Gay marriage is not legal in California; it never has been. In fact, it was for all intents and purpose struck down by the people of California when Proposition 22 was passed. Just because four, only four judicial activists declared gay marriage legal in California in and of itself does not make it legal. The California constitution only allows for the revocation of a voter-approved ballot initiative by the voters themselves. So how have we come to do this, the courts usurping the will of the people? Because we have two other branches of government AWOL.

1. The two supposed stronger branches have been acquiescing to the weaker judiciary department both its constitutional power and its responsibility to the people they serve.  This has served to empower judges who once knew their limits.

2. By constantly battling with the courts on issues that could be solved by a strong executive and/or determined and reactive legislative, the judiciary, and sadly too many Americans, considers the courts the final authority on matters of law.

Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist Paper # 81 tried to calm the fears of judicial tyranny:

It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount to AN INCONVENIENCE, or in any sensible degree TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. This may be inferred with certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from ITS COMPARATIVE WEAKNESS, AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE. And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which THE POWER OF INSTITUTING IMPEACHMENTS IN ONE PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon the members of the judicial department. THIS IS ALONE A COMPLETE SECURITY. THERE NEVER CAN BE DANGER THAT THE JUDGES, BY A SERIES OF DELIBERATE USURPATIONS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE, WOULD HAZARD THE UNITED RESENTMENT OF THE BODY INTRUSTED WITH IT, WHILE THIS BODY WAS POSSESSED OF THE MEANS OF PUNISHING THEIR PRESUMPTION, BY DEGRADING THEM FROM THEIR STATIONS. While this ought to remove all apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments.  (Emphasis mine)

The judiciary is not to cause AN INCONVENIENCE nor is it TO AFFECT THE ORDER OF THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.  Why is that?  It is because the judiciary has no real power because of ITS COMPARATIVE WEAKNESS, AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE.  Let me play that last clause one more time a little louder (you’ll forgive me for shouting):

…AND FROM ITS TOTAL INCAPACITY TO SUPPORT ITS USURPATIONS BY FORCE.

Therein lays the whole basis of the argument; why are we going to the courts instead of the executive branch to fight our battles?  If it is because they will not support us, then take it to the people. 

And if we have runaway judges it is because we have a legislative branch that has removed the fear from the judiciary of the HAZARD THE UNITED RESENTMENT OF THE BODY INTRUSTED WITH IT might actually bring.  In fact, the last time a legislator spoke of the power that the legislature, THIS BODY (that is) POSSESSED OF THE MEANS OF PUNISHING THEIR [the judiciary’s] PRESUMPTION, BY DEGRADING THEM FROM THEIR STATIONS; in other words, bringing rogue and runaway judges up for impeachment…the last man to do so was Tom DeLay and he was excoriated in the press.  He should have been hailed as a hero by the evangelical community and all freedom loving federalist conservatives.

My goal is to see the constitutional powers set back to their original order.  I clearly understand the need for courts and I’m thankful for all the work the pro-family movement has done in that arena.  My concern is that we’ve spent so much attention and resources on judicial activism that we have ignored executive and legislative inactivity.  I think we can do it all but we have to wake America from its slumber.

Christians send their $20 a month to their favorite pro-family group and then brag on “being involved.”  Please!  I’m grateful they are willing to give to worthy causes, but as the late great Christian artist Keith Green once said, “Jesus doesn’t need your wallet; He needs you.”

Can Jesus count on you?

David Jeffers is a lay preacher, retired Army Master Sergeant and author of Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland. A Magna Cum Laude graduate of Liberty University where he received his degree in Biblical Studies, Mr. Jeffers frequently comments on the Evangelical perspective of current affairs in the media. Mr. Jeffers has published numerous articles on The New Media Journal and appears regularly on talk radio shows around the country.

---

Users' Comments (1)

Add your comment