Guest Column: Constitutional supremacy trumps judicial supremacy

Once again, I must strongly disagree with Alan Choate's columns on same sex marriage. (See my Sept. 17 Miner blog/Beyond the Mainstream Media, for the entry on "Judicial Tyranny.")

One need only look as far as the SCOTUS's mistakes in Roe v Wade and the unintended consequences it has brought us to understand it will be the same in this same sex marriage ruling. Some 42 years, 60 million dead babies and a complete turnover in justices later, the turmoil rages on in spite of the court trying hard to find in the Constitution a legitimate reason for women to legally kill their own unborn children. The truth is that one unelected justice, whose own daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock and needed a resolution because having a baby conflicted with her college plans. Some 230 times, the Supreme Court has reversed its own decisions as wrongly decided. If there were ever two more to add to the list, it is these two.

In many cases, and especially these two, the answers lie in the wrongheaded deliberations of the justices as laid out in "Abuse of Discretion,", Clark Forsythe's 20-year study of the Roe v Wade case.

Unfortunately, few Americans even understand the workings of the Supreme Court bound by the Constitution which rests on the political doctrine found in the Declaration of Independence - government by the consent of the people made up of a republican (representative) government with separation of powers. The three branches (executive, judicial, legislative) come with checks and balances between a national and state governments also. An excellent book is "The Constitution - An Introduction" by Michael and Luke Paulsen.

Current dogma is to teach judicial supremacy rather than constitutional supremacy; however, the Supreme Court's decisions are NOT supreme over the Constitution itself and, sometimes, they simply get it wrong.

Article VI confirms it. "The Constitution and laws of the U.S. made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND ...." The Constitution created the three branches and requires oaths of all officials and judges to obey that Constitution - none of the three being supreme over the Constitution, period.

Judicial supremacy is contrary to the framers' intent, as Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, including that they are bound by strict rules and PRECEDENTS. Nowhere are federal judges given a wider scope for discretion. There is no judicial supremacy.

Recently someone on TV, possibly Megyn Kelly of Fox, reminded a guest of Marbury v Madison/1803, whose wrong reading has created a myth of judicial supremacy in spite of the then chief justice refuting it.

Numerous presidents have rejected judicial supremacy, as did candidate Abraham Lincoln concerning the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that "blacks had no rights which a white man was bound to respect ...."

Then-President Lincoln, in June 1862, signed an act of Congress prohibiting slavery in the western territories in defiance of Dred Scott.

Editor Choate tried making a same sex marriage "equal protection" connection with the 13th and 14th Amendments, two of the three known as the Civil War Amendments. Those three amendments protected equality for emancipated slaves by banning slavery, defining citizenship and ensuring voting rights for same. They were passed by a REPUBLICAN Congress, seven of whom were black men themselves.

I double dare Mr. Choate to give even one scenario where same-sex marriage could be equated with the 14th Amendment. The 14th's intent was so solely pointed towards slavery it did not even include citizenship for American Indians whose allegiance was more towards their tribal nations than the U.S. even though they were actually born in this country. That was remedied by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Once again, the SCOTUS has wrongly applied judicial supremacy illegally over constitutional supremacy. The end result of same-sex marriage will inevitably cause the same chaos the illegal Roe v Wade has caused and further split our country apart. But that does appear to be Obama's original intent in the first place.