What Will Happen if Same-Sex Marriage is Declared a Civil Right?

Gay marriage is before the Supreme Court.  General consensus is they’re looking for a way to skirt the issue.  Some justices have hinted that this issue isn’t ripe, just yet.  For the sake of argument, let’s consider the possibility of a ruling that grants same-sex marriages as a constitutionally protected civil right.

Rush Limbaugh touched on something that deserves debate.  What will happen to churches and religious institutions that refuse to recognize, or perform gay marriages.  Will the federal government take away their tax exempt status?  Will they fine, or possibly confiscate property in order to coerce them?  We’ve already witnessed the Obama administration bullying the Catholic Church and related organizations for not adopting parts of Obamacare.  Who’s to say that they won’t resort to such tactics?

 

So far, over 20 States have amended their constitutions formerly declaring that same-sex marriages are not recognized.  Will the federal government withhold subsidies, or will they occupy our capitols and setup quisling governments like they did to the South after the War of Northern Aggression? 

And isn’t it odd that the 14^th Amendment - a post civil war amendment, which was designed to punish the South and its citizens, is still on the books?  And how many times has the federal judiciary abused its authority with this amendment?  The feds know how to coerce the sheeple.   

The 14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 Source:  http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/03/26/3941977/the-court-gets-an-opinion-on-marriage.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

State of Indiana to Submit Bill to Federal Government for Illegal Alien Expenses

The Supreme Court has made numerous rulings that violate the sovereignty of states. Just recently, they trounced on Arizona’s rights to protect their citizens from a third-world invasion.

Previous decisions by this court, such as Plyer v Doe, have conferred rights and privileges unto illegal aliens and their children at taxpayer expense. Now we’re fed up and are demanding retribution. Indiana wants their citizens reimbursed for the federal government’s betrayal:

INDIANAPOLIS Indiana plans to bill the federal government $130,953,979, the estimated cost of state services used by illegal immigrants since July 1, 2011.

A 2011 law, sponsored by state Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, requires state budget officials to determine how much Indiana spends annually to support illegal immigrants.
The estimate includes $111 million for education, $8 million for health care and $12 million for prisons.

"The federal government is to blame for not controlling our borders," Delph said. "I am requesting Congress to pay back what is owed to us, the hard-working, law-abiding, legal residents of the state of Indiana."

Here is a comment from state Sen. Mike Delph’s Facebook page:

1. Today the State of Indiana as a result of SEA 590, sent a bill to Speaker John Boehner (R, Ohio) and to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada) seeking reimbursement of $130,000,000 plus in expenses as a result of the failure of the Federal government to do its job regarding immigration enforcement. If the Feds are going to tell us it's their problem and we as a sovereign state cannot enga...ge in their responsibility, then they should at least reimburse state and local taxpayers for our costs. It's only fair! Today also is the day I decided I just don't care anymore. I am going after any enabler of the Ivory Tower Elite Establishment that chokes American freedom! I will start next week with a well known statewide Republican officeholder and candidate. If this week didn't stir the conscience of American Patriots, nothing will.

H/T: NC Renegade

Source: http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/indiana-to-bill-feds-m-for-expenses-linked-to-illegal/article_1229b5cb-dd40-5225-8c98-f8451bd7ca5b.html#comments

http://www.ibj.com/indiana-sends-congress-tab-for-illegal-immigration/PARAMS/article/35311

http://www.facebook.com/mikedelph

Obamacare: Just Another Broken Promise

What's next? A tax for the privilege of being an American citizen? I'm almost envious of these illegal aliens who infest our country.

Mark Levin Addresses the Affliction called SCOTUS Potomac Fever

Mark Levin addresses the disease that seems to afflict only republican appointed Supreme Court justices. SCOTUS Potomac Fever is a contagion that turns conservative judges into limp wristed liberals.

No one seems to know the origination of this debilitating mental illness. But many speculate that the D.C. cocktail party circuit has something to do with it. Maybe a government funded study is warranted.

OMG! Could it be spreading?

Did the Supreme Court Violate the Constitution When They Rewrote Obamacare?

I like many of you waited in anticipation for the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. What I thought should have been a slam dunk, turned into incredulity. If this abomination were to pass, we all thought it would be Justice Kennedy who would’ve stabbed us in the back; not Roberts.

Waves of anger flushed through every fiber of my being. How could the Chief Justice stab us in the back like that? Do we have another Souter on our hands? What’s worse, this man conspired with the fascist on the court to rewrite the law in order to “comply” with the Constitution. The commerce clause simply didn’t allow the federal government to mandate that we “citizens” buy a product. But in rewriting the law, the justices violated Article One Section Seven: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Obamacare was not introduced in the House of Representatives as a tax. It was purported to be a mandate. The Supreme Court violated the Constitution by dismissing the individual mandate for what it was: a mandate. Instead, they INTRODUCED the law as a tax. Chief Justice Roberts and his confederates subverted the process. They became legislators.

