Power Pack Center For Social And Economic Justice
February 17, 2016
Today the nation is discussing replacing the Late Justice Scalia; however, I strongly suggest before entertaining filling the vacancy – read the Late Justice Scalia’s Dissenting Opinion that he issued last year in the case granting marriage to same-sex couples. I submit to you the greatest accomplishment of the Late Justice Scalia is his dissenting opinion in this case. Thus his dissenting opinion should not be filed away, however it is his report to 320 million Americans and is no less than a call to action to help bring the Supreme Court in check.
The Late Justice Scalia’s dissenting Opinion can serve as an indictment to the Court – And Chief Justice Roberts’, Justice Thomas’ and Justice Alito’s dissenting opinions can support the Indictment. Surely this is a call to action.
After carefully reading the Ruling on Same Sex Marriage, to include the Syllabus, the Opinion of the Court and the four Justices dissenting Opinions it is fair to say there is just cause to take immediate action to help bring the Supreme Court in check because there is reasonable evidence that the Court has failed to operate within the confines of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts made the following observation: “It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment. It is more attuned to the lessons of history, and what it has meant for the country and Court when Justices have exceeded their proper bounds. And it is less pretentious than to suppose that while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition.” Chief Justice Roberts concludes the decision of the Majority Five had nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States. Besides Chief Roberts’ assertion, the three other Justices with dissenting opinions reached the same conclusion.
I submit this report as a concerned citizen, and a Man of God, who loves both God and country. Moreover, I support the rule of law; therefore it is imperative that I bring this to the attention of the citizens of America attention because the ruling on Same-sex marriage has been made by the Majority of five Justices. However, the Chief Justice and three other Justices expressed dissenting opinions that questioned the constitutionality of the Ruling. This matter is too serious to be filed away as other dissenting opinions may be.
Below you will find some of the critical highlights of dissenting opinions to include the Late Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. I am using highlights from their opinions as the foundation of the discussion of this report.
The Role of the Supreme Court is not to revise the constitution. However, The Late Justice Scalia claims that the Court engaged in constitutional revision by claiming power to grant “liberties” that the Constitution and it Amendments neglected to mention.
The Late Justice Scalia claims that the Court had no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendments’ text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification.
The Late Justice Scalia claims that a system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy. Here is a quote from the late Justice Scalia: “Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
The Late Justice Scalia explained the composition of the Court to be nine lawyers who studied at Yale or Harvard Law School, (It contains not a single evangelical Christian about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. Justice Scalia saw a need to point out the composition of the Court because the Court created social transformation and did not represent the people. Here is a quote from the Late Justice Scalia: “And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than on taxation without representation; no social transformation without representation.”
The Late Justice Scalia declared: “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And 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.”
Chief Justice Roberts concludes the decision of the Majority Five had nothing to do with the Constitution. He states: “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
Here is another quote from Chief Justice Roberts that support his assertion. “Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.”
“The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution.”
Chief Justice Roberts adds, “Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant. When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.”
Chief Justice Roberts explained that the Majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. Here is a quote from Chief Justice Roberts: “Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.”
In Justice Thomas’ dissent he states: “Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society.” Listen carefully, in order for the state to provide dignity - this means that you must embrace the sexual immorality of others. God forbid!
In Justice Alito’s dissent, he stated “Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.”
Justice Alito also declared: “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that preaching about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”
Justice Alito added: “But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)
Four Justices of the Supreme Court gave dissenting opinions in the case regarding same-sex marriages that questioned the constitutionality of the Ruling made by the Majority. Their augments are compelling and they should not be just filed away because what is at stake here is whether or not the Court is able to uphold the rule of law. Surely, there is a vacancy that needs to be filled, however the problem goes beyond filling a vacancy – Justice Alito explained the problem as evidences of deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. However, the Late Justice Scalia called the action of the Majority Five Justices Judicial Putsch. In plain talk – The Late Justice Scalia alleges that these Justices of the Supreme Court have secretly plotted to suddenly execute the overthrow of the government through the judicial process. This is very serious and it must not be taken lightly. Surely, this gives the Senate grounds to be concerned about the next appointment to the Court by President Obama. This allegation should bring concern to all America – the Supreme Court must not serve as a political extension to any political party.
The People deserve a Judicial Branch that does not legislate from the bench, but respects the rule of law to bring about sound judgment. Although ruling was made regarding same-sex marriage, thus declaring DOMA and other States laws to be unconstitutional it did not resolve the problem because the Majority has attempted to impose social transformation without the representation of the people. Chief Justice Roberts declared that a cloud has been cast over same-sex marriage. Consequently, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is not commissioned to create and impose such transformation. The Late Justice Scalia, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito have done their part by offering their dissents. Now it is up to the People, the Legislative Branch and the President to do their part. The Law of the Land says that the Supreme Ruling is final, however in this case the ruling poses a very unique problem – Four members of the Court are questioning the constitutionality of the judgment and indicates this act of creating reformation is not in the power of the Court. Therefore, this matter is still not resolved. The concerns of the four Justices that they conveyed in their dissenting opinions are serious and should be answered before The Court resume normal operations. Chief Justice Roberts expressed that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment. Based on the facts conveyed to the People by these dissents – the Court went beyond legal judgment and to bring forth transformation. Therefore, this ruling should be deemed illegitimate; this is a call for the People to come together and put the Court in check. For the People rule the Court – The Court Must Not Rule The People – The Court is Not Empowered to Make Law – The Court Role is to interpret the laws based on the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts has declared that the Constitution had nothing to do will this ruling. Therefore, this is a call for action for the People who love both God and Country.
The President, Every Member of the House and Senate, Every Governor, Every Mayor, Every Judge – to include state and local, State Representatives to include every law maker across the land, every talk-show host that addresses these issues, every news media, every pastor, and religious leader, and concerned citizens to read the Court Record on Same-sex Marriage
The Members of the Supreme Court suspend their schedule on hearing any future cases until they do the following: (a) Engage in internal teambuilding exercises and work through some very serious culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation. (b) Moreover, every member of the current Court should make a self-examination and determine if they are fit to carry-out the duty of serving as a Justice on the Supreme Court – One of the chief questions each Justice must ask of himself or herself is “Can I set aside my personal views on subjects that are very dear to me. Moreover, each Justice should examine himself or herself regarding political party loyalty to ensure that this is not a factor that interferes with rendering sound judgment.
The Members of the Supreme Court to visit the Declaration of Independence regarding where the people of this nation receive their entitlements. The respect of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God must be considered when entertaining marriage – An Institution of God. Under the Laws of nature