A Baptist Statement

[Gregory Matthews]

There are two types of law, Statute law and case law.

Statute law may be created by a legislature.

Case law is created by a competent court.  The U.S.  Supreme Court clearly has the authority to create case law.

 

Earlier in the statement they allude to some problems regarding the manner in which "the law" came into being.  But then here they assume that a ruling by the Supreme Court creates new "law" that must be upheld or executed by those in public office.  When we ask someone to show the County Clerk the actual "law" which she supposedly must uphold, what does that law actually say?  From what I've read, the County Clerk in Kentucky is actually upholding the laws that were created in the way that laws are supposed to be created.

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

For the first part of the question below, see my preceding comment.

Fore the second part:  The U.S. Supreme Co9urt can do much more than rule on an existing law.  It can decide disputes between the individual States.  IOW, If California and Nevada have a dispute, it can decide the issue.  Further, it can decide whether or not s governmental practice is Constitutional.  That governmental practice would not  be required to be based upon a statute.

 

Can the Supreme Court now make law? Or can they only offer a ruling on a existing law?  Has Congress passed a law allowing for same sex marriage or has Congress been by passed?

If the Supreme Court cannot make a law and can only rule on a existing law, what law  passed by Congress has been broken?

[Ron Amnsn]

So you think this country should not have separation of church and state?

Whose interpretation of the Bible should be enforced?

What I wrote would not require the US to abandon "separation of church and state".  It would require the government to reign itself in.  Everyone would benefit from smaller government, except those who worship big government and see it as the source of all good things.

The current notion of "separation of church and state" is not what the US was founded on anyway.  Although the US was founded on the Bible, the founders knew the dangers and abuses of a Government Church, so they established that no church would become the Government Church.  They never imagined that the provisions they established would later be used to prevent the government from upholding what everyone agrees about the Bible (even its enemies), or to put religions that do not believe the Bible on equal footing with Bible-based religions.

The US would continue to do fine on the method of Bible interpretation which was used for the first 150 years.

[bonnie]

Many seem to understand it as freedom from religion. Protecting you from hearing what you may not agree with

Freedom of religion is a little different

[Ron Amnsn]

There are two types of law, Statute law and case law.

Statute law may be created by a legislature.

Case law is create by a competent court.  The U.S.  Supreme Court clearly has the authority to create case law.

 

What I understand from "The Truth Project" is that the concept of case law developed around the same time as the theory of evolution.  Before that, lawmakers in the US were expected to make a case from the Bible in support of proposed laws.  Case law brought forward the notion that a system of better laws would evolve by basing decisions on the precedents established by previous court cases.

Where in the US Constitution does it clearly state that the Supreme Court has authority to create case law?  If case law was not yet recognized as authoritative when the Constitution was written, I suspect that the power to create case law is not written into the Constitution. 

Like the Presidents, the Courts have been expanding their own powers at the expense of the people and the expense of the 50 states.  Naturally, the Courts will rule that this power grab or theirs is Constitutional, even though it is not. That is why the notion of the courts being able to create case law, as well as having the power to rule whether such laws are constitutional, cannot be the intention of the writers of the US Constitution. Otherwise the path to the tyranny of the Federal Courts would have been traveled much faster than it was.

The framers of the Constitution realized that the power to make laws had to be separate from the courts.

Of course the lawyers and courts will want us to believe that courts have always had the power to create case law. That is why the study of history is important to maintaining freedom. When we allow people to rewrite history to their own liking, we give them power to influence and deceive us.

 

[Michaeneu]

What we see in the Supreme court decision is:

Psalms 2:
1    Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2    The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3    Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

 

[CoAspen]

  Although the US was founded on the Bible, the founders knew the dangers and abuses of a Government Church, so they established that no church would become the Government Church.  They never imagined that the provisions they established would later be used to prevent the government from upholding what everyone agrees about the Bible (even its enemies), or to put religions that do not believe the Bible on equal footing with Bible-based religions.

The US would continue to do fine on the method of Bible interpretation which was used for the first 150 years.

Not really an answer. Whose bible interpretation has the US been using? What I get you are saying, is that the Government should be able to 'enforce' what 'everyone', who ever and how many that would be is not defined, on the whole population. You also insinuate the government should not put unbeliever and believer on equal footing. You have not outlined 'separation' but 'coersion'.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron, you ask were in the Constitution the Supreme Court has the power to establish case law.

The answer to your question is in the :   NOTE:  I have only cited the applicable parts.

 

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, . . .

Article VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

 

[Michaeneu]

Not really an answer. Whose bible interpretation has the US been using? What I get you are saying, is that the Government should be able to 'enforce' what 'everyone', who ever and how many that would be is not defined, on the whole population. You also insinuate the government should not put unbeliever and believer on equal footing. You have not outlined 'separation' but 'coersion'.

 

Did the court have the authority to strike down the state laws, voted on by the people, that defined marriage as one man and woman? What about the 10^th Amendment? Case law has precedent underpinning it; where are the precedents underpinning their ruling on same sex marriages? The state rules by coercion; always has. Only God rules by His Spirit: Love.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Michaeneu
clarification

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, you ask were in the Constitution the Supreme Court has the power to establish case law.

