Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Charlottesville, Virginia, City Selling Illegally Misrepresented City Bonds?

Charlottesville, Virginia.  City council just made a public notice that will not get much, if any attention at all.  But everyone must see this.  Every American needs to be mad as hell as to what is in that public statement.  And we want everyone to see this.

  Above is a link to the MSRB, or Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.  On that site, this link will take you to the Bond offering by the city, at least their statement anyway,  Now, this may be just a standard form, and the wording may be the same on every bond in every locality, in every state and by every state.  The problem is how the funding for those bonds are stated.  You need to read this for yourself.  Below is the words I have a real problem with and consider to be horribly illegal.

  "The Bonds are general obligations of the City, and the full faith and credit and UNLIMITED TAXING POWER OF THE CITY, are irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principle of and interest on the Bonds as they become due".

  What?  Who gave these scumbags unlimited taxing power?  Are they trying to read the 16th Amendment to the US COnstitution for their basis?

  " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Does anyone understand that the above Amendment gave no new taxing powers to the Federal Government, nor to the states?  That has been ruled on by the Federal Supreme Court over and over and over again.  No new power of taxation.  Google or other search engine returns all have data that is horribly incorrect.  We have posted evidence recently about this showing the true meaning of the 16th Amendment and that it does not grant the government any new rights of taxation.  Here it is again.  Watch the video.

What you will see in this video is the guy who wrote the tax laws, lie to no end about who has to pay taxes and who does not.  He uses the 16th Amendment in the wrong way.  Folk's you are being lied to everyday.  It is up to you to know if you are required to pay taxes.  And almost none of you are required to.   But Charlottesville Thinks they have an unlimited license to steal all of your money and more.  That is what unlimited means.  They can not only take everything you own, they can also bill you for so much more on top of it all.

  So, if this is in fact the case, then the City of Charlottesville has written some fraudulent paper that it plans on marketing to investors under false pretenses.  That is not only fraud, that is conspiracy to commit fraud.  This has so many violations against the people of the City of Charlottesville, the people of this state and the people of this entire Nation.  This is an outrage.  Again, it might be stated on every municipal Bond sold here in this country, but that is still fraud. 

(Story assistance by Marsha Maines)

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

IRS Admits Most Americans NOT Responsible For Income Taxes

April 15th, that dreaded date every year is the last day of the year to file your 1040 tax return or it is considered late.  Many American's file early.  But what if you do not even have to file?  What if you should not even have any taxes taken from your wages to begin with?  We have been studying this information for some time now and we keep getting the same information over and over that there simply is no law that requires most American's to file and or have any money taken out of your wages for income tax purposes.  Most American's simply do not owe the IRS any money.

  Why do most people pay into the system then if they do not owe any money?  The IRS is not required to inform you as to whether or not you owe any money.  If you think you do, they are more than happy to allow you to pay them.  If you get the information wrong on your filing, then they can come after you even though you didn't owe the money.  You got the information wrong per their rules.  Can you just stop filing income taxes?  You want to do it in the correct manner because if you just stop, and having been paying into the system for years, then they believe you to be one of those folks who are required to pay income taxes.  You see, in their book, it is up to you to know the tax laws.  It is not up to them.

  Watch the video above, and if you are still not convinced, there are plenty more videos that feature IRS agents, Senators, Congressmen and lawyers who will take you through the law.  In fact, here is yet another video.

Do your own research and verify what you learn here.  It may be worth a fortune to you.  It's a raise that won't cost anyone anything.  The government won't go out of business if you stop paying.  That is also covered in these videos.  Take the time to learn something new.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

The Constitution’s Week in Review – 11 Sep 15

4th Amendment.

The ACLU and I don’t agree on a lot of issues, but here’s one where we are of like mind: civil asset forfeiture. The Oklahoma ACLU studied the civil asset forfeiture records for counties lying adjacent to Interstate 40, which sort of bisects the state East to West, and found that of $6 Million in assets seized from 2009 to 2014, only about $2 Million came from people eventually charged with a crime; $4 Million came from people never charged with anything.

Operating under the belief that no one these days carries large amounts of cash unless they have engaged in or plan criminal activity, “policing for profit,” as it is sometimes called (another sheriff called it “pennies from heaven”) is a clear affront to 4th Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.

An attempt in Virginia this year to tighten the rules and provide more protections for citizens failed to pass. In Oklahoma, one brave Republican State Senator has introduced legislation to make this less lucrative (for instance: all proceeds go to the general fund rather than to the jurisdiction making the seizure) and, predictably, law enforcement agencies are fighting it hard, as they did in Virginia. Here’s a great rundown on the issue, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.

Most people seem to take the position that this doesn’t affect them since they would never carry large sums of money, not realizing that “asset” includes more than mere cash; vehicles, homes and other property is also routinely seized. Everyone and anyone could be affected by this. If this bothers you, you know who to talk with.

Article 2 Presidential Powers.

I’m giving a presentation on Monday to a local Republican Women’s Club. They asked me to speak on Presidential Executive Orders. As if on que, President Obama issues anothercontroversial one, this time ordering paid sick leave for all federal contractor personnel. Apparently the President believes he has the statutory authority to unilaterally change the conditions for federal contracts, just not during his term of office. He has set this E.O. up so it takes effect after his predecessor takes office in 2017. Nice. I wonder if the new guy (gal?) will leave this in place?

I’m not going to go into any detail here on Executive Orders, I’ll save that for Monday’s presentation and maybe a future Constitutional Corner – it is rather complicated. But this order of President Obama may end up like Executive Order 12954, issued by President Clinton in 1995. Clinton attempted to stop the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on their payrolls. A federal appeals court invalidated that order because it conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act. A second order of Clinton’s, E.O. 13155, was also overturned. This one is going to cost the government a lot more money, we’ll see if Congress lets it ride. The most famous failed Executive Order was Harry Truman’s attempt to take over America’s steel mills. Shot down by the Supreme Court itself.

Transparency in the Judiciary.

The Supreme Court has placed themselves under great scrutiny of late, due largely to a series of questionable opinions, which have caused some (including moi) to re-examine our presumed “law of the land” doctrine. Another factor which often places our court system in an unfavorable light, is the fairly common prohibition of cameras in the courtroom. The rule makes it possible for courtroom artists to make a living, but otherwise tends to cloud the court in an aura of secrecy and non-transparency. Sure, most trials and hearings are open to the public, but who wants to take the time to attend unless you know someone involved in the case? And maybe there won’t be room if you get there late. Why not be able to watch from the comfort of your own home, with beer and chips at hand?

Every few years the prohibition of TV cameras during Supreme Court proceedings returns to the headlines and, of course, the media wants the proceedings open to photography of all kinds (did you know you can download audio recordings of Supreme Court oral arguments?). The Court, naturally, wants to retain a sense of decorum and avoid the circus atmosphere that accompanies trials or hearings with wide public interest (i.e., O.J. Simpson); but fourteen federal trial courts recently completed a four year study of the effect of video cameras, it will be interesting to what the study concludes.

What caused me to mention all this, however, was not the Supreme Court issue, but ratherthis article about the alleged questionable behavior of a municipal court judge in Georgia, caught by a hidden camera. I don’t attend trials or hearings as a practice, much too busy for that; and I’ve not been a defendant in one since 1968 (traffic court – boy that seems a long time ago), so I can’t say whether the judge’s behavior here was especially unusual or unprofessional. But here’s a case where a camera might have done some good in bringing questionable performance to light.

That’s all for now. We had a great time this morning on WFYL radio discussing “Kim Davis and the Rule of Law; we actually had two, count ‘em, two call-ins. Hope you joined us on “Listen Live.” If you didn’t, the podcast should be up on the website soon.

Time is fleeting to join us on Constitution Day to hear Dr. Herb Titus give us his view of the future effects of Obergefell v. Hodges. Herb is a great speaker, you won’t be disappointed. Go to and sign up for Lessons in Liberty.

