“WHO WILL BE THE NEXT POLITICAL PRISONER?”
by JB Williams, ©2015
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 and 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…
- The law must be made by the law-making authority of Congress alone, not the Executive or Judicial branches.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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…
But who will do anything about it? And who will be the next political prisoner of the Obama Regime?