The answer to your question is in the :   NOTE:  I have only cited the applicable parts.

Gregory, you appear to be forcing the current (and changed) meaning of "Cases" back onto the constitution in a blatant anachronistic manner.   Of course the Courts had "cases" when the Constitution was written.  That doesn't mean that the Constitution gave any authority to what we now have in "case law".

[B/W Photodude]

 

Did the court have the authority to strike down the state laws, voted on by the people, that defined marriage as one man and woman? What about the 10^th Amendment?

Whatever the people vote on at the state level, still must be in agreement with the US constitution. So, yes, the people can vote for a state amendment and have it overturned by the US supreme court if it gets appealed. The US constitution is the law that all others have to be compatible with.

Case law seems to get people confused. If you appeal a decision to a US circuit court, the decision of the circuit court then becomes law only in the territory covered by the particular circuit court. If it then goes to the Supreme Court and is decided on, it then becomes law for the country. I know this one well as during my wife's citizenship application, we were able to use the 9th Circuit Court decisions as a basis for her application because we lived in 9th territory. Other parts of the country meant that she would have been deported. She is now an American citizen which was quite the story how it all worked out. I also discovered just because you are an American citizen, you may not  be able to keep your non American citizen spouse!

Not all cases that get decided in a Circuit Court make it to the US Supreme Court and then the Circuit Court decisions stand in their territory. And those decisions are "case law."

[Gregory Matthews]

. . .

Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Michaeneu]

Whatever the people vote on at the state level, still must be in agreement with the US constitution. So, yes, the people can vote for a state amendment and have it overturned by the US supreme court if it gets appealed. The US constitution is the law that all others have to be compatible with.

Case law seems to get people confused. If you appeal a decision to a US circuit court, the decision of the circuit court then becomes law only in the territory covered by the particular circuit court. If it then goes to the Supreme Court and is decided on, it then becomes law for the country. I know this one well as during my wife's citizenship application, we were able to use the 9th Circuit Court decisions as a basis for her application because we lived in 9th territory. Other parts of the country meant that she would have been deported. She is now an American citizen which was quite the story how it all worked out. I also discovered just because you are an American citizen, you may not  be able to keep your non American citizen spouse!

Not all cases that get decided in a Circuit Court make it to the US Supreme Court and then the Circuit Court decisions stand in their territory. And those decisions are "case law."

Did you overlook precedent? By what precedent did the circuit courts determine homosexuals had their rights to marriage that were denied by the legislation of the people? Where does the constitution enumerate such rights, please? Where are the precedents by which the majority of the Supreme court acted? According to the dissenting Justices there were no such precedents.   

[B/W Photodude]

Precedents may not always work. Don't forget Dred Scott vs Sanford!

[blackdiamond]

You think she should step away from an elected position because the law that she is upholding was supposedly annulled during her term in office?  There was no conflict between her religious convictions and her duties when she accepted her position as County Clerk.  Yet you don't think her employer has any responsibility to accommodate her religious beliefs in such a case?  And you want her to step down before the state lawmakers have had a chance to replace the laws that the Supreme Court struck down?

Personally, I don't think anyone needs a license to do what God has already given permission to do. And the government has no authority to license or sanction that which God has forbidden.  If the five Supreme Court justices want the United States to officially rebel against God, the matter should at least be voted on by the people.

I will state my point one more time. I think the foundation of this discussion is if a county clerk should step down if they feel morally compelled to not support a new state law. I think that they should. I believe that she would do exactly what she is doing if the state law was officially changed. 

The legal specifics of this exact case do convolute it because there are conflicting government authorities in play. But this legal game is a seperate issue that isn't directly related to gay marriage, it could be any law that a county clerk chooses to be against. 

I see these as two different discussions. Many don't and that's ok. 

[Ron Amnsn]

Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That paragraph is talking about the Constitution, not about the Supreme Court being able to create case law.  And I think you knew that when you posted it.  I expect better of a moderator.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes. read it in connection with what I previously cited from the Constitution.

 

[Michaeneu]

Precedents may not always work. Don't forget Dred Scott vs Sanford!

That actually makes my point. It was Christian civil disobedience to the law that actually brought slavery to and end, as well as the prohibitions against interracial marriage. And prior to that the supposed absolute rights of kings was brought down by Christian suffrage. In these cases it was the Bible that spelled the end to bad law. Yet the Bible is of no help to homosexual rights whatsoever. This country has no precedent in law to sustain the supreme court ruling.

[Gregory Matthews]

In a contempt of court case, the judge typically has very little recourse, only jail or a fine.  The judge in this case was unable to remove her from office. 

Yes, she stopped issuing any marriage license,  which resulted in the hetero-sexual couples filing an action against her.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

In a number of ways she forced the judge to send her to jail.  He offered not to send her to jail if she would not prevent the deputy clerks to issue the licenses.  She refused to agree to  that.

