Over recent weeks we have been running a series on lawful Christian resistance to ungodly government. Such considerations come straight out of Scripture, and have been institutionalised through the development of the Christian doctrine of the State over fifteen hundred years or so. Whilst such doctrines and concepts may appear radical and startling to many professing Christians today, all that goes to show is that we are a pretty badly taught people. Far too many of us have been merely waiting around for something called the Rapture.
But the pagans aren't quietists. They are militantly going for it. They have plans, programmes, and politicians striving to bring in the Kingdom of Man, aka the Sepulchre of the Serpent.
One of the key concepts in godly Christian resistance to the pagan militants is the duty and responsibility of offices, officials, and political authorities to stand up to the tyrannies of Unbelief and call for their constituents to join them in a holy resistance. All such offices, officials and political authorities have been called and appointed by God, long before they were ratified by man: their primary duty belongs to Him.
Douglas Wilson gives us an example of how this may be done. In this case, the issue is how to deal with the ungodly decisions of the US Supreme Court. He is making reference to the Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges which we published on this blog yesterday.
Comes now some scholars with backbone,
in order to point out that the Obergefail decision is a Hefty bag
filled up tight with balloon juice. This is quite right, and so they go
on to make practical applications, which include encouraging all
concerned to consider the decision as having no application beyond the
named plaintiffs in the case. This advice amounts to encouraging all
officeholders — who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, incidentally,
which is to be distinguished from Anthony Kennedy’s opium dream, in
which the Constitution played a walk-on cameo role — to feel free to
tell the sexual tyrants to pound sand.
We do need a new political party. It doesn’t need to be that big.
Our Establishment pols want to say that this kind of showdown would
provoke a constitutional crisis. This is because our Establishment pols
want Théoden to die in bed and not on the
fields of Pelennor. Dying in bed is not a crisis, and saving your honor
on the battlefield is a crisis. A terrible crisis. He might expect
somebody to come with him.
But the crisis — and it would be a crisis — would not be a
constitutional one. Those who argue for judicial supremacy would treat
it like a constitutional crisis because they want the Supreme Court to
have the final word on everything, period. But the crisis would only be a
crisis for a particular legal theory, not a crisis for the actual
system of constitutional law established by the Founders. The crisis
would actually be a leadership crisis, not a constitutional one.
There would be turmoil, sure. Kim Davis would refuse a marriage
license to a homosexual couple because neither party is named
Obergefell. If that kind of chaos broke out, it would be an example of a
situation becoming ungovernable on a national level. But whose fault is
that? This statement points out that this untenable and unstable
arrangement was the work of five unelected hubristers trying to make
breakfast for the dog, at which venture they succeeded admirably.
Even at the federal level, the doctrine of judicial supremacy is
manifestly false. The Constitution says “the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions,
and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (Art. III, Sec.
2). In plain English — for it is in plain English — this means
that Congress has the authority to limit the jurisdictional authority of
the Supreme Court. It could be a very simple law — “the United States
Supreme Court shall not have the authority to restrict the authority of
states to protect unborn human life, or to restrict the state’s
authority to recognize true marriage.”
So I believe that officeholders across the country should take this
grand proposal to heart, and simply refuse to implement the Obergefell
decision beyond the case of the plaintiffs in question. This will of
course cause a commotion, and so every 2016 candidate for president
should be asked directly about Art. III, Sec. 2. If Congress passes the
necessary legislation, would you sign it?
The one thing that no candidate should be allowed to do is shrug and say “alas, it is out of our hands.” No, it isn’t.
Every candidate for the House, every candidate for the Senate, and
every candidate for president, is running for a position that could play
a key role in taking the Supreme Court’s Hefty bag to the top of the
nearest breezy hill in order to empty it.
No comments:
Post a Comment