The Union of Separate Powers

June 24-28, 2015
Post 336

So with the previous Post’s admonition to our Christian wives; “Climb off your man’s back and let him shepherd,” you had to have expected their comparable reply to our own earlier argument; “You don’t know my husband; he’s a self-serving Beast!”
And if our loyal and faithful Christian wives would just quietly tolerate whatever you want without complaint, What would you do?
Yah, I thought so.
Neither does the Holy Spirit just shut-up and hang on for the ride with you as the head of your life. Like a creative wife, he has other influential means at his disposal.

So what does God’s Spirit do if he cannot get your attention in the effort to correct your wayward course? He cries out to the Father… who tries the reins, and then gives you the fruit of your doing (see Post 168), which undesirable fruit is supposed to naturally get your attention in a way you do comprehend, and thereby cause a change of focus (Hosea 2:7), or simply punish you in Judgment if you are unchangeable (Jeremiah 18:15-17).
You can do a lot of damage to the lives of those under your authority, but it’s yours to do. It’s a frightening amount of responsibility that shouldn’t be selfishly squandered. A wise man grants his wife an earnest audience when she disagrees with him.

OK, so now, in the age of corruption, we have an entire society of self-centered men and troubled women, and these go through their lives earnestly trying all manner of tactics to correct the ill-begotten unfavorable ways of the other, and thereby feeling righteous in themselves by the focus.
Let the scripture show a picture of what this looks like near “the end of the run”:

“I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her…” Revelation 17:7.

I have shown in former works by the evidences already in, that this is prophetically describing the last two simultaneous Pagan worldpowers before Christ returns to establish his own redeeming kingdom on earth. This troubled relationship of contending governing policies will be a battle of genders earnestly trying to temper the detrimental ways of the other. This will not be in the form of an official union of powers-- as a “marriage” if you will-- but a “fornicating relationship” of both desire and need without obligatory bondage by form. This is a description of Islam and Democracy finding mutual ground in the effort to keep at bay the self-extermination of humanity by the contest.

From our “Christian perspective” we confidently look at this pair as scripturally-certified “Pure Evil.” But in our modern society’s blind-sheep mentality of basing our moral opinions only upon what has been determined approved or rejected by “the authority,” even we Christians miss the actual application and therefore any useful insight that the scriptures provide.
So permit me to explain this corrupted relationship in a very timely example:
* * *

Congress:
The United States’ Sovereign-masses under God, elect their Representatives and Senators: i.e. Congressmen, who then have the only authority (legislative) to write laws governing the workings of the united government; (i.e. the collection of States as a Union), and in that law-making Power they have the strings to the Federal purse (US Constitution Article 1, Sections 1, and 8). They, the Legislative branch, can even jointly impeach and try any Office-- including Presidents and Justices-- for misconduct (Article 2, last clause + Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 6).

It needs to be stressed here that Section 8, describing the very specific limitations of said Legislators, begins with; “The Congress shall have Power To…”, and sums up with; “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof.”

I am trying very hard to keep this Post short and to the point, but these details are important, and vital to correctly addressing the ongoing topic of cycling Types, that might easily slip away in the details.

“Foregoing Power” and “all other Powers vested” are a bit ambiguously addressed here and therefore easy to generalize into Powers not actually intended. We will make the distinction in a moment.
Having said that, there is virtually nothing here that grants them power beyond the ability to carry out those specific duties designated by the Constitution. These duties do not include ruling the lives of the citizens as subjects, such as we see abundantly happening today. This argument is made very clear by the Declaration of foundational values which birthed this “Exceptional” nation (*1), i.e.:

“That to secure these [God-given inalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” - U.S. Declaration of Independence.

The purpose of Governments is declared therein to protect the rights that God has given to the people who created said governments by “the consent of the governed.” What those governed do with those inalienable rights is entirely up to them and not the government… with exception of how the implementation of those rights directly affects the More Perfect Union practically. It is a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. This concept is foundational to all interpretation of how that government operates, and is spelled out in the preamble of 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.”

Section 9 departs from specifying what Congress has the Power to do, and specifically lists a number of things that Congress may desperately want to do but is expressly forbidden from doing. The Bill of Rights extends that specific-- but not conclusive-- list even further. Clearly then, there are necessary laws that all citizens must adhere to for the general welfare and domestic tranquility of the Union, but there are limitations to the extent those laws can be made. No legislation can be written that infringes upon the basic inalienable rights of all men. That’s God’s jurisdiction.