Attendance is also climbing for my first-ever “youth-only” Constitution Seminar (19 September), held in partnership with Constituting America. There is still room, but the class looks like it might actually fill. Don’t delay if you know any local ( to Tidewater Virginia) 14-18 year olds who need to learn their “Supreme Law of the Land.”

Gary Porter
Executive Director

Friday, September 11, 2015

Governor McAuliffe Dedicates New Washington Boulevard Bridge Over Columbia Pike in Arlington

~ New bridge named Freedmans Village Bridge, honoring historic local community ~

RICHMOND - Governor Terry McAuliffe dedicated today a new bridge that carries Washington Boulevard (Route 27) over Columbia Pike (Route 244) in Arlington, as the “Freedmans Village Bridge,” in honor of Freedmans Village, a historic community that once occupied the surrounding land and was a refuge for freed and fugitive slaves during the Civil War. Transportation, community and local leaders, and descendants of Freedmans Village families, joined the Governor in celebrating the new transportation asset, while paying tribute to the historical significance of the Freedmans Village Community.

“Today’s dedication ceremony celebrates the completion of a new bridge that connects a vibrant and busy travel area in Northern Virginia, connects communities, and connects the present time with a rich, historical past in Arlington,” said Governor McAuliffe. “Community input and partnership was critical to this project’s development, and resulted in adopting the best available design options, and most importantly, led to the naming of the bridge as the Freedmans Village Bridge. The bridge is a model for the ommonwealth of how partnership and cooperation can produce positive results and critical improvements to our infrastructure.”

Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne added, “The new Freedmans Village Bridge is a great example of Virginia’s commitment to replacing aging and deteriorating infrastructure. Through the efforts of our project team, federal, local and contractor partners, and the local community, the new bridge and interchange accomplish our operational and safety goals, enhance travel for vehicles, buses, bicyclists and pedestrians, and preserve access to the local neighborhoods.”

The new bridge was built in an historical area where the federal government established the Freedmans Village in 1863 for newly freed slaves. On April 16, 2009, the Commonwealth Transportation Board designated the bridge as the “Freedmans Village Bridge.” The new bridge has features that reflect the historical significance of the area including bronze medallions depicting a house and a family from Freedmans Village.

The bridge has four 12-foot lanes, improved shoulders and an open area separating the westbound and eastbound spans, allowing natural light to illuminate Columbia Pike below. The bridge is built wide enough to accommodate growth, and bicyclist and pedestrian paths, along Columbia Pike.

The original bridge, built in 1942 as part of the Pentagon Roadway Network, was deteriorating to the extent that it rated as structurally deficient. Planning for the new bridge began in 1996, but faced budget delays and constructability challenges. A citizens’ task force was created in 2006 to address the aesthetics and accessibility of the bridge, as well as safety and operational issues. VDOT engineers worked with the task force and surrounding community to keep local South Queen Street open with full access to and from Columbia Pike.

Construction on the design-build project began in 2011 by Shirley Contracting Company. Landscaping around the bridge and interchange is scheduled to occur this fall.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Page Middle School Now Open With More Issues

It's an interesting building that there is no question about.  Some issues experienced yesterday with the new school include problems with the phone lines as well as problems with the Internet.  Not a big deal especially being a new school and not having much time to work out all the bugs.

  One area that begs to question is why isn't the cafeteria not yet functional?  And why did the school board order pizza's for the school children instead of having the food made at other area schools and bringing it into this school?  It would seem logical to have gone that route as opposed to ordering pizza.  What an order some business received over this.

We did a bit more checking and the rail on the second floor is probably 40 inches high as it should be.  A number of readers think that nothing will ever get thrown over that rail for any reason and that to think so otherwise is foolish.  It is their belief that every child is raised by parents who are very diligent in teaching their children between right and wrong.  I hope they are correct but a walk through any store suggests otherwise.  To think that every child, preteen, and teenager has been brought up to the highest standards of society is rather foolish.

  I have no wish for seeing any form of even mild mischief to take place yet to think it will not happen and that teachers will surely prevent such at every moment of everyday again is wishful thinking at best.  It is not only my opinion but also the opinion of others that designs throughout this structure are considered potentially dangerous.

