or claim of unalienable right. Where there is no concept or claim of unalienable right, legitimate government is not inherently required to respect it. Where government is not inherently required to respect antecedent, unalienable rights, there is no limit, in rational principle, to the use and abuse of the powers of government.
If the prerogatives of our natural condition give rise to no obligations, and if those obligations give rise to no special (i.e., of or related to our species, our humanity) claim of right, the whole logic of our liberty disintegrates. So our nation's claim to liberty is at stake in the issue of what our laws and governments do in respect to the natural basis for marriage.
When human beings act to fulfill the special obligations that arise from their nature as human beings, special prerogatives attach to their activities. Those prerogatives are rooted in the transcendent authority of the Creator. As human beings act at the behest of the highest possible authority, no (necessarily subordinate) human authority may simply countermand their action.
This is precisely the logic that in principle limits the just authority of all human governments whatsoever. Such governments exercise just power only insofar as they respect the prior determinations of the Creator (referred to in the American Declaration of Independence as "the laws of nature and of nature's God"). In light of this natural limitation, federal judges and justices can have no authority to interfere with the actions state governments take to give due respect to the prerogatives of the natural family.
America's founders relied on this natural reasoning when they resisted the authority of the British government at the time of the American Revolution. Judge Kern, and indeed the whole so-called jurisprudence by which the U.S. Supreme Court purports to vest marriage rights in same-sex couples, omits and discards this logic of natural right. They tacitly assert that there is no rational basis for defending the unalienable rights that arise from the special prerogatives (i.e., the Creator's natural and supremely authoritative demands for action, inherent in human nature and antecedent to all human law and government) of the natural family.
But if the obligations of natural right do not rationally substantiate the claims of the natural family, neither do they substantiate the special prerogatives of the people of the United States, including their sovereign authority. Yet only by this natural authority, exercised in and through the Constitution of the United States, do they lawfully limit and distribute the powers of government, or elect those who make and carry out the laws.
By the Constitution's Ninth Amendment, the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to disparage or deny the antecedent rights retained by the people. In addition, the First Amendment withholds from the U.S. government any lawful basis for actions "respecting [with respect to] an establishment of religion." The U.S. Supreme Court is, in our day, continually violating these constitutional provisions.
In its Defense of Marriage Act, the Congress of the United States sought to protect against these judicial abuses. In doing so, it sought to fulfill the U.S. government's overriding obligation to secure the antecedent unalienable rights of the natural family.
By the First Amendment, the power to make law with respect to an establishment of religion is withheld from the federal government; by the 10th Amendment it is "reserved to the States, respectively and to the people." This reservation defines one of the most vital privileges and immunities of American citizens. So when they act in defense of the natural family, both the U.S. Congress and the state governments fulfill the 14th Amendment's injunction against state actions (including neglectful inaction) that abridge such privileges and immunities.
By contrast, the judges and justices deny and disparage authoritatively antecedent unalienable rights retained by the people (e.g., the heterosexual couple's exclusive prerogative of procreation, which gives rise to the institution of marriage and its attendant rights). They seek to establish an unconstitutional regime of constraint upon one of the powers of government constitutionally reserved to the states, respectively, or the people (i.e., the power to make laws "respecting an establishment of religion"). The will to resist such abuses called the American people into existence as a nation. If today that will has failed, its failure will be the headstone that marks our nation's demise. Be advised, this tragic conclusion is the purpose of the whole "gay marriage" maneuver.
It is irrational to assume that the same Judiciary that has been the source of these abuses will now suddenly cease and desist. To stop their attack, we must implement the Constitution's provisions for the impeachment / removal of civil officers who persistently violate their constitutional oath of office. Want to know more? Follow this link.
To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.
© Alan KeyesThe 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.)
