Legal Historians Prompt Officeholders: Refuse To AllowContradict Same-Sex Marriage Opinion …

October 24, 2015 Nemes Legal

Editors Keep in mind: A group of more than 60 legalscholars released a statement last week contacting all federal andstate officeholders not to allow the Supreme Court # 39; s Obergefell v. Hodges choice– stating a national right to same-same sex marital relationship– as binding precedent.One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Concepts Job and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton.We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is, said George. We advise all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.Below is the text of the statement in its totality. __________ We are historians and informed residents deeply concerned by the order of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country have to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships.The Courts majority viewpoint avoided reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the

Constitution, along with the Courts own interpretative teachings and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been comprehended for millennia as the union of partner and wife.The opinion for the Court replacedreplacemented for traditionaland soundmethods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of

identityone that abused the moral principle of human dignity.The 4 dissenting justices are ideal to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.Justice Scalia refers to it as a naked judicial claim to legal hellip; power; a claim fundamentally at probabilities with our system of government.Justice Thomas says the viewpoint honors judges at the expenditure of the People from whom they derive their authority as it perverts the definition of liberty into an entitlement to government action.Justice Alito calls interest to the well-established doctrine that the liberty guaranteed by the due process stipulation secures only those rights that are deeply rooted in this Nations history and custom, and that it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marital relationship is not amongst those rights. He additionally indicates the opinions tendency to lower the function of marriage to the happiness of persons who choosedecide to wed. He warns it will be made use of to vilify Americans who are reluctanthesitate to assent to the new orthodoxy and is yet another example of the Courts abuse of its authority.Chief Justice Roberts states the Constitution leaves no doubt that the bulks pretentious opinion is inaccurate. It even tries to sully those on the other side of the debate in an entirely gratuitous manner.If Obergefell is allowed as binding law, the consequences will be severe.

Of the results that can be forecasted with self-confidence, 4 stand apart: First, society will be hurt by being rejected the right to hold out as normative, and specifically desirable, the only kind of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is enhanced by the truth that there is strong proof to support exactly what typical sense suggests, particularly, that children fare very well when raised by their married mother and dad who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal impacts and care.Second, people and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marital relationship as a conjugal unionthe covenantal partnership of one male and one womanwill be vilified, legally targeted, and rejected constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conformcomply with the new orthodoxy.Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unrestricted in concept and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.Any choice that causes such evils would be doubtful.

One lacking anything from another location resembling a warrant in the text, reasoning, structure, or initial understanding of the Constitution need to be evaluated anti-constitutional and invalid

. Obergefell ought to be stated to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by residents of the United States.In 1788, James Madison composed, The numerous departments being completely co-ordinate by the regards to their typical commission, neither of them, it is obvious, can claim to an exclusive or remarkable right of settling the limits between their particular powers.In 1857, Abraham Lincoln stated, Judicial decisions are of higher or less authority as precedents, according to conditions. That this should be so, accords both with typicalgood sense, and the popular understanding of the legal profession. If a choice had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and with no obvious partisan prejudice, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had actually remained in no part, based on presumed historic truths which are not actually true; or, if desiring in some of these, it had actually been before the court more than as soon as, and had actually there been verified and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, possibly would be, factious, nay, even innovative, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent. If, however, a decision is desiring in all these claims to the general public confidence, it is not factious to resist it.Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It can not therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States.Therefore: We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a bulk of Supreme Court justices state it is.We advise all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.We contact all federal and state officeholders: To decline to allowcontradict Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the certain complainants because case.To recognize the authority of states to specify marital relationship, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.To pledge complete and shared legal and political assistance to anyone who refuseschooses not to follow Obergefell for constitutionally secured reasons.To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the methods by which Americans may constitutionally withstand and reverse the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.We emphasize that the strategy we are here advocating is neither severe nor disrespectful of the guideline of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional

interpretation as incompatible with the republican concepts of the Constitution. Our position is summarized in Lincolns First Inaugural Address: I do not forget the position presumed by some that constitutional questions are to be chosen by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions have to be binding in any case upon the parties to a match as to the object of that fit, while they are also entitled to extremely high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the federal government.

And while it is obviously possible that such choice might be erroneous in any offered case, still the wicked result following it, being limited to that certain case, with the possibility that it might be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than might the evils of a various practice. At the very same time, the candid citizen should confess that if the policy of the government upon crucial questions influencing the entire individuals is to be irrevocably repaired by decisions of the Supreme Court, the immediate they are made in normal litigation in between parties in individual actions, the peopleindividuals will have stopped to be their own rulers, needing to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that noteworthy tribunal.The proper understanding and meaning of marital relationship is self-evidently an essential concern affecting the entire individuals. To deal with as settled and the unwritten law the decision of 5 Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can discover no warrant for their ruling in the text, reasoning, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that noteworthy tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wants to sustain the fantastic experiment in ordered liberty bestowed to us by our Founding Daddies ought to be willing to do.Signatories(Institutional affiliations are for identification purposes just)Bradley C. S. Watson, Philip M. McKenna Chair in American and Western Political Idea and Teacher of Politics, Saint Vincent College John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Teacher of Law amp; Neighborhood Service, Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University George W. Damage, Jr., Teacher of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University, Creator of American Principles Task Matthew J. Franck, Director, William E. and Carol G. Simon Center for Religion and the Constitution, Witherspoon Institute Daniel J. Mahoney, Augustine Chair in Distinguished Scholarship, Assumption College Stephen H. Balch, Director, Institute for the Research of Western Civilization, Texas Tech University Mickey G. Craig, William amp; Berniece Grewcock Teacher of Politics, Hillsdale College Paul Moreno, William and Berniece Chair

