Searching for “Marriage” In the Fourteenth Amendment
Searching for “Marriage” In the Fourteenth Amendment
By Publius Huldah
During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are:
Quote:
1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state?
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says
Quote:
"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 law." [emphasis mine]
Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?
Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.
And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:
Quote:
"…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy..."
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:
Quote:
We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)
"…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …" (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]
Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept.
And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.
I’ll show you.
The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!
The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.
Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:
Quote:
1. Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
2. Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and
3. Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].
Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):
Quote:
"…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…" [emphasis mine]
If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.
In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.
Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:
Quote:
…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]
“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”
Do you see?
So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?
The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”
Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.
So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” which they claimed were to be found in §1 of the 14th Amendment so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!
But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large.
The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification.
...(lots more at source)...
In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago and codified into their own State Codes.
(Source/more)
Related:
P.S. Its interesting that in one case an administrative law 'judge' suggested that the price of citizenship or having a license or being a member of the society brought with it the obligation to obey the laws, but yet what the price of citizenship in the United States being adherence to the laws and morals of the several states? The 14th amendment reads at the very first sentence:
Quote:
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.
They are citizens (subjects) of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So they if are subjects of the state wherein they reside, what gives the subject and franchisee the right to nullify state law? Its well established that freeborn "Blacks" were participants in early government and that attempts to diminish those rights were unlawful. But where was anyone given the right to engage in practices which undermine the public health?
The 14th amendment does not read:
Quote:
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 and if such persons don't like the laws of the state wherein they reside they can appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to get a license to ignore them.
In New Zealand and Canada and most everywhere else, "gays" get civil unions or 'civil partnerships' not marriages. But is the MSM attacking New Zealand, Canada and those places? The 14th amendment never granted any right for 'gay marriage'. The right to for two men or two women or 1,000 men and women to merge their estates through powers of attorneys, trusts, estate planning methods and written agreements has never abrogated.
