web analytics
≡ Menu

For States’ AGs Holder oks nullification?

SmallLogoLTLIt’s not surprising. Eric Holder thinks that it’s fine for States’ Attorneys General to nullify state laws that give legal protection to the unalienable rights of the God-endowed family.  Except of course for the President of the United States, Holder is the nation’s highest law enforcement official.  Yet he has withheld the laws’ protection from citizens victimized by crime because the criminals happened to be black.  He has also collaborated with Obama’s abuse of executive orders and his refusal faithfully to execute laws duly passed by Congress and signed into law.

Holder obviously believes in selective law enforcement, according to whatever criteria it pleases the Executive to apply.  In fact, he believes that the laws themselves may be altered at the whim of the Executive, as Obama has now repeatedly done with the Obamacare legislation, and the laws relating to immigration. It makes perfect sense for the minion of a lawless occupant of the White House to encourage State officials to imitate his boss. As Montesquieu pointed out long ago, when a despot governs a nation, the various regions in his jurisdiction will be governed by officials who mirror his despotic rule.

This is one of the things that makes despotism so pervasively oppressive.  Though one individual purports to rule the whole, his will is executed by means of a multitude of tyrants. So long as each subordinate tyrant stays on the good side of his master, he can abuse his share of power (however miniscule) to favor or oppress whomever he pleases.  This is why despotic systems (like the Communist Party dictatorship in the old Soviet Union) end up being so pervasively oppressive.  Despotism is a like a blanket of noisome fog, seeping by way of thousands of mini-tyrannies into every nook and cranny of a society’s existence.

According to the report I read, “Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it.”  It’s actually offensive to hear the pretense of respect for “equal protection” coming from someone who has made disregarding it a hallmark of his tenure. Be that as it may, each State’s officials have an obligation (imposed by the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment) to respect State laws that prevent the enforcement of “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Such privileges and immunities necessarily include those connected with the fulfillment of the natural law with respect to the perpetuation of the human species, i.e., the God-endowed rights of the natural family.

The lawful claims of the natural family are self-evidently among the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. They include:

  1. The essential root of the family in the God-endowed responsibility for procreation;
  2. The bond of parental obligation and responsibility that makes the tie between parents and their offspring the paradigm of all human belonging, all personal property;
  3. The parental authority derived from that bond; and
  4. The familial rights that parents and children exercise when they voluntarily fulfill their obligations to one another.

These lawful claims are inherent in human nature from the moment of its inception in the mind and will of the Creator. They are therefore prior to the existence of any other form of human government whatsoever. And human beings who consent to fulfill the Creator’s will for the procreation of humanity have exclusive claim to the privileges and immunities attendant upon their exercise of right in that regard.

As I have elsewhere discussed, the U.S. Constitution’s 9th Amendment plainly states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  Since the unalienable rights of the family subsist from the inception of human nature, people obviously possessed them at the time the Ninth Amendment was adopted.  Because they are unalienable, perforce they are retained, because unalienable rights cannot be taken or given away. In terms of the 9th Amendment, therefore, the inclusion of rights in the Constitution (especially the so-called “rights” now held to be Constitutional on account of novel constructions haphazardly erected by tendentious judges and justices) cannot be construed “to deny or disparage” these “others retained by the people.”   

But when judges, or States’ Attorneys General, or Obama and his collaborators, refuse to respect the right of the people of any State to protect the privileges and immunities of the God-endowed family from the implications of so-called “marriage” for homosexuals, they are palpably deny and disparaging natural rights.  For when a special right (meaning, in this context, a right that pertains to the species) is recognized in persons obviously incapable of exercising it, the connection between that exercise of right and the common good of all is disparaged.  The authority and protection of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” otherwise extended to parents and their children, respectively (to the latter in the form of an obligatory claim upon the parents for care and upbringing) is denied.

To add insult to injury, the privileges and immunities that arise from fulfilling this natural law obligation are disparaged and denied solely to procure personal gratification and pleasure for a couple of people who are, as a couple, in no wise capable of fulfilling the law’s requirements. The perpetual good of the whole species is thus, in principle, set aside from the meaning and import of marriage. Marriage, along with the family that develops from it, ceases to be a God-endowed institution, antecedent to all other forms of human governmental authority.  It becomes instead wholly an artifact of human authority. As such it can and will be redefined, retooled and redesigned according to the whims and purposes of those who govern until, along with the rights of human persons, human personality itself has been perverted into nothing more than a construct of the ruling powers.

Especially when one considers the implications of certain scientific advances currently in train, this portends the capricious manipulation of humanity as such.  The principle that makes this manipulation lawful is being promoted on the excuse of giving transient gratification to individuals whose chosen mode of physical gratification repudiates their natural obligation to respect the biological function that serves the common good of the species. The damage to the common good (including the individual good of children otherwise protected by the God-endowed natural law) is thus clearly out of all proportion to any benefit that may be claimed by the individuals purporting to receive it.

Far from respecting the “equal protection of the laws” this gives the name of law to the enforced prerogative of a privileged few, who successfully insist that, in service to their pleasure, the common good of all must suffer. This is the degradation of “commoners” so-called “nobles” and “aristocrats” have claimed as their prerogative throughout human history, under the perverse species of government whereby a self-idolizing elitist clique imposes their arbitrary rule on society as a whole.  Whatever Mr. Holder claims, the end result has always been the antithesis of equality.  If we do not soon awaken to the real intent of the elitist faction’s denial and disparagement of the God-endowed natural family, Americans will become painfully reacquainted with this result. Tragically we will not meet it as a lesson from the pages of past history, but as an ongoing fact, arrayed among others that are poised finally to extinguish our God-endowed liberty.

{ 3 comments… add one }
  • ken February 26, 2014, 11:39 pm

    AG Holder can tell us to ignore the 9th Amendment, but I still know how to discriminate between right and wrong,
    and if forced to photograph a homosexual couple or an abortion I would no doubt become sick and damage my camera with vomit.

  • Jeff Siderius February 26, 2014, 4:33 pm

    If Holder and Obama can nullify at will laws they don’t agree with, why can’t the states? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    • Alan Lee Keyes February 27, 2014, 9:04 am

      Obama and Holder want to destroy constitutional liberty. If the states simply imitate their lawlessness, Obama and Holder achieve their objective. The Constitution provides a constitutional way to deal with would-be tyrants like these. Visit pledgetoimpeach.com and help make it happen.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: