Federal Supremacy vs.
Unbridled Tyranny
By JB
Williams
NewsWithViews.com
Since the
adoption of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of
Rights, there has existed an ongoing struggle for
separation and balance of powers between the three
branches of the Federal Government, as well as
between that Federal Government under Federal
Supremacy and States Rights under the Tenth
Amendment.
At no time
in history has that struggle been more visible to
the public eye and more vicious in nature than under
the Obama Administration, which has governed much
like a third world dictatorship ignoring all
concepts of separation and balance of power.
Since
January 2009, Americans have gathered in Tea Party,
912, Liberty and Constitutional Accountability
groups, as well as local militias, in response to a
skyrocketing level of federal abuses of
constitutional powers and restraints. The nation
often appears on the brink of a second Civil War
simply due to the overt lack of Federal respect for
the Rule of Constitutional Law, States and
Individual Rights.
In a world
which changes definitions of words and terms as if
that practice qualifies as a Constitutional
Amendment, each day seems to bring a new form of
tyranny on a new front, all of it assumed to be a
valid legal power under the Supremacy Clause found
in Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution,
which reads as follows;
"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, anything in the Constitution or
laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
The recent
arrest of
Kentucky
County Clerk Kim Davis
provides an opportunity to examine the reality in
the current battle over what is Federal Supremacy
and what is just old fashioned Federal Tyranny.
Ms. Davis,
a local County Clerk in Kentucky who was elected by
the people in her County, refused to issue Marriage
Licenses to gay couples in accordance with Kentucky
State Law, and for this act of defiance, she was
arrested on the job by U.S. Marshals and jailed on
the charge of “contempt of court.” By refusing to
abide by a lower court order to adhere to a “new
law” recently handed down from the U.S. Supreme
Court regarding an alleged “right to marry” for
homosexual couples, Ms. Davis was arrested and
charged with a Federal Crime.
Kim Davis
was arrested without “due process of law” and
without any possibility of bail, as if she was a
criminal threat to society. She had every legal
right to uphold and enforce the Laws of Kentucky
pertaining to her elected position as County Clerk,
and the Federal Government had NO RIGHT to remove
her from her post for allegedly violating a court
opinion that is NOT a Federal statute, much less a
Supreme Law.
Citizens
on both sides of the issue, Gay Marriage or NO Gay
Marriage, are up in arms over the matter. But are
both ignoring a much bigger issue while focusing on
the “moral” question of whether or not gay couples
qualify for marriage licenses under Federal, State
and Local statutes?
Is Gay
Marriage a Law?
As most
Americans learned in Social Studies, the U.S.
Constitution assigns all Federal law-making
authority to the Federal legislature, the U.S.
Congress, in Article I.
“All
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in
a Congress of the United States, which shall consist
of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
As the
U.S. Congress has passed no law regarding “gay
marriage” or any “constitutional right” thereto, no
such law actually exists.
However, a
recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court “opinion” by Justice
Kennedy on June 26, 2015 in
Obergefell v. Hodges
held “The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to
license a marriage between two people of the same
sex and to recognize a marriage between two people
of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State.”
First, the
14th Amendment
makes no mention of marriage rights, due to the fact
that the 14th is an “immigration and
naturalization” amendment, having nothing whatsoever
to do with marriage or marriage license rights. The
mere notion that the “high court” would use the 14th
Amendment to redefine marriage rights in America is
blatant insanity on its face.
But more
importantly, the issue of “Federal Supremacy” and
“separation of powers” makes it impossible for the
Judicial Branch to “make law” of any kind, much less
any law which reigns “supreme” over any State or the
Constitution itself.
Last, the
Tenth Amendment reserves the authority over all
matters “not delegated to the Federal Government” in
the enumerated powers of each of the three branches,
to the States and the People respectively, which
means that no branch of the Federal Government has
any constitutional authority over “marriage” at all.