How many teachers are out in this hall all day to make sure there are no issues and how is that cost effective when it comes to staffing?

Now a question about open design.  People are complaining that I would even complain about the waste of space this open design creates.  I am not the only one saying this.  This is also coming from an engineer as well as people that have been involved in constructing schools.  It's a heating and cooling nightmare for one.  Those claiming that open design is not an issue have not had to deal with the problems of heating and cooling such a structure.

So the above picture that shows two stories of open window space is needed for educational purposes?  I have no issues with the windows for each floor being the way they are, but how many classes could have been built in here that are now wasted?

Now the classrooms are nice looking.  What I have to wonder about is the windows as large as they are affecting the learning process.  The reason for the question is that anyone walking through the hall could very well be a distraction to the class or some in a class.

  The reason you have not seen these types of designs in schools in the past is because designers knew and understood these issues.  Today though it has become very unfashionable to ever question those in charge.  We should just accept what those in charge do.  If there is an issue then you blame the parents for not teaching their children, kids, preteens, teenagers, or whatever anyone wants to call their offspring these days, for not teaching them how to maintain the highest standards of society.

The lunchroom or cafeteria from another angle.  Open floor plan.  

The cafeteria food serving section is nice looking.  Hope it's up and running soon.  If you are just looking at the aesthetics of the overall design it is nice looking.  Modern, simple, and clean.  If you are looking at it from a liability standpoint, it is fraught with a host of "potential" issues.  Potential is the key word here.  Most people are not looking at the potential issues.  Those that are have been fast to discredit our initial post about this school and it's overall design because of the liability issues being faced.  The rail height on the second floor as seen in the above picture were brought up during construction but were blown off.  If something heavy gets thrown off that area or falls by some weird accident anyone below could be seriously hurt.  This is why schools in the past were not designed like this.  


     A number of people do not consider the fencing around the back of the building to be an issue.  Will the children, preteens, teenagers, or your offspring not try and climb these fences?  The design is against climbing them.  If you are foolish enough to try and climb over one you will probably get hurt.  It is designed to keep people out that have no business being there.  The fences meet construction standards and are upper end fences.  No question.  But again you have to be foolish enough to think that every child, preteen, teenager, offspring, have all been brought up in households where the highest standards of society have been instilled in them and that they all follow those standards to the hilt at all times with no question.

     We have invited Charles Records to write a letter to dispel the posts here.  He has invited members of the public to tour the school so that he could dispel what has been posted.  We await his reply and will bring that to you if he does respond.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Constitutional Corner – “Just who do we think we are?”

By:  Gary Porter

“Just who do we think we are?” stated Chief Justice John Roberts,[1] in what, I predict, will no doubt become one of the most famous statements ever made in a Supreme Court dissent, barely edging out “[The Constitution] had nothing to do with [today’s decision.]”

“Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness,” (emphasis added) he continues. Social policy? I thought Supreme Court decisions were to be rooted in the law? “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judg­ment,” Roberts reminds us.

“The Celebrated Montesquieu” said: “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”

Social justice, the great utopic goal of every Progressive, not jurisprudence, was the goal of the five Justices who formed the majority opinion in Obergefel vs Hodgesl.

It was an act of judicial activism.

What do we mean by judicial activism? The Heritage Foundation defines it this way: “Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.”

There is no better example than Obergefell.

Prior to Obergefell, the most famous statement by a Supreme Court Justice which encapsulated the idea behind judicial activism occurred when Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall described his judicial philosophy as: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” That’s simply an amazing statement for a jurist: Ignore the law and rule instead based on your “feelings” of what is right. It’s all about feelings to a Progressive; in fact the law is often seen as an obstacle to PROGRESS. So, if you can get a court to declare its sense of justice as “the law,” instead of constraining itself to proper interpretation of the law, all the better.

But judicial activism is often in the eye of the beholder. The perfect example is Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The Right saw the decision as an affirmation of unrestrained free speech, the Left saw the decision as the perfect example of judicial activism since it “declared corporations were people,” as I heard more than one liberal insist.