OK, Because this two-fold branch of Legislators, collectively called Congress, creates and administers the law for the general operations of the national family of States, and thereby also acquires the money that sustains said government, let’s call Congress the husband.

Article II of the US Constitution describes and defines the executive seats of Power; i.e. Presidents and Vice Presidents, including their whole administration and cabinets, and related Offices of management. It is important that we understand the general scope of this office:

Executive: 1. Designed or fitted for, or pertaining to, execution; as, executive talent. 2. Qualified for, concerned with, or pertaining to, the execution of the laws or the conduct of affairs; as, executive power; executive officer, department, etc.
n. 1. The executive branch of a government; also, the person or persons who constitute the executive magistracy of a state. 2. Hence, any person or body charged with administrative or executive work. - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1948.

Almost as a side note, but significantly connected to my topic point, It is doubtful if one in 10,000 Americans know that the people do not actually vote directly for president by anything specifically required in the Constitution. The whole dual Presidential election that we go through is perhaps little more than a means to get our general opinions about the flavor of government we want, but the election of President is made by the Electoral College-- a small group of Electors appointed by each State to represent their voters’ leaning (Article II, paragraphs 2&3) (*2). The election of President by them would still be fully Constitutional without a “Presidential election” by the masses as we have grown accustomed to expect and demand as the form used by the State Governments to determine the flavor of the electoral electors. Let’s say for our purposes of study that this is because the man, once established as a man, chooses his own wife, though God has a significant part to play in the selection by the unseen angels that bring it all together. This idea should become clear as we continue.
* *

The President:
Once inaugurated, the Office of President has the role of added consent or rejection of the proposed laws that Congress presents and wants to establish for the Executive branch to execute (Article 1, Section 7, paragraph 2). He also has the ultimate administrative Power of the Nation’s collective might when called to actual service of the United States: (When she cries out for help, her whole world stops and comes to her aid). He further has the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States other than those impeached, and He can make Treaties (with consent of the Senate), and make administrative appointments such as Ambassadors and other executive officers, including even the appointments of specific Supreme Court Justices (all found in Article II, Section 2). This Office of President (Executive) smacks of a feminine role in managing the home as the co-authority with, but independent from, the Congress as husband who writes the laws she implements with his money.
Section 3 goes into the specifics of just what the President does, and oddly enough, it too rather sounds domestically feminine in nature:

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper [giving them time to cool off]; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”- US Constitution, Article II, Section 3.

In all respects, the Executive Offices of President seem to be an in-house national administrator and peacekeeper, a co-ruler with Congress. Let’s call the office of President the Wife.
* * *

The Gender War:
In spite of a long history of these two conjoined but independent Powers successfully struggling to manage the national family of States within the boundaries of their Constitutionally designated roles, now for the first time in the history of the United State’s, the feminine Office of President has fully usurped the manly Power and authority of Congress, and apparently, to keep peace in the government, it seems that, like a typical modern husband in a troubled marriage, Congress has quietly stepped aside and granted him the Power he craves while retaining the figurehead for image sake. Congress, like the husband, is now relegated to simply “bringing home the bacon” for his wife to spend with her friends as she likes… by the TRILLIONS.

Now it’s going to be easy to determine fault and cast “Republican approved” judgment on the undisciplined man seated in the Office of President for his actions of breaching the duties of his role, but if we actually try to understand what is going on, it seems quite apparent by many examples, that, Mr. Obama is earnestly ruling by his heart; his will, his desire… just, without respect or consideration to the Law that offends his sensibilities.
On numerous occasions Mr. Obama has openly and almost mockingly declared Congress to be obsolete because he has a pen, Meaning that his intention is to write executive law around the will or approval of Congress.
While this is indeed very destructive to the national family, it’s not a cognizant “pure evil” that motivates this man’s choices of action as we might like to think by our sheeple mentality of understanding what is right-and-wrong only because our accepted authority has declared it so; The root motive of his conduct goes way deeper than his simple but destructive actions. It’s this root that we need to address rather than attack his numerous flamboyantly destructive policies. It’s the root that nobody is talking about.