So, as “no
such law exists,” on what basis did the lower
Federal Court issue a demand for Ms. Davis to adhere
to a law which does not exist, and on what basis did
U.S. Marshals arrest and jail Ms. Davis for breaking
a law that does not exist?
Truth
about Federal Supremacy
To be
sure, the concept of Federal Supremacy is real, it
exists in
Article
VI of the U.S. Constitution.
But what
is “federal
supremacy,”
when does it apply and when doesn’t it apply?
In order
for Federal Supremacy to apply, the following three
conditions must exist…
1.
The law
must be made by the law-making authority of Congress
alone, not the Executive or Judicial branches.
2.
Such law
must be made “in pursuance thereof;” which means
said law must be in the continuation or furtherance
of the “Supreme Law” of the United States itself.
3.
That law
may not be in direct or indirect violation of any
other part of the
U.S.
Constitution,
to include the
Bill of
Rights.
Any law
not made by Congress is not a law at all. Any law
made by congress which is not “in pursuance thereof”
is also not a law; and any law which directly or
indirectly violates any part of the U.S.
Constitution or Bill of Rights, is by legal
definition, “unconstitutional” -- “invalid and void
on its face.”
“The
Supremacy Clause
also requires state legislatures to take into
account policies adopted by the federal government.
Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent
conflict with federal law. The first is whether the
congressional action falls within the powers granted
to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the
congressional act is invalid and, despite the
Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action.
The second issue is whether Congress intended its
policy to supersede state policy. Congress often
acts without intent to preempt state policy making
or with an intent to preempt state policy on a
limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and
federal policies to coexist.”
Read that
again, “If Congress exceeded its authority, the
congressional act is invalid and, despite the
Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state
action.” (Note
that it refers only to Congress, as it is Congress
alone which holds any law-making authority
whatsoever.)
Obviously,
if the “law-making” branch of the Federal Government
(Congress) is restrained from these activities, then
the two branches with no law-making authority at
all, cannot act in such a manner either.
Federal
Supremacy applies only to “constitutional acts” by
the Federal government. “Unconstitutional acts” of
the Federal government do not enjoy “supremacy” or
even the force of law.
Unbridled
Tyranny
The arrest
and incarceration of Kim Davis is not an act of “law
enforcement.” It is an overt act of Federal tyranny.
An elected County official has been arrested and
jailed by our Federal government, for refusing to
adhere to a law that does not actually exist.
This
amounts to the worst possible kind of tyranny,
second only to the stoning or beheading of a person
for violating Sharia Law in Islam… The kind of
tyranny that allows the Federal government to arrest
and jail a private citizen of the United States, an
elected public official, for simply refusing to
follow orders of the Federal government, when no law
exists and the Federal government has no such right.
Our laws
define “tyranny”
very clearly, “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of
power; despotic abuse of authority.”
Whenever
the Judicial Branch assumes the “unconstitutional”
power to “make law,” the proper legal term for such
acts is “judicial
tyranny.”
When the Executive Branch assumes such powers
without any constitutional authority to do so, the
proper legal term is “Executive
tyranny.”
Blatant
acts of “tyranny” qualify as “acts
of treason”
in the United States. Open assaults on the
Constitution and Bill of Rights is an act of
“overthrowing the constitutional form of government”
via acts of tyranny, no matter which branch of the
Federal government is engaged in those acts, and
today, all three branches of the Federal Government
are engaged in these acts.
If Kim
Davis can be removed from her elected post, arrested
and jailed for simply following the law and refusing
to adhere to federal orders which are not laws, then
any U.S. citizen can be destroyed, charged, arrested
and jailed on that same basis.
It is no
longer necessary to commit a crime, to violate any
legitimate law, in order to be plucked from your
private life, arrested and jailed, simply because
those in political power do not like you or your
political views.
Selective
Enforcement
As if
these forms of tyranny were not dangerous enough on
their own merits, making matters much worse is the
selective enforcement of these Federal policies.