Judicial activism is a natural outgrowth of the doctrine of legal positivism, which replaced natural law theory in the late 1800s. Legal Positivism holds that the only relevant law is what man creates. Natural law, if it exists at all, is irrelevant; and revealed law (i.e. as found in the Bible) has no place in a mature society. Since man is constantly evolving (so goes the theory) the law must continually evolve as well. And who guides the evolution of the law? Why, the judges, of course.

In another candid moment, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered aloud whether the court went “too far, too fast” in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision; yet another admission that Progressives see the Court as the “seeing eye dog” of a society groping culturally in the dark. So, perhaps the court went “a smidgen” too far in 1973; so what? Fifty million undelivered babies might have a different opinion.

Compare these previous progressive sentiments with that of Associate Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in his 1833 work: “Commentaries on the Constitution,” “The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.” Is that not what we just saw happen in Obergefell?

Thomas Jefferson saw the danger during his time, writing to William Jarvis in 1820: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Besides Obergefell, are there other examples of judicial activism? Lists, long ones, are not hard to find. You’ll find us discussing these cases and more tomorrow morning on “We The People, The Constitution Matters” (7am EDT,

The Heritage Foundation lists these cases (and others) as activist:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which Justice William O. Douglas, in one of the most famous of judicial DIY projects, constructed a right to privacy from bits and pieces of vague privacy inferences salvaged from “emanations from penumbras” of the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade (1973), building on the “right” of privacy constructed in Griswold, the Court then further defined that “right” to encompass the murder of unborn babies, with few restrictions, striking down numerous state laws.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003), building once again on Griswold, the Court decided that the by now very useful “right” of privacy should be extended even further to sodomy — that states would no longer be allowed to decide whether certain sexual acts were immoral and restrictable. Another dose of “social policy.”

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn (2005). In Kelo, the Court took the plain language of the 5th Amendment and contorted it beyond recognition. The Amendment’s final clause requires that private property taken under eminent domain be only taken “for public use.” Historically, this has meant taking property to build roads and stadiums, install utility lines and other public features which benefit all a locale’s citizens. Not so, said the Court. The City of New London was allowed to take private property and give it to a private corporation (Pfizer Corporation) for the purpose of their building a new private manufacturing plant (reasoning that this would increase the city’s tax base, boost revenues, and thus benefit, well, whoever the city spent the money on). Ironically, Pfizer pulled out of the deal after all the necessary homes were razed and the ground sits vacant to this day. The finding in Kelo encouraged more than one state to pass legislation or Constitutional amendments protecting private property from just such predations exhibited in Connecticut.

Perhaps the “poster child” of terrible Commerce Clause cases, but also a perfect example of judicial activism since it contorted the clause’s clear wording, is Wickard v. Filburn. Old Farmer Filburn wanted nothing more than to grow some wheat for his own animals’ consumption; but doing so would exceed his planting allotment. “ If we let you do that,” said the Court (in effect), “you’ll not have to purchase that wheat on the open market, which will affect the interstate market in wheat, which Congress has complete control of under the Commerce Clause.” See the iron-clad legal reasoning? Neither do most people. Wickard was the final nail in the Commerce Clause coffin, and essentially gave Congress (and by extension, the Executive) the power to regulate nearly any business activity. Wickard v. Filburn is the “butterfly effect” applied to the Commerce Clause.

There are many, many more examples and you can study them on several websites. Let’s turn our attention to remedies. What can “We The People” do in the face of judicial activism? We’ll examine six avenues for redress:
Congressional or state legislative or amendment action. We today have several Constitutional Amendments (11th, 13th, 16th, 26th) due to Supreme Court decisions. In some cases the precipitating action was a SCOTUS decision declaring a piece of legislation passed by the Congress to be unconstitutional (16th and 26th Amendments), and sometimes it was merely the implications of a decision. InChisholm v. Georgia the Court declared that citizens could sue sovereign states. The Congress replied: “We don’t think that should be so,” and they dutifully passed and got ratified an Amendment putting their view into effect. The 13th Amendment was at least in part the result of the Court’s horrendous Dred Scott decision. In the wake of the Dred Scott decision, many northern state legislatures scrambled to pass legislation nullifying or muting the effects of the decision.