The anti-federalist Brutus warned us of the unchecked powers of the Supreme Court and what that means for the states and federalism in general:

I have, in the course of my observation on this constitution, affirmed and endeavored to shew, that it was calculated to abolish entirely the state governments, and to melt down the states into one entire government, for every purpose as well internal and local, as external and national. In this opinion the opposers of the system have generally agreed — and this has been uniformly denied by its advocates in public. Some individuals, indeed, among them, will confess, that it has this tendency, and scruple not to say, it is what they wish; and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that if it is adopted without amendments, or some such precautions as will ensure amendments immediately after its adoption, that the same gentlemen who have employed their talents and abilities with such success to influence the public mind to adopt this plan, will employ the same to persuade the people, that it will be for their good to abolish the state governments as useless and burdensome.

Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accomodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These cases will immediately affect individuals only; so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be informed of them. In the mean time all the art and address of those who wish for the change will be employed to make converts to their opinion. The people will be told, that their state officers, and state legislatures are a burden and expence without affording any solid advantage, for that all the laws passed by them, might be equally well made by the general legislature. If to those who will be interested in the change, be added, those who will be under their influence, and such who will submit to almost any change of government, which they can be persuaded to believe will ease them of taxes, it is easy to see, the party who will favor the abolition of the state governments would be far from being inconsiderable. — In this situation, the general legislature, might pass one law after another, extending the general and abridging the state jurisdictions, and to sanction their proceedings would have a course of decisions of the judicial to whom the constitution has committed the power of explaining the constitution. — If the states remonstrated, the constitutional mode of deciding upon the validity of the law, is with the supreme court, and neither people, nor state legislatures, nor the general legislature can remove them or reverse their decrees.

And how prescient is that?


Source: http://constitution.org/afp/brutus15.htm

Potomac Potlickers Await Obamacare Decision in a Post-Constitutional America

Here we are waiting for nine justices to decide the fate of the nation. Obamacare just doesn’t change the relationship of citizen with the federal government via the individual mandate, but it also changes the relationship with the states as well by using coercive tactics that violate the principles of federalism.

We Americans must face the fact that we live in a post-constitutional era. Our Potomac masters have rendered the citizens and the states into a bunch of lowly potlickers; mere dogs skittishly crawling on all fours to lick the remnants out of their bowl.

The Anti-Federalist tried to warn everyone of the perfidious nature of centralized government. The pseudonymous writer Brutus summed it up best in essay #6. Here is an excerpt:

What will render this power in Congress effectual and sure in its operation is, that the government will have complete judicial and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect, which will be paramount to the judicial and executive authority of the individual states: in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions.

The general legislature will be empowered to lay any tax they chuse, to annex any penalties they please to the breach of their revenue laws; and to appoint as many officers as they may think proper to collect the taxes. They will have authority to farm the revenues and to vest the farmer general, with his subalterns, with plenary powers to collect them, in any way which to them may appear eligible. And the courts of law, which they will be authorized to institute, will have cognizance of every case arising under the revenue laws, the conduct of all the officers employed in collecting them; and the officers of these courts will execute their judgments. There is no way, therefore, of avoiding the destruction of the state governments, whenever the Congress please to do it, unless the people rise up, and, with a strong hand, resist and prevent the execution of constitutional laws. The fear of this, will, it is presumed, restrain the general government, for some time, within proper bounds; but it will not be many years before they will have a revenue, and force, at their command, which will place them above any apprehensions on that score.

How far the power to lay and collect duties and excises, may operate to dissolve the state governments, and oppress the people, it is impossible to say. It would assist us much in forming a just opinion on this head, to consider the various objects to which this kind of taxes extend, in European nations, and the infinity of laws they have passed respecting them.


It was observed in my last number, that the power to lay and collect duties and excises, would invest the Congress with authority to impose a duty and excise on every necessary and convenience of life. As the principal object of the government, in laying a duty or excise, will be, to raise money, it is obvious, that they will fix on such articles as are of the most general use and consumption; because, unless great quantities of the article, on which the duty is laid, is used, the revenue cannot be considerable. We may therefore presume, that the articles which will be the object of this species of taxes will be either the real necessaries of life; or if not these, such as from custom and habit are esteemed so.

Brutus couldn’t have been more right. But here is another excerpt that is even more prescient:

This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every comer of the city, and country — It will wait upon the ladies at their toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and the assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bed-chamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labour, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them, will be GIVE! GIVE!

A power that has such latitude, which reaches every person in the community in every conceivable circumstance, and lays hold of every species of property they possess, and which has no bounds set to it, but the discretion of those who exercise it[,] I say, such a power must necessarily, from its very nature, swallow up all the power of the state governments.

And this is exactly what is happening. The federal government has expanded its power through the bureaucratic state. They have no respect for our founding documents, the states, or its citizens. The only use the apparatchiks have for the U.S. Constitution is to smack our noses with it. To them we are nothing but curs begging for scraps.

Source: http://constitution.org/afp/brutus06.htm

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/25/obamacare-in-the-supreme-court-101-deliberations-possible-rulings-and-impacts/