Kim Davis
has been removed from her elected post, arrested and
jailed for “contempt of court,” based upon an order
that the court had no authority to issue in the
first place, based on a Federal law which doesn’t
even exist.
But when
Eric Holder was found in “contempt of Congress”
on three separate occasions, there was no
enforcement behind that legal charge. When Barack
Obama was found “in contempt of court”
for ignoring Federal Court Orders to “cease and
desist” implementation of Obama’s “unconstitutional”
violations of existing immigration and
naturalization laws, there was again, no enforcement
behind that legal order.
This is
the type of justice and law enforcement once found
only in third world countries run by tin horn
dictators, communist regimes or Sharia Law Mullah’s.
A
Political Prisoner
To be
clear, Rowen County Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis is a
political prisoner. She violated no law, although
she did refuse to follow orders from the Supreme
Court and the lower Federal Court judge who issued a
demand that she follow the Supreme Court mandate,
despite the very real fact that the court’s opinion
is by no means, law.
This
makes Kim Davis a political prisoner.
She was removed from her post by force, by the U.S.
Marshals Service, and jailed for essentially
“upholding” both Federal and State Law concerning
marriage licensing. But because upholding our laws
is now “politically incorrect,” Davis was arrested
and jailed. Political prisoner is the right term for
what is happening here.
Several
Tea Party darlings have launched a photo-op campaign
with Davis,
Sen. Ted
Cruz taking the evangelical “religious rights”
avenue,
despite being an Ivy League lawyer who should have
taken on this case from a legal perspective, just as
I am doing here…
Founder
James Madison explained: “Refusing or not refusing
to execute a law, to stamp it with its final
character... makes the Judiciary department
paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was
never intended and can never be proper.”
The
Founders knew that allowing a broad judicial
interpretation, the Judiciary might become
policy-makers, something they explicitly forbade.
Signer of the Constitution, Rufus King warned, "the
judges must interpret the laws; they ought not to be
legislators.” -- Similarly declaring that “the
Judiciary was forbidden to substitute its own
pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the
Legislature."
It is this
British Common Law practice alone that is the basis
for the arrest and incarceration of Kim Davis.
Former
Christian minister and 2016 Presidential candidate
Mike Huckabee is leading the charge
from a “legal” perspective, basically making the
same case made in this column, pointing out that
political prisoner Davis, has not broken any laws…
Others
like Donald Trump and Rand Paul are on the
sidelines, trying to protect their political status
by failing to take a principled stand on legal or
religious grounds.
Trump
too, says “gay marriage now the law of the land…”
and
Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul
seems to want to have it both ways.
The People
in a State of Confusion
The people
are all over the board on Davis… even many
“patriots” in the Tea Party movement have come out
against Davis, focusing on the idea that “everyone
should have to adhere to the law” and totally
ignoring the fact that no such law exists…
Libertarians in particular, many of whom are
atheists and secularists, seem to see this as
nothing more than Davis trying to force her
religious convictions upon others from her post as
County Clerk. Yet, it is liberty minded Americans
who should have the biggest problem with what is
being done to Kim Davis, jailed for upholding
existing statutes and ignoring tyrannical court
opinions…
Where does
it all end?
It all
ends in total lawlessness… It ends with the
Constitution and Bill of Rights being interpreted
right out of existence. It ends with the rule of
scumbag lawyers, rather than the Rule of
Constitutional law. It ends with every man for
himself, survival of the fittest, once the rule of
constitutional law completely collapses.
The people
who arrested and jailed Kim Davis are the people who
are violating the Constitution as well as both State
and Federal Law. The criminals have arrested an
innocent… Kim Davis was “following the law,” and
because those laws were in direct conflict with a
recent “court opinion,” she was arrested without
bail. Every judge and U.S. Marshal involved in this
process “broke existing statutes” passed by Congress
and the Kentucky Legislature by taking these
actions.
In the
end, the political lawyers will prove the most
dangerous to the rule of law… but it will be “the
people” who allowed it to happen, who will be to
blame…