As long as he, the Office of President, “wears the pants in the nation,” this destructive conduct is not something that can be fixed or adjusted with practice or time, because the very act of usurping the rightful authority that belongs to Congress is the abandonment of the foundational Law… a self-declared intention, and violation of his very oath of office as wife to Congress in his marriage vows when he took that role:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America!” - Mr. Obama.
vs.
“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”- Article II, Section 1, last paragraph.

The violation of this sacred vow is a crime so great, that the only solution is either unwise destructive tolerance or obligatory Divorce for the preservation of the national family:

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States [including Supreme Court Justices], shall be removed from Office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” - US Constitution, Article II, Section 4.

Once it is discovered that the person in the Office is so determined in confusion about their role that they openly and shamelessly violate the foundational Laws (Constitutional) that govern that role, it is impossible to restore them to a state of trustworthy execution of their role. The concept of this fact is made even more clear by numerous comparable scriptures, such as:

All of I and II Timothy, then all of Titus, concluding with:
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself” Titus 3:10-11.

Each of these Offices was designed to be filled by honorable people willing to work within the boundaries and limitations of those Offices for a reason. Our Founders intentionally by design gave us a singular national government divided into three individual parts. These parts are not intended to war with each other to the destruction of the nation, but to work with each other to the successful operation of the whole. That successful operation is necessarily worked out by what often seems very much like war when they don’t see eye-to-eye… which heated discussion of passionate differing viewpoints is the very purpose of the division of Powers.
But alternately, the Creator’s sphere of retained Authority is not open for government’s review, let alone meddling. Yet once a branch feels free to tread upon the Powers granted to another branch, treading upon God’s realm is just another step.
* * *

The Judicial:
Our founders gave us a third branch of government with its own sphere of Powers (Article III) though significantly different from the nature of the other two branches. It is also noteworthy that the Supreme Court, and the lesser courts, described collectively as Judicial, have been given by our founders a very short but inclusive list of Powers in their jurisdiction compared to the other branches.

“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” - Article III, Section 2.

Cases in Law, differing from Cases in Equity, again describe two different categories, yet this Judicial branch is given Power, not over the law, but to Cases regarding both kinds.
Cases in Law define contentions made regarding what the Constitution has granted the government, as well as what Congress has legislated under that Constitution, therefore, Cases in Equity must mean something else.
Federalist Paper No. 80 explains all this very well but obviously it would overwhelm this Post to be copied here, so we will only insert this portion; Cases in Equity “involve ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship.” So it has been asked; What cases in equity would not automatically fall under cases in law?

“It is the [unique role], for instance, of a court of equity to relieve against what are called hard bargains: these are contracts in which, though there may have been no direct fraud or deceit sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law, ye there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of the necessities or misfortunes of one of the parties which a court of equity would not tolerate.” - The Federalist Papers No. 80.

Let’s explore an interesting dictionary definition:

Equity: …3. Law: a. The system of law which originated in the extraordinary justice formerly administered by the king’s chancellor and was later developed into a body of rules supplementary to our aiding the common and statute law. …” - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1948.

Let’s pause here to explain that Common law, at the time the Constitution was written, was also known far-and-wide as Natural Law; i.e. the law of nature, that applies to all men commonly, as does gravity. This Common Natural law-- described in Romans 1:19-20 as grounds for ruling in justice-- is distinct from Statute Law; which is the law written by civil institutions on civil matters beyond Natural law. (The Executive branch may ambiguously have the Power to write policy, or rules, (not law), that are necessary to aid the implementation of the Law that the Legislators have written, meaning, where man’s legislated governance bumps up against God’s governance, and needs functional clarification). Blackstone has a lot to say regarding this zone of law in vol. 1 of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765, which seems most readily applicable to our present discussion in his section on the Rights of Persons, specifically regarding marriage, in chapter 15 (*3).
So now we comprehend that the Judiciary has the Power to address issues that arise in both the applications of legislative written law and the executive written policy, even where they seem to encroach perhaps into God’s jurisdiction. More on this important subject will have to wait until another time, but is covered in The Federalist No. 80.
OK, let’s continue with the definition of Equity:

“…The term has come to designate the formal system of legal and procedural rules and doctrines according to which justice is administered within certain limits of jurisdiction. b. An equitable claim or right. 4. Hence, any body of legal doctrines and rules similarly developed to enlarge, supplement, or override a system of law which has become too narrow and rigid in its scope.” - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Fifth Edition, 1948.