in United States Constitutional History, Hillsdale College Lucas E. Morel, Class of 1960 Teacher of Ethics and

Politics, Washington and Lee University Joseph M. Knippenberg, Professor of Politics, Oglethorpe University Susan

Hanssen, Partner Teacher of History, University of Dallas Wm. Barclay Allen, Dean Emeritus, Michigan State University Daniel C. Palm, Teacher of Politics and International Relations, Azusa Pacific University Lynn D. Wardle, Bruce C. Hafen Teacher of Law, J.ReubenClark Law School, Brigham Young University Scott FitzGibbon

, Teacher of Law, Boston College Law School Stephen Casey, Casey Law Workplace, PC James C. Phillips, JD JoshuaW. Schulz, Partner Professor of Viewpoint, DeSales University John S. Baker, Jr., Teacher Emeritus of Law, Louisiana State University Law Center Ralph A. Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism, Claremont McKenna College Walter Schumm, Professor of Household Studies, Kansas State University Anne Hendershott, Director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in

Public Life, Franciscan University of Steubenville Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University

of Notre Dame Christopher Wolfe, Professor of Politics, University

of Dallas Michael D. Breidenbach, Assistant Professor of History, Ave Maria University Robert Koons, Teacher of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin Stephen M. Krason, Teacher of Government and Legal Studies, Franciscan University of Steubenville; President, Society of Catholic Social Scientists Micah J. Watson, William-Spoelhof Teacher-Chair in Government, Calvin College Daniel Robinson, Fellow, Professors of Approach, University of Oxford David Novak, J. Richard and Dorothy

Shiff Chair of Jewish Researches and Teacher of Religious beliefs and Approach, University of Toronto Adam J. MacLeod, Partner Professor of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University Robert Lowry Clinton, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Colleen Sheehan, Professor of Government, Villanova University

Peter W. Wood, President, National Association of Scholars Michael M. Uhlmann, Teacher of Politics and Policy, Claremont Graduate University John Agresto, Former president of St. Johns College, Santa Fe, and the American University

of Iraq Mark T. Mitchell, Teacher of Federal government, Patrick Henry College Carol M. Swain, Teacher of Political Science and Law, Vanderbilt University

Nathan Schlueter, Associate Professor of Viewpoint, Hillsdale College J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar, John Jay Institute Ted McAllister, Edward L. Gaylord Chair and Partner Teacher of Public Policy, Pepperdine University David R. Upham, Partner Teacher

of Politics, University of Dallas Thomas DAndrea, Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge; Director, Institute for the Research study of Philosophy, Politics, and Religion Daniel Mark

, Assistant Professor of Government, Villanova University Hadley P. Arkes, Edward N. Ney

Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus, Amherst College; Director, James Wilson Institute on Naturals

Right and theAmerican Establishing Philip Bess, Professor of Architecture

, University of Notre Dame Jeffery J. Ventrella, Senior citizen Counsel and Senior Vice-President of Student Training and Development, Alliance Protecting Flexibility Teresa S. Collett, Teacher of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law Jay Bergman, Teacher of History, Central Connecticut State University Robert L. McFarland, Associate Dean of External Affairs and Partner Teacher of Law, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, Faulkner University Carson Holloway, Associate Professor Government, University of Nebraska, Omaha Gary D. Glenn, Distinguished Teaching Teacher Emeritus, Northern Illinois University Paul A. Rahe, Charles O.

Lee and Louise K. Lee Chair in Western Heritage, Hillsdale College Angelo Codevilla, Teacher Emeritus, Boston University Bradley P. Jacob, Associate Teacher of Law, Regent University School

of Law Raymond B. Marcin, Teacher of Law Emeritus, The Catholic University of America Matthew Spalding, Partner Vice President and Dean, Allen P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Researches and Citizenship, Hillsdale College James A. Davids, Partner Professor of

Law, Regent University School of Law Ken Masugi, Senior Fellow,

Claremont Institute Edward J. Erler, Professor of Government Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino James W.(Jim)

Richardson, Board of Directors, Christian Legal Society Robert F. Sasseen

, President and Professor of Politics Emeritus, University

of Dallas Lynne Marie Kohm, John Brown McCarty Teacher of Family Law and Associate Dean of Faculty Development and External Affairs, Regent University

School of Law


Comments are currently closed.