They are the Law

One has to feel a bit of sympathy for autocrats like Louis 14. After all, edicts were issued under quite a few less layers of clothing in that period. Today our rulers find power’s naked form far too gauche to display so openly as he. So instead, they shield clitoral erections behind a scrap of paper while jabbing fingers at phantom penumbrae. The Constitution may not say what we assure it intends, but we can feel the emanations.

And it is from those dank shafts of disingenuousness that raw dominion is mined. Borne at crotch level, this tattered document is wielded as a magical talisman. Lowly lumpenproles wait sullenly every supreme court session to learn what will be the latest of their founding traditions to be defenestrated.

Because like some over-credulous paleskinned natives, more cunning opponents have convinced them The Constitution is something other than a figleaf for fiat. A tribunal decides what the public will and will not be permitted, and then issues a bald edict under the auspices of an inanimate object. Does anyone actually think that if it were instead 50 pages of All work and no play makes Anthony a dull boy Mr. Kennedy’s gay marriage opinion would have varied? Well it would have, in length alone. For without the burden of sententious rationalization, his position would have been far more piquantly succinct: Homosex marriage because I say so bitchez. Now eat it…literally.

In other words, we are the constitution.

I was contemplating this while reading of the Rowan County Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who was jailed by a conservative federal judge for (in the words of liberals everywhere) “breaking the law.” This for not issuing marriage licenses to dewy-in-love couples eager to don matching gimp suits as husband and husband. So as law obviously differs from pronouncement I began to search for the applicable statutes she may have violated. Here is the marriage law of the commonwealth for which Ms. Davis works.

Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage — Legal status of unmarried individuals.

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

This a result of Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 which was barely passed on a 75% yes vote. That is the official law of her state and employer. So she is presently in jail not for having broken a law, but for refusing to do so. Though it would be presumptuous to expect liberals to make such fine distinctions. Because their point is valid, if not the one they intend to make.

The Supreme Court was not chartered as a legislative body, though that is now its unchallenged function (our nominal legislators being indisposed while servicing Adelson like cleaner shrimp.) Thus everytime Kennedy et al pull an unstated constitutional right writhing into the light, it is legislation in flagrante delicto. And what is the mere will of a nation’s people to that of their august jurists?

They are the law.


13 thoughts on “They are the Law

  1. Who gives SCOTUS power anyway? They don’t levy taxes, they don’t create a budget, they don’t print money, they don’t control the military, they don’t even have a bureaucracy. It seems they only have power because Presidents and states allow them to.

    • Who gives SCOTUS power? Everyone. Including the Rowan County sheriff — who, rather than protect an elected county official performing her sworn duty, sat in the corner and watched her get ravaged by the sodomist mob. It is unknown, whether he even advised her to “Don’t bend over for the soap” as she was hauled off to the slammer.
      Why does everyone give those black-robed perverts power? Devil only knows. Sheriff Jack Carter, who attends Elliottville Baptist Church with his “wife”, probably deferred more from cowardice than the hope to get a crooked street in the Castro District named after him.

  2. If this county clerk in Kentucky doesn’t want to do her job for religious reasons, then I think she should quit. She could always do something else that doesn’t force her to serve homosexuals against her religious beliefs. For instance, she could become a baker.

    • Ha, indeed.

      It’s not sufficiently observed how consistently disastrous for the country’s founding stock the Supreme Court has been. It’s a freightcar for the liberal agenda rejected by the people.

      As I’ve remarked often, it’s insane to imagine the founders erecting an institution that would be so implacably hostile to their posterity. Contrary to liberal dogma, nations form countries for the purpose of advancing rather than destroying their own interests. So how do we do this in a way that our children get the least benefit is not the working parameter of national formation.

      With even a glimmer of clairvoyance, our founders would have shredded the draft constitution and demoted the judiciary to a standing far below coequal branch of government. On par with bakers sounds about right.

  3. It depends on what kind of autocrat you have. Some can be good and necessary, many others can be monsters. Louis 14 was, of course, a monster for his genocide of the white Huguenots. The good side of that is the fact that Huguenots improved the gene pool of the Anglosphere countries they sought refuge in. I know many people today who would use autocracy to impose terrible things like transhumanism, Nietzschean master morality, etc. Some of them may call themselves pro-white, but they would destroy the white race and the sanctity and dignity of white life.

  4. The only good thing to come out of Kennedy’s decision was Scalia’s dissent. Kennedy’s opinion was so much bullshit, he asked for this in the way he wrote it so they could have an opportunity to go after religious freedom. People ate it up like so much pablum.

    Scalia was entirely right – Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

    • We could probably ask for Kim Davis’ opinion on those new liberties, but she might not be in a sporting mood right now.

  5. Rulings such as this are the only time the left is Interested in “the rule of law”. Failure to enforce immigration laws by governors or mayors is ignored. It’s only the laws they like. Why the legislative branch rolls over like a lap dog all the time is beyond me. They simply abrogate their constitutional role and allow the SC to operate as so many philosopher kings, making up rights out of thin air…Dred Scott anyone?

  6. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/06) | The Reactivity Place

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s