Of course we must be careful when using a modern definition that we do not automatically assume that this is what the authors of the Constitution understood the definition to be; definitions subtly change over time until sometimes they mean something else entirely. But for our uses here, we understand that the Judicial was granted Power to proceed OVER CASES of dispute in both, Legislated law, as well as any rulings or policy that might arise by executive governments to enhance the efficacy of those laws, and also over contentions of ill effects resulting from those laws.
Since the very nature of the Judicial is to MAKE OPINIONS in cases BASED on existing laws and policy; It simply is not in the Constitutional scope of authority for the Judicial to MAKE law or policy, but to only cast opinions on its APPLICATION from Case to Case. The very heart of their opinion must ask; “What did the authors of the law intend?”-- not; “What do I think it should mean?”,-- and then ask; "Is that intent compatible with the bounds of the Constitution?", before asking; "How does that law apply in this case?" The Judicial was created to rule in conflicts between the various laws and policies of the land that conform to the Constitution, as well as distinguish and expose as irrelevant the laws and policies that do not conform to the Constitution. The Judiciary are the third member in a team, not a third contender in a war for Power. This unity of effort is fundamental to the very purpose and success of our triune government, and the self-willed disunity of our branches is its sure destruction (Matthew 12:25).

Our founders felt that the Judicial had so little power that they were incapable of doing us any harm as long as they remained separate from encroaching into the realms of the other two Powers. Alexander Hamilton, a framer of our Constitution, explained it like this:

“The executive (wife) not only dispenses the honors but holds the sword of the community (Romans 13:3-4). The legislature (Husband) not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated (excluding those that are inalienable). The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power, that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks [thus, the virtue of a life-long seat on good behavior is Hamilton’s point]. It equally proves that though individual oppressions may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the executive. For I agree that ‘there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers’” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

The inset quote Hamilton references comes from Montesquieu - Spirit of Laws, Vol. I, Page 181, who also said in the same work, page 186: “Of the three powers above mentioned, the JUDICIARY is next to nothing.”

Unlike either the Offices of Legislation or the Executive Offices; the Judicial was denied the authority to hold any lawmaking or rulemaking Powers, or even the Power to implement such, but only rather, to review and explain or expose necessary adjustments for the equitable function of the laws and rules made by the other branches, ensuring their conformance to the mandates and limitations of the Constitution. The judiciary is supposed to be the people’s support to ensure the other branches do not harm them by overstepping their limited Powers. Hamilton’s example:

“The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder (punishments without a trial, including generic fines), no ex post facto laws (retroactive guilt), and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare [void] all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing”… “It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature in order, among other things, to keep the [legislature] within the limits assigned to their authority.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

This concept of an imperative independence has nonetheless now been wholly changed from one that keeps the other branches incapable of controlling it and likewise keeps this branch from intruding on the realms of the others, to one that means it is without restraint and therefore of unlimited power. This new perspective of independence is the image of today’s Woman’s Liberation, where woman are now a new and boundless power of quasi-legislative capacity in contest with the husband, i.e. Congress, as equals IN THAT FIELD while retaining their unique qualities of their own field which grants them trumping advantage like a woman who cries in an argument with a man, but then mercilessly ejects him from his life’s career for making her wiles public, and thereby validating his argument but winning anyway ( BBC News - Sir Tim Resigns http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33090022).
This unlimited power, while having the image of independence, is not the independence intended but the complete opposite; it is the subversion of the legislative authority. It is the conquest of Congress by steeling the function of its branch, which it was never intended to have, and which independence was intended to keep it from obtaining, much like what has happened to the "separation of Church and State."
Therefore, instead of being seated as a Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor should have immediately been disbarred and removed from any public office for her eye-winking tongue-in-cheek declarations in deposition that Justices write law by interpreting the law to mean whatever they want it to mean (see Post 004 On Sotomayor). THEN, after disbarring her, Congress should have investigated her claims and likewise Impeached any and all Justices who were found to have practiced such a belief. It’s that important that the Judicial does not step into the Legislative role even by a single step. You have a very important job to do in keeping the Legislation within its rightful bounds, but rewriting law, or its intent, is not among your duties.

“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy (regarding a law), may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. … The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” - The Federalist Papers No. 78.

Wives, are you hearing this Typology loud and clear? When your department forgets it’s scope, and with the Power of the supporting spirit of Judicial interpretation steps into the Legislative jurisdiction, we end up with yesterday’s (6/26/15) Supreme Court opinion that has rewritten all the laws to make legal what is unlawful by every form of law the planet has ever seen: Natural law, the law of Nature’s God, Historical law, The U.S. Constitution itself, and the law of the Constitutionally authorized Legislators.

It should be a serious point for contemplation that when you go to www.SupremeCourt.gov to review their rulings, those rulings are listed under “Opinions of the Court.” Even the Supreme Court cannot determine what the law is; it can only offer its opinion about the application of the law.
* * *

The Stabilizing Role of the Judicial Branch:
Justices of the United States-- meaning the Federal level-- are appointed by the President as seats come available. Once seated, they have no expiration date; no term limit to their seat with the sole stipulation that they can be removed from Office on grounds so vague as failing to maintain “good behavior” (Article 3, Section 1)-- which is intended to motivate good behavior and deter even rogue judges from acting roguish.

Therefore, being that there are only nine Supreme Justices seated at once, the spirit of their collective opinions was designed to have a determined and lengthy influence before it slowly changes over time by introducing a potentially new worldview one member at a time. This stabilizing function insures that sudden and transient changes in public desires do not radically and quickly upset the course of the nation, enabling a stability, even in a wishy-washy democracy, that takes several consistent directional changes in administrations before seeing an appreciable affect of earnest and determined intent. Let’s look at how this currently works:

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia: appointed by Ronald Reagan, seated 1986.
Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: appointed by Ronald Reagan, seated 1988.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas: appointed by George H.W. Bush, seated 1991.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: appointed by Bill Clinton, seated 1993.
Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer: appointed by Bill Clinton, seated 1994.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr: appointed by President George W. Bush, seated 2005.
Associate Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.: appointed George W. Bush, seated 2006.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor: appointed by acting President Barack H. Obama, seated 2009.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan: appointed by acting President Barack H. Obama, seated 2010.

All we have to do is look at the Presidents (wife) who appointed them and we can make a relatively accurate guess as to which of them were the dissenting voices on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling regarding the nationally (Federally) recognized marriage of Homosexuals. Justice Anthony Kennedy being the only anomalous factor among the nine using this method.

John Roberts,
Antonin Scalia,
Clarence Thomas,
And Samuel Alito.

As even the Honorables Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts suggested in their dissenting arguments; This Court does not even possess the jurisdiction to have an opinion on the matter. 1st, because the nature of Marriage is not an institution created or managed by civil governments, rather, this institution is among the inalienable rights given to all men by the Creator. It remains therefore in the Jurisdiction of God himself to determine if Sodomy is a justified marriage to be recognized by Governments and protected by laws that protect marriage. This does not even approach the next point of Judicial jurisdiction when demanding by law that the nation’s godly people also accept Sodomy as an acceptable union of which they must socially interact agreeably in fear of judicial punishments. The Supreme Court has demanded the free and sovereign citizens turn their backs on God’s laws to avoid transgressing THEIRS, a perversion of what the authorized law writing Legislators obviously intended. The very nature of this troubling condition makes void the Supreme Court’s divisive opinion as it violates the primary tenant of both the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence; that men and nations are entitled by, and therefore bound to obey, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, who have both made it very clear that Sodomy is intolerably unnatural and unacceptable to a society that expects to remain in God’s good graces and blessed by Nature. Our Constitutionally protected inalienable right to happiness includes the expectation that OUR government, who represent US, will not provoke the wrath of God to our mutual destruction. This argument cannot be rejected as Unconstitutional because the plethora of writings by our very founders made clear that this was also their own concern:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis? [which is] a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God - that they are not to be violated but with his wrath. Indeed, I Tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just - that His justice cannot sleep forever” - Thomas Jefferson, (so important a position that this is inscribed in the walls of the Jefferson Memorial).

Justice seems like something that the judicial branch should have a handle on understanding. How then can the Supreme Justices of the land be so willing to mock God’s divine justice by flagrantly demanding the American people turn their back on God’s Supreme law?

