Where Does It Say That?

By James Rigby, Attorney at Law

 

           Have you ever wondered how the Supreme Court gets the power to grant same-sex couples the Constitutional right to marriage?  Where does it say that?  Or, have you ever wondered how the Supreme Court gets the power to declare abortion—which is legalized murder---a right protected by the Constitution? 

The Supreme Court says these are Constitutional rights.  So that must mean such rights are listed with our other Constitutional rights, like the freedom of religion and our right to bear arms, in the Bill of Rights, right?  Wrong, quite wrong. 

Even the most liberal reading of the Constitution can identify no words which can be twisted to identify a Constitutional right to abortion or same-sex marriage.  How, then, does the Supreme Court have the power to make same-sex-marriage and abortion the constitutionally protected law of the land?  Where does it say that the Supreme Court has such omnipotent power?

Could Isaiah 5:20 be a warning to our nation when it says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

The Supreme Court has historically exercised great power, claiming legitimacy under the Constitution, and, sadly, nothing has been done to correct the Supreme Court on this point. The Supreme Court first exercised its power illegitimately under the guise of the Constitution, imposing its will upon the citizens and government of the United States, way back in 1803 in the case known as Marbury v. Madison.

Marbury v. Madison was by all accounts a most ordinary case when it came before the Supreme Court, not so the consequences which arose out of it.  William Marbury was nominated by President Adams as a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia.  The modern equivalent of a justice of the peace would be a trial court judge.  The nomination was confirmed by the Senate.  President John Adams then signed the commission, or the document which witnessed the appointment and delivered it to the Secretary of State.  The Secretary of State was required by law to affix the seal of the United States to the commission, as proof of the commission’s legitimacy, and then deliver it to the appointee, Mr. Marbury.

It was during this time frame that, as they say, the facts on the ground changed.  That is, President Adam’s term in office expired and a new administration was installed, which, presumably, desired to distribute the fruit of government to its own supporters, not to supporters of the prior administration.

James Madison, who was the Secretary of State at the time, refused to deliver the commission to Marbury.  Marbury, who was presumably anxious to execute the duties of justice of the peace, and collect the salary for doing so, brought suit in the United States Supreme Court for an order requiring Mr. Madison to deliver the commission.  Such an order is known as a “writ of mandamus” because it mandates or requires an action.

The Supreme Court determined that Marbury was properly appointed as justice of the peace and was therefore entitled to a writ of mandamus, or an order directing Madison to deliver up the commission.  The Supreme Court, however, refused to issue an order requiring Madison to do so.

The Marbury Court cleverly ruled that the statute granting it jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus was not valid under the Constitution, thus apparently and humbly diminishing the scope of its jurisdiction.  While in fact, by holding the statute adopted by Congress and the President to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court redefined the scope and power to the three branches of government; in effect it rewrote the Constitution seizing illegitimate power for itself.

The Marbury Court’s pretext for its power grab began by stating the self-evident truth:  “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, this constitution is written.”[1]

 

The Marbury Court, however, did not acknowledge Constitutional limits on its own powers, thus creating the precedent of no effective constitutional limits on its powers, when it wrote:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”[2] 

 

Such words when applied to a court of law are plainly unremarkable.  The meaning the Court selfishly crammed into them, however, was spectacularly remarkable.  The Court self-servingly extended its “power to say what the law is” to rewriting the Constitution. This is when they started replacing darkness for light, and light for darkness. In James 3:15 is paraphrased; “Self-serving is not God’s kind of wisdom. Such things are earthly, unspiritual, inspired by darkness.”

The Supreme Court in Marbury took the most drastic self-serving course possible by declaring that it alone has the unlimited power to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional and they plainly knew they were exceeding their authority to gain more power.

While Congress has a Constitutional duty to only adopt laws which are Constitutional, the Marbury Court gave Congress no deference concerning the law and made no attempt to construe the law within the confines of the constitution. While the President, who must sign legislation prior to it becoming law, has a Constitutional duty to sign into law only those bills which he determines are Constitutional, the Court gave the President no deference concerning the law and made no attempt to construe the law within the confines of the constitution.

The Constitution provides Congress and the president with limited powers and it is the voters who are vested with the responsibility to monitor them and vote them out of office if they violate the Constitution.   The Marbury Court gave no deference to the voters. 

The Constitution does not provide the Supreme Court with the power to determine whether or not the acts of the other two branches, which are answerable to the voters, are constitutional.  The Supreme Court, which answers to no one, claimed for itself the power to reverse Congress and the President under the guise of the Constitution.  And so, since 1803 the Supreme Court, alone, has exercised the power to determine which laws are Constitutional, even though the Constitution does not grant it such authority.

The Marbury Court ignored the teaching of Philippians 2:5, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vane conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves,”[3] and we have suffered the consequences ever since.



[1] Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 176, 1803.

[2] 1 Cranch 177.

[3] The Holy Bible, New International Version, 1984.