ACTION

Let me be as crystal-clear as I can be. Madison and Jefferson–and even super-nationalist Hamilton– warned us against an unregulated judiciary.

Per the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, Trump’s within his constitutional authority to IGNORE lawless judicial “rulings”. This also extends to constitutional Congressional acts somehow divinely deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional. 

We have forgotten that court rulings are NOT enforceable rulings or law. They are unenforceable OPINIONS, and nothing more. Their opinions don’t have the force of law, but of “moral authority”. Drill that paragraph into your head.

In short, since officers in each branch of the federal government take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, by these officers’ permitting unconstitutional judicial opinions to be treated as law they are VIOLATING their oaths of office.

Trump should have the moral clarity to nullify/ignore judicial rulings/opinions which are, like the 9th circuit’s recent “ruling”, blatantly lawless usurpations of the Constitution and of Executive authority.

People, read Art III and Article VI para 2 of the Constitution.The supreme law of the land are NOT the presumably divine pronouncements of the federal judiciary, but the CONSTITUTION itself. And until we understand this, judicial tyranny will continue.

As for me, I don’t want a gaggle of unelected, entirely mortal, corruptible, black-robed unaccountable jurists to continue ruling our country and our lives.

The final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional are We the People, and that’s precisely how our founders saw it. If we continue to permit judicial tyranny to rule our lives we are unwitting–or willing–agents of our republic’s self-destruction.

Finally, it is well past time to initiate an amendment to tighten up restrictions on the judiciary by returning the federal judiciary, top to bottom, to its original role as clearly expressed by our founders. But, first, we must all READ THE CONSTITUTION and the words of Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson–not revisionist case law which has served only to subvert original intent and meaning.

Until we get this right, this republic remains but a fiction.

The California Supreme court’s ruling of “In re Marriage Cases” established the constitutional right of same sex couples to marry.  Proposition 8 , known as “California Marriage Protection” was voted on by the “Majority Consent of the Governed” in California’s 2008 November state elections and overturned, through “Constitutional Convention” amendment, California’s Supreme court “judicial legislated constitutional right” of same sex couples to marry.  

The people of the United States can exercise “Constitutional Convention”, as well, through two thirds of state legislatures and amend the United States Constitution without the approval of the U.S. president. 

I don’t know what the requirements are in California, but apparently, those requirements were met and the people of California overruled the California Supreme Court.  On August 4, 2010, Proposition 8 was yet overturned by the “Federal” Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, who himself is gay, in the case
Perry v. Schwarzenegger claiming that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.  An injunction was issued preventing the enforcement of Proposition 8 and a stay to determine the suspension of the ruling pending appeal, however, On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional On June 5, 2012, by a majority, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals refused a petition for rehearing “en banc and stayed the ruling again pending appeal. On July 30, 2012, another petition was filed for “certiorari with the U.S. Supreme court requesting a review of the case and a response is due by August 31, 2012.

After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

A Judge in Hawaii recently refused to overturn the state’s constitution banning the recognition of same sex marriage.  The judge, and rightfully so said, we have a “democracy” that the people follow and that he could not legislate such changes to the state’s constitution from the bench.  He’s is so right.  The case now goes to, guess where? It goes to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Folks, the same sex marriage isn’t about a “constitutional right” or “equal protection under the law or due process”.  The issue is about, just who determines and who has the last say in what those rights are and if “equal protection and due process” on any certain issue exists in the first place? 

From prior experience, apparently, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals judges thinks that the judicial system has the last say.  The Hawaii judge disagrees.  He has ruled that, We The People, have the last say through “Constitutional Convention” and he is right, because if the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of the people from “abridgment by state leaders and governments, it most assuredly protects the right of the people to “self-govern” from abridgment of the Judicial system as well.  If it doesn’t then, in reality, all we really have governing us is a socialist totalitarian type government. 

The question is, How do We The People, ensure our right to self-govern when a governing authority, the Federal Judicial system in this case, becomes "destructive" to our most basic foundational right to self-govern and over reaches its' authority to impose its' own set of ideology and values on to the people when those governing authorities are supposed to be "For the people,of the people and by the people"? Perhaps "We The People" should insist that all elected officials follow the precedent that our liberal U.S. President and several state governors has already set in opposing and refusing to enforce existing laws in support of same sex marriage,and refuse to acknowledge or enforce any ruling of the Federal Judicial Court System that clearly usurps authority over the Will of the People's and infringes upon our most foundational right and freedom to self-govern afforded to us by the United States Constitution.  It clearyly makes sense to me.