Even if the institution of marriage was rightly within the realm of legislation by man, it is the Legislator’s job to write law, not the Supreme Court. So does this issue of unnatural marriage fall under the 14th amendment of “equal protection of the laws”? It cannot, without both violating the Supreme Law, as well as nullifying that same desired protections that others have long experienced until now. i.e. those individuals and organizations that agree with God, and nature, and history, and law, that such a union is an abomination and destructive to the more perfect Union of established justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare of the nation for which the laws are made.

It is not here argued that the will of the majority has perhaps changed and now desires to legally legalize Sodomy even to the point of legally recognizing their unions, granting them adopted children (which nature forbids), being forced by law to bake them cake and take their picture, etc., but it is argued here that it’s not the Court’s jurisdiction to make that will-of-the-people lawful change to the law. That role falls only under the jurisdiction of the Legislative branch, and even that branch cannot infringe on God’s jurisdiction.
Only one generation ago our Courts and Governments still understood this principle of independent jurisdictions (*4). It’s time we re-educated them, or impeached them, and I hold Congress accountable for failing to play the part of the man and run his house with a more firm hand. You have not only the purse but the power of impeachment: USE THEM!
* * *

So now, regarding our Government’s three checks-and-balances; If Congress is a Type of the husband, and the President is a Type of the wife, then what does the Supreme Court Type?
It represents the spirit in the family by reflecting the underflowing desire of the wife in a complex way. Appointed by the heart, that spirit is slow to change its established course, be it good or bad.
The husband can lay down the law to his family, but the wife provides the spirit that rules the day-to-day application of the law while he is at work. If she is not in sync with her husband she can be very powerfully subversive in what the children grow up to think as good and bad law and how it is applied. Even if she later changes her mind, the course set is very hard to turn in a short period of time. This works for both positive and negative values. The spirit is a support, a comforter, a reminder, an influence, but it only affects our own efforts. But while God’s righteous Spirit will not drive or force or manipulate, the dark spirit will force and press and push its values into the working jurisdictions as far and as fast as allowed. It may be the wife’s fault that she succumbs to his urgings because of her own natural desires, but it’s the husband's job to stand as a bulwark and end the encroachment. This will be nigh impossible if his wife is stubbornly standing against him. A team is only successful when everyone is working toward the same goal.
But it's also going to be successful in its efforts if everyone is working toward the wrong goal.
This is an entirely new problem to address today!

America does not vote for the Supreme Court Justices, and doesn’t actually vote directly for the Office of President that appoints them-- though we do have a lot of power in that selection. Therefore, the only actual and direct influence we have over our Government is the representation that we elect to Congress and can easily unseat if dissatisfied with his conduct. Everything else snowballs from there.

God designated the husband to be the head of the family as the representation of Himself, and therefore the husband is accountable to God for what goes on under his authority. When things go bad, God comes to the husband to make account. Likewise, when things go bad in our Government, our similar recourse in Type, is to hold Congress; our representatives, accountable.
In this way we see that WE THE PEOPLE are god to our Government. WE established it and it is accountable to us… because, like Christ himself with us, WE are likewise accountable to God for its actions.
Do you understand that when Obama threw our God out of the house, he also in Type threw out the god of Government? Like Congress pretending to remain the Husband, we are now relegated to "boy" providing Government the money to spend as it likes. As the divorced woman now wearing the pants, Government has become the new god.
It’s way past time that we took serious hands-on account of the government that we will be accountable for. It’s ours to do... if we still can.
* * *

Final Words:
OH, and if I neglected to appeal directly to the first amendment of the Bill of Rights until now, it’s because it was wholly unnecessary. There is more than enough reason in all the other avenues available to discover the right answer in this Case. But since we have it, let’s now take a look at the First Amendment, beginning with the PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights that sets the mood:

“The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficient ends of its institution.

ARTICLE I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” - The Bill of Rights.

Messing with, or regulating, the religious convictions of the People, and the practice or proclamations of those religions, is fully outside of the Power of Government (*5).
This single Article of explicit rights not to be infringed is so simple to understand and of such short composition that all on its own this article makes wholly ludicrous the opinion of the majority Justices of the Supreme Court in this Case regarding the Court-forced Nationally recognized marriage of Sodomites, and if not ludicrous then Treasonous.
Therefore I, as a citizen, expect to see Congress take the necessary action for the preservation of, and restoration of confidence in, the Government of this Nation, by proceeding with the impeachment process of all five majority Justices for their flagrant disregard of the Foundational Law of the Land.
Make it so.
* * * * * * *

(*1) “Exceptional” (https://shop.wallbuilders.com/exceptional): This DVD is the latest by Wallbuiders.com and I cannot urge you strong enough to get it! Buy several and give them to friends and churches. It covers a lot of very timely information in a general way but its focus is on the five points of the Declaration of Independence that made America truly Exceptional.

(*2) The Wisdom of having an Electoral College:
Please see www.PragerUniversity.com for a very easy to understand application and significant value of our founder’s Electoral College idea: Do you understand the Electoral College? - (http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Do-You-Understand-the-Electoral-College.html#.VY9eia5rrSI), and,
The Popular Vote vs. The Electoral College - (http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Popular-Vote-vs-the-Electoral-College.html#.VY9fRK5rrSI).

(*3) Social Law vs. Inalienable Rights:
I do not wish to rabbit trail this point from the target topic, but it is already of such a longstanding confusion in both government and society that without clarification this point may only undermine the topic.
Governments are authorized to write social law for the peace, prosperity, and general welfare of the civilization over which it governs. These social laws are forbidden to encroach into the sphere of other jurisdictions, such as what is found within the Inalienable Rights category, which is in God’s sphere. Religion is also in a sphere outside of Government’s Power to manipulate or control. The government’s job is to protect the rights that the citizens already had, even before the formation of government. Such specific managerial powers of the Federal Government are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution as I have shown. ALL other areas fall outside of the Powers of the Federal Government. This very much includes the description and governance of marriage, which remains in the sphere of He who created it. Yet a complexity arises when civil governments are obligated to deal with the social mess and burdens of unhealthy marriages enjoined, such as the marriage of idiots who cannot then care for themselves, the marriage of children, forced marriage by religions, the neglect of offspring, and many other issues that seem to necessarily encroach into God’s domain. Blackstone has done a magnificent job of drawing a fine distinction between the two jurisdictions when they are in such close proximity.

(*4) US Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Is Legal Nation Wide (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341) - June 26, 1015.
“It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the plaintiffs asked "for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
The ruling brings to an end more than a decade of bitter legal battles.
Same-sex couples in several affected states including Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Texas rushed to wed on Friday. However officials in other states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, said marriages had to wait until procedural issues were addressed.
President Barack Obama said the ruling was a 'victory for America.'"- BBC News, June 26, 2015.

Justice Scalia’s Dissenting opinion:
“Mr Scalia flashed anger, railing against an elitist majority on the Supreme Court who were imposing their values on "320 million Americans coast-to-coast".
"They are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution," he writes.
He called the decision a "judicial Putsch" and "a threat to democracy", in which the majority discovered a right to marriage that all the US legal minds before them had overlooked.
By broadening its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection of the law guarantee to include a universal right of same-sex marriage, he argued, the Court has given itself unlimited power. "It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements this Court really likes," he writes.”

Justice Roberts's Dissenting Opinion:
"Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration," he writes. "But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening." He warns, however, that there is a dark side to achieving their objective by judicial fiat. "However heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause," he writes.” - BBC News, (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33292806).

The actual Supreme Court Opinion: Obergefell vs. Hodges - (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf).

I have not completed my reading of the dissenting Justices and hope to replace these quotes with better as I find them.

(*5) Bake Me A Cake - [added July 2, 2015]
Judicial Activism in practice:
(http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogvanIZKXonjHpfsX66%2BgoX6%2B%2FlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4IScRrI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D).

"...[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action" - Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,290-91 (1969). "Therefore, the writ must be 'administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected'" - Harris, 394 U.S. at 291 (accessed from Lectlaw.com 7/2/15).

The writ of habeas corpus demands the production of genuine injury caused by any such practice or proclamation. "I cried for an hour" is not an arguable injury. No crime has been committed by refusing to bake a cake; there is "no body." But conversely; the forced closure and excessive fine of the independent cake business directly as a result of “gay activism” legislated by the Courts, IS a body. Real and actual damage was done, yet the perpetrator of the injury is the Court!
If the Courts had stayed out of it, no harm was done by either side of the argument.
The Court has assumed the role of making the law by reinterpreting the law, and then enforcing the new law that it made. This is subversion at the highest level and therefore requires the maximum punishment the law allows.
*