Case in point:  All of the deputy clerks were brought into his court and asked if they would agree to issue marriage licenses to same gender couples.  With one exception, all agreed. The one exception then agreed not to obstruct in any way the other clerks from issuing the licenses.  The judge then let them all go with the understanding that there be no obstruction to include closing the office for any non-emergency reason.

 

[Michaeneu]

I agree; it contains very important items to consider. It has potential implications for all of us, even here in Canada. "precedent" can be a very slippery slope, especially when not rooted in the correct use/application of law. In this case; I see the Supreme Court, as well as the State Judge as over-stepping the intentions of the legislation at question. If they are trying to instill fear in people to stifle opposition, I don't think it's going to work too well. History alone shows this. But I did some reading on this case; and I noticed the lady who was jailed over this, was not just sued by two gay couples, there were also two hetero sexual couples that sued. I think the level of confrontation here is wrong and that a more reasonable "due process"  could have taken place here. Jail is just way over the top in a case like this. When our respective governments do this kind of thing it doesnt seem like "democracy," and it seems like an assault on religious liberty

In an article by Debra Rae on social engineering she exposes the misapprehensions on Judaical supremacy. Let me quote her:

“Co-author of The Federalist Papers, America’s first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay characterized our nation as explicitly Christian. Lest judicial tyrants coddle personally held philosophies, he deemed it wise to prefer and select Christians as rulers.[11] To prevent tyranny of elitist, life-tenured judges, our founding fathers established balance of power.... No society following the example of Sodom and Gomorrah thrives, let alone survives.[14] Yet the SCOTUS gay-marriage decision (2015) bestowed national approval for what the Creator condemns and decorous civilizations criminalize when, in fact, marriage is a divine institution not to be redefined by civil authority.[15]”

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2015/07/26/criminalizing-right-to-conscience-part-2-social-engineering/

Kim Davis is adhering to the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates, as is her Christian duty.

[Gregory Matthews]

In the United States, and probably several other countries, we live is a society that is unique in how it treats marriage.  In the U.S. Marriage has both a civil and a religious function.  It is civil in that for a marriage to legally exist, it must be registered with a civil authority and outside of that registration it does not exist.  [NOTE:  For this post, I am not considering the issue of so-called "common-law marriage, which is a complicating factor.]  It is religious in that a religious pronouncement of marriage may be considered to have met the requirements for registration as a civil marriage.

This is not true in some countries.  In some countries marriage only exists in a civil structure and religion has no function.  IOW, a religious ceremony has no bearing on whether or not the marriage exists.  Clergy cannot perform marriages.  My wife and  I, both U.S citizens were married in such a country.  Following our compliance with the laws of that country, we then, as U.S. citizens, were required to travel to the U.S. Embassy and produce our civil documents of compliance with the civil law of that country, and them formally register in order that the government of the United States would recognize our marriage and therefore be subject to the marriage laws of the United States.

IOW, due to our special circumstances, we had to register with three (3) different agencies of the government of the country in which we were then living and following that register with the U.S. government.   At no time in this process would any document of a clergyperson been recognized.

The U.S. differs form some other countries in that it has both a civil marriage and potentially a religious element.

The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court dwelt only with the civil aspects of U.S. marriage.  It did not in any way deal with the provisions under which clergy perform marriages.

As it dwelt with the civil function, it was not a rebellion against God any more that it is a rebellion for certain other countries no not allow any religious function, as in the country where my wife and I married.

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

Michaeneu, you cite an article written by a Debra Rae who asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have the authority to rule as it did in light of a Congressional law.  To substantiate her allegation, she cites from  a clause in Article III, Section 2, which I will quote below;

I have my own idea as to whether or not she has correctly interpreted that clause.  But, I would prefer to have  an attorney (Tom) comment on it.

Rather, I will only say, that if she was correct in her interpretation, her analysis only suggests that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court stands until Congress acts and as Congress has failed to act, the decision is the current law of the land.  In U. S. law, the decision of an appellate court stands until over ruled by a higher court. 

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is a fundamental issue:

 

That thought has crossed my mind re "relgious" and "civil" aspects to marriage. It seems the two are increasingly not mixing well together.

[Michaeneu]

Michaeneu, you cite an article written by a Debra Rae who asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have the authority to rule as it did in light of a Congressional law.  To substantiate her allegation, she cites from  a clause in Article III, Section 2, which I will quote below;

I have my own idea as to whether or not she has correctly interpreted that clause.  But, I would prefer to have  an attorney (Tom) comment on it.

Rather, I will only say, that if she was correct in her interpretation, her analysis only suggests that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court stands until Congress acts and as Congress has failed to act, the decision is the current law of the land.  In U. S. law, the decision of an appellate court stands until over ruled by a higher court. 

 

Like the Dred Scott vs Sanford case, men do work mischief through law (Ps. 94:20). The Abolitionist ultimately refused to obey and by their civil disobedience and the war it led to ultimately the law died; unfortunately the 14th amendment was just another framing of mischief, but that's another story, which we are reaping today. BTW, Adventist hold a national Sunday law will be enacted; would you be against magistrates refusing to uphold the law rather than see righteous people made criminals?