Some dear friends have been going around claiming that Obergefell(fn1) isn't the law of the land. These dear friends are wrong.
But the Constitution vests all legislative authority in the Congress!
Yes all federal legislative authority is Congressional, but legislation isn't the only kind of law. There are also laws that come from the executive branch (e.g. regulations) and laws that come from the judicial branch (e.g. judicial precedent). There are even treaties, which the President enters into with the consent of the Senate.
But the Founders never intended for judicial precedent to be law!
Actually, the founders accepted the idea of judicial precedent as law. They all had as their framework the English "common law" system, in which judicial precedent was treated as law. The Constitution doesn't oppose this framework. In the historical context in which the Constitution was written, it was assumed that judicial precedent would be treated as law.
But this is Legislating from the Bench!
What you really mean is, you don't agree with the justices' decision. You think they were wrong to conclude as they did. That doesn't make this legislation from the bench. It's just judicial precedent.
But it's just an Opinion, look it says "Opinion" right on it!
This has to be the most ignorant (or deceptive) objection I've heard. Yes, judicial decision is typically called an "opinion." That doesn't mean it's simply some kind of personal opinion that lacks the force of law. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court is legal precedent that controls - lower courts must follow it.
But Kentucky's law is different
When Federal law and Kentucky state law come into conflict, Federal law wins (US Constitution, Article VI).
But Article VI doesn't mention judicial precedent!
Even if that mattered, it mentions the US Constitution and - according to Obergefell - the US Constitution conflicts with some state laws.
Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate!
Suffice to say that this doctrine is one that relates to rebellion by the lesser magistrate against the greater magistrate. When or whether such rebellion may be Scripturally warranted is a different topic, but the point is that we are no longer talking about whether Obergefell is law, but whether the lesser magistrate is going to obey that law or rebel against that law. In principle, there are times when lesser magistrates ought to rebel against the law, but it is still rebellion against the law. Those who rebel against the de facto authorities, including an unjust greater magistrate, should fully expect to reap the consequences of death, imprisonment, loss of property, and so on.
But #datnotpostmil!
Just because we know that God's kingdom will continue to advance doesn't mean we know how precisely that will come to be. Perhaps it will be a reformation in this land. Perhaps it will be through God bringing just judgment in this land. I hope it will be the former, but the more bad laws we have, the more we invite the latter.
But then what can we do?
Within the law, we can remove Supreme Court justices for bad behavior and install those who will overturn bad precedent. Alternatively, we can amend the Constitution to overcome bad judicial precedent regarding the Constitution.
More significantly, we can proclaim the truth that is revealed in Scriptures to those around us. The Word of God is more powerful than you think, no matter how powerful you think it is. It's ok for us to use the political process, but that's not the primary way by which #datpostmil will come about.
-TurretinFan
FN1: For those living under a rock, Obergefell 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."
Thursday, September 17, 2015
6 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
TF,
ReplyDeletefairly straightforward legal arguments here.
I'm going through the legal history as put forth in the Syllabus OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. . Here is something within that Syllabus I want to note and take issue with.
The Judge writes: // Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness.//
That for me is a fundamental flaw in this historical accounting of what precedes this ruling. Homosexuality was not considered an illness until the Psychiatry field began bending on what homosexuality was. Slowly over time Psychiatrists changed the definition of homosexuality to become a medical condition. As we know the Bible does not teach homosexuality as an illness but a sin of the fallen human nature we were all born with.
TF,
ReplyDeleteIf there is something that can be rightly called "legislating from the bench," what disqualifies something from beng that? I agree that it can't be that one merely disagrees with the judicial decision or even that it sets a "new" precedent that was not recognized as a reasonable application of the prior existing law. However. those sorts of things can surely accompany legislating from the bench, can't they? If so, I don't see how pointing to those sorts of things refutes the claim that such has indeed occurred. Thoughts?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/09/judicial-authority.html
ReplyDeleteA response to you.
Geoff - thanks for the heads up! I don't think Steve's point disputes the central thesis of my post. Definitely some good food for thought, though!
ReplyDeleteReformed Apologist:
ReplyDeleteI think my point was that the expression "legislating from the bench" is just a pejorative term for a category of decisions that one doesn't like.
-TurretinFan
Thanks for the clarification, TF.
ReplyDeleteHoping your well.