Vote for Les

Home | Taxpayers Party of Michigan | National Constitution Party | Historic Documents | Contact Me

The Attacks on the Family and Marriage must end!

The homosexual activists, who are currently trying to destroy the institution of marriage, have set up a Federal Court challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ).  Decisions issued by Federal District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro on July 8, 2010 in the cases of NANCY GILL & MARCELLE LETOURNEAU, et al., Plaintiffs,  v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,  et al., Civil Action No. 09-10309-JLT. and Commonwealth of Mass. v. Dept of Health and Human Servs., et al., No. 09-cv-11156-JLT found that DOMA violated the equal protection provisions of the Constitution.

The cases specifically cite the equal protection provisions of the Fifth Amendment. The problem with this is that the equal protection provisions are in the Fourteenth Amendment not the Fifth.  These provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment specifically apply to the states and require equal protection under the Constitutions and statutes of the states ( most of which define marriage as the union of one man and one woman ).  The fact that the equal protection provisions are not contained in the Fifth Amendment is noted in the following footnote in the Gill case:

"3. Though the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain an Equal Protection Clause, as the Fourteenth Amendment does, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause includes an Equal Protection component. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)."

The Bolling v. Sharp case was a 1954 Supreme Court case on school desegregation.

The Gill case was then cited as a precedent in the related Commonwealth of Mass. v. Dept of Health and Human Servs. case ( You can jump to copies of the actual text of these cases in the links listed above ).

This action by Judge Tauro is an example of a judge legislating from the bench. This action is analogous to the case of Roe v. Wade where the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was morphed into a right of privacy to allow abortions.

This is the first shot in a program to force same sex ( and other variations ) of marriage in all states. If this ruling is allowed to stand, the judge created federal equal protection provisions will be cited to override the definition of marriage contained in the State Constitutions. The equal protection provision was cited because the DOMA used a specific Constitutional provision which allows Congress to provide rules on how the full faith and credit provisions in the Constitution are applied. Since Congress does have Constitutional authority to provide rules on the application of the full faith and credit provisions, the court is creating a federal level equal protection provision to attack the institution of marriage.

DOMA used the provisions in Article IV, Section 1 which were quoted by Judge Tauro as an "express grant of authority", under the second sentence of the Constitution's "Full Faith and Credit Clause", to prescribe the effect that public acts, records, and proceedings from one State shall have in sister States.

DOMA was passed as Article I legislation which requires a presidential signature and is subject to judicial review. This type of legislation could not be enacted into law under the current administration because President Obama would veto it.

The most obvious way to combat this assault on marriage is with a Constitutional Amendment ( the idea of such an amendment is mentioned by Judge Tauro in the court case). This appears to be an attempt to get opponents of same sex marriage to focus on amending the Constitution in the belief that they will not be successful.

Amending the Constitution is difficult and time consuming. The last attempt to pass such an amendment was in 2006, and the attempt failed to get anywhere near the necessary 2/3 vote needed. There will have to be a wholesale house cleaning before such an amendment can pass Congress.

The Constitution provides checks and balances on the various branches of government, including the courts. The use of the checks and balances in the Constitution provides a way of correcting the assault on marriage represented by these cases.

Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of appellate jurisdiction and the power to write Regulations telling the Federal Courts how to interpret the Constitution when applying the Federal Courts appellate review authority. This power is provided by Article III., Section. 2., Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Article III. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

I have quoted the entire section so as not to be accused of taking anything out of context.

The last sentence of this section allows Congress to provide exceptions which remove specific issues from the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

The use of an Exception will allow the impeachment of any Federal Judge who tries dictate a definition of marriage to any state. This action is needed to overturn the actions of Judge Vaughn Walker in KRISTIN M PERRY, etal v.  ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER etal. Defendants,  which determined the Prop 8 Amendment to the California Constitution to be a violation of the Equal Protection provisions in the U.S. Constitution.

You may ask yourself what is to stop the courts from simply striking down any Exception to the power of appellate review passed by Congress. The answer is simple, if any Judge were to try to strike down such a provision, that Judge would be committing a High Crime. Any action by a Judge against an Exception which is specifically allowed by the Constitution would be the highest of high crimes because it would be an assault on the Constitution itself.

The power of impeachment is the enforcement tool which is provided to insure congress has the ability to actually apply, the constitutionally provided limit on the power of the courts. Congress would literally be forced to impeach any judge who tried to undo any limitation imposed by congress under Article III. Section. 2. Clause 2.. The impeachment would be required because the Judge would be assaulting the very institution of the Congress, and the respective powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate as separate branches of government.

You may ask. Why do we need to limit the power of the courts? The obvious answer is that the Federal Courts can not be trusted to properly interpret the U.S Constitution. There have been a number of Federal Court decisions in recent years which violate the U.S Constitution. This case is simply the most recent example.    

The use of the checks an balances in Article III is much more doable than an Amendment because it only requires a majority vote in the house, and senate rules only require 60 votes ( to stop a filibuster ). The provisions in Article III say this action is to be made by Congress. There is no requirement for a Presidential signature and the action can not be vetoed.

Activist Federal Judges are legislating from the bench, when they do not want to accept the restrictions contained in the Constitution.

After decades of inaction by members of the Republican and Democratic party, the people of this country should realize that our current representatives do not intend to do anything, to protect us from abuse by activist judges. The needed legislative language is not complicated.

The Democrats openly promote the homosexual agenda and show the power which a small minority can have when they are active and vocal. Recent actions of Republican leaders and some in the media indicate that establishment Republicans will not act to address the problem represented by the actions of activist judges. Supporters of marriage and the traditional family need to become active and vocal. We need to show our politicians that there are far more people who believe in the sanctity of marriage than those support it's destruction. We must let our politicians know that we vote and that we will not go away.

What we need to do is replace our current batch of elected representatives in Washington. We need to elect people who will honor their oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution. We need to elect people who will use the power in Article III. Section. 2. Clause 2., of the Constitution to curb abuses by activist Judges.

I need your support, contributions and votes on election day to be able to support and defend the Constitution. Without your support, I will not be elected and will not be able to pursue the needed legislation.