Jurisdiction stripping: Article 3 Section 2 provides Congress the power to remove any subject area from the Court’s jurisdiction. This was most famously proved in Ex Parte McCardle when the Supreme Court shut down a case “in mid-stream,” i.e., after oral arguments had been heard but before an opinion had been published. This power has been used often by the Congress but is still not widely understood in that body. In 1996, Congress successfully stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain INS decisions. Understand also: for Congress to exert this power, a piece of legislation so stating must be passed and signed by the President, which adds another layer of partisanship to the process. Jurisdiction stripping must also be used “judiciously.” If the Congress tomorrow removed the topic of abortion, for instance, from the Court’s jurisdiction, some say that would prevent Roe V. Wade from ever being reversed, or even reviewed. You should converse with your Senators and Representative to ensure they understand jurisdiction stripping.

Impeachment or Criminal prosecution of judges: To date, sixteen federal officials have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a Justice of the Supreme Court, and thirteen federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. District Court Judge John Pickering of the District of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted and removed from office. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase is the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached (he was acquitted, much to Jefferson’s disappointment). In 1981, Alcee Hastings, sitting as a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, was impeached and removed from the bench (convicted of accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a defendant’s lenient sentence). Once off the bench, he ran for office and the good citizens of Florida’s 23rd District amazingly sent him to Congress as their Representative!
Presidential refusal to enforce: In a statement that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson is claimed to have said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” The decision, Worcester v. Georgia (1832) required nothing of Jackson, so it is unlikely he said this, but it points to another remedy. The Congress or the President can decide not to give effect to a Supreme Court decision. This of course would create a Constitutional “crisis” and place things in a state of tension. But as Hamilton points out in Federalist 78: the reason he calls the Judiciary the “least dangerous branch” (boy, was he wrong!) is because“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 comports with Jefferson’s opinion that “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”[2] In other words: the Congress and President are to act as a check on an activist Judiciary.

Presidential pardon: The President’s pardon power, found in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1, gives the President the ability to demonstrate that he believes a court acted improperly. Immediately upon taking office in 1801, President Thomas Jefferson pardoned everyone jailed under the onerous Sedition Act of 1798 (which had given rise to the doctrine of nullification) and even went so far as to return their fines.
Nullification: We discussed this last week on “The Constitution Matters” (you can download the podcast from WFYL’s website). The states and/or the people are free to (and should, according to the venerable Sir William Blackstone) ignore a judicial ruling as null and void if it contravenes natural or revealed law (like the definition of marriage?). A final remedy would be jury nullification, which was used to great effect in response to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and in the aftermath of prohibition (Volstead Act). In both cases juries (Northern juries, obviously, in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act) routinely refused to render guilty verdicts, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt. This action rendered the acts essentially null and void in those jurisdictions.

There are probably other remedies that can be sought in the face of judicial activism. But in the end, what gives a judicial opinion legitimacy (for that is simply what it is: an opinion) is the reaction of the people. A Supreme Court opinion is not the law of the land unless we give it that status.

The Constitution does not begin with “We the Judges,” “We the Congress” or with “ I the President.” As I tell all my classes, it is the peoples’ document (with all due respect to those who hold it to be a compact of the states) and “We the People” need to take individual ownership of it. We need to actively work with our representatives in Congress to “put right” terrible Court decisions, and there are many ways to do so. There have been many terrible Supreme Court decisions over the years and Obergefell, I fear, is not the last of them.

Join us tomorrow morning, 7am, on WFYL (Listen Live at to hear your trusty commentators, joined by special guest, Dr. Herb Titus, Founding Dean of the Regent University Law School, as we discuss: “Judicial Activism.”

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc. To unsubscribe from future mailings by Constitution Leadership Initiative, click here
[1] Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U. S. ____ (2015)

[2] Letter to Abigail Adams, 1804.