The Amendment vs. The Tyrant

17 159

Whereas every Amendment to a Constitution substantially changes the Constitution, therefore it follows that every Amendment is counter to the Constitution. Otherwise, what is the point? The question is not whether Amendments are allowed to be counter to the documents they amend, it is whether we will allow Amendments at all. An even more important question is “Who?” Who will be allowed to Amend the Constitution? And underlying both these questions is the foundational one: Who should be allowed to Amend the Constitution?

To answer that question we should go back to the Constitution itself.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People created the Constitution. The People of the US created the US Constitution, and the People of California created the California Constitution. And when it comes to changes, the only legitimate source of Constitutional changes is The People.

There was nothing in the California Constitution for or against same sex marriage. Nor was there anything in the California Constitution for or against civil unions and other contracts that can duplicate each and every artifact of marriage within the law. Civil unions are already in place in California. Nothing prevents Fred and Barney from setting up house together in California, or Wilma and Betty.

Gay Marriage ProtestHowever, churches, temples and mosques didn’t want to marry Fred to Barney, or Wilma to Betty, and that reality was the focus of an intense propaganda campaign to force the acceptance of same sex marriage, as opposed to functionally identical civil unions.

So in the year 2008 the People of California came together and passed Proposition 8 to protect the religious sacrament of marriage from a government created alteration. The vote wasn’t even close. Black people, brown people, people of very little pigmentation, men, women, youths, the elderly, all came together to pass Proposition 8. And this passed in the same election in which the same voters overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama. These were not proto-Tea Partiers. These were the Democrat base.

Why would the People so overwhelmingly vote to preserve marriage as something different from civil unions? It is because there is a fundamental difference: Civil unions are for adults who want to create a meaningful formal statement of a relationship they share; Marriages are to bind together, with the blessing of God, a man and woman and the children they produce. There is a huge difference. Civil unions are legal entities akin to a partnership or corporation. Marriages are religious sacraments to create a family beginning with the raw material of a man and woman. Religious sacraments and mystical transformations of people into something else are not the domain of the government, they are religious to their very core. Any law that alters marriage by stripping out its religious meaning or substituting a government approved religious meaning is itself a violation of the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment. And so, despite not needing to pass the Amendment in Proposition 8 (thanks to the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution), the people passed it anyway because they could see the writing on the wall, that their treacherous servants in government were hell-bent on stripping the sacramental and reproductive meaning from marriage and replacing it with a tax status.

JUdge Vaughn WalkerThe Amendment lawfully passed by the People of California was overthrown in a politicized kangaroo court by an unelected judge, who just for the record is homosexual. I wouldn’t even mention it, but as his political allies proclaim daily, the personal is political. And it indicates a possible motivation behind his decision, along with his public announcement of his sexual preferences around the same time, which may have been determined by his personal life rather than the facts of the case.

Judge Vaughn Walker’s stated reason for overthrowing the Amendment was that it was Unconstitutional. But as I pointed out, that is the whole point of Amendments in the first place. Every single Amendment that has ever been needed was Unconstitutional. Even the horribly unneeded 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was Unconstitutional until it became part of the Constitution. And the 21st Amendment that repealed Prohibition was likewise Unconstitutional until the People passed it.

Prohibition was such a terrible national mistake that it’s easy to muse wistfully, would it not have been much more convenient if a judge could have overthrown Prohibition when it was passed, simply by ruling against it as Unconstitutional? Perhaps convenient, but a little more thought shows the problem. The judge who decides to overthrow a lawfully passed Amendment has taken on himself, or herself, the power to rewrite the Constitution against the opposition of the People. Like a medieval King, he not only creates the Law, but determines the facts, admits the evidence, instructs the jury, decides the sentence, and pays the executioner. This judge is more than a judge: He is a tyrant.

What is to stop such a judge from overthrowing the 14th Amendment, or the 5th? Nothing in the Constitution or its Amendments is safe from a judge who believes himself to be Above the People and acts upon that belief with the support of an entire political party predicated on the power of government to control the People. Nor are the People safe from such a robed tyrant.

Let’s pray the Supreme Court of the United States sees its way clear to proclaiming the Amendment lawfully passed and unlawfully overthrown, and denies the claims of would be tyrants. May the People forever retain the power to overrule willful, obstinate, pilfering, rebellious, treacherous public servants.

You might also like
  1. John "gun rights" Public says

    Wow!!! Marriage is a vow to god that a man and woman will love, honor,cherish etc… and stay together til death do they part. What does ANY governing bodyhave to do with that??? Hmmm. that rules out divorce, taxes and all the rest. So quit hammering on it. If you want to get married: take wanted mate, say your vows to each other, yourselves and God. Why even get a license? Do you think God may forget?

  2. $13614178 says

    The so called justices need to think about what passing this will do to future civilization !

  3. Bonnie Somer says


  4. Dean says

    The so-called “Separation of Church and State” that these same people use as their “Battle Cry” conveniently forget in this case!

    1. William George Lonsberry says

      I hate the term, “Separation of Church and State”, and once and for all, is not in the Constitution! It was a topic in the Federalist Papers…..Our “Elected Criminals” would have most believing this and much more if we allow them!!! Anyway…What a great read Star!!! Thank you. You now have a new fan, thanks to Joe the Plumber 🙂

  5. Terry Adams says

    amen. but the problem has become bigger then that. we have these people in high places thru out government. they have slowly moved into place. and now they are starting to take over. they will overturn anything that gets in their way. obama is the leader of the pack. he has put people in places they dont belong. and our senators and congressmen have stood by and allowed it. no even voted for it. they too are part of this problem. we need to remove them all and start over. 38 states needed to convene a continental congress. the leagle way to rid outselves of these idiots and start over. the only other way is not one i would like to consider.

    1. Jean says

      Time to start executing them, then.
      If they are by definition guilty of treason – which is what has been stated – then they must be dealt with, per law. Should the law be unable ot unwilling – it falls back on WE, THE PEOPLE.
      And that’s still nicer than the things I’d arrange.

  6. Mike Lorenz says

    What a great viewpoint on a sacred bond.

  7. Edwin Hoffman says

    I thought that there was a way to “marry” without the religious aspect. That was to be “married” by a judge which is a believe called a civil union.
    Government cannot demand that “marriages” be carried out by religious representatives, the 1st amendment states this very clearly.
    Therefore any “marriage” that can be carried out by by a civil authority is ok, and religious people do not have to do any marriage that contravenes their beliefs.
    Simple I thought
    Nice essay BTW.

    How about more on the other amendments. There are a lot of democrats who are woefully ignorant of our constitution.

  8. Lee Mc Donald says

    Ok. Marriage is between a man and a woman in a church. Civil Union is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman, and is performed by a state official. The State should stop issuing Marriage License’s and instead issue a “Couples Co-Habitation Contract”, which does everything that the Marriage License now does.

    1. mtman2 says

      Once ‘”it’s” ‘legitimate’, THEN another whole can of worms WILL open up to NOW give that ‘legit’ legal lifestyle teeth to take control of every aspect of NORMAL peoples lives + CHILDREN. Or be sued for discrimination, + WIN!!!

  9. websmith says

    I don’t much like gays but, long before the Constitution existed, churches had created and performed marriage ceremonies. Then in a way that the founding fathers abhorred, the State meddled in marriage, legalized it, taxed it, assigned rights to it, and tried to define it. You are married under God. It is a God given right. Marriage is a religious ceremony and as so, is a Constitutional right guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. The first Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. The State does not get to decide what Marriage is. The church does. If you belong to a church that will marry you, you can get married no matter what race, gender, or species you are. Do the right thing.

    1. RottDawg says

      Mr. Smith, I don’t much like you. Not because you appear to be a proponent of bestiality and pedophilia, but because you are a bigot.

  10. John J says

    I really hope that the justices of the Supreme Court read this.

  11. Mike Cole says

    Great essay Beaglescout. Keep up the good work Joe.

  12. $5708171 says

    Ha ha ha. We all know who will win with this issue, and believe me, it WON’T be the people. Homosexuals MUST always win at EVERY juncture. They are right even when they are wrong.

  13. James Osborn says

    This essay was very well thought out. Thank you, Beaglescout! Now I can say that the Golden State had done a good thing in 2008, preserving the sanctity of marriage as it has been for thousands of years. Let those who are convinced they need a civil union have their civil unions, and let the rest of us who want our marriages blessed by God do so! Let the US Supreme Court realize that this is all fair and just, and the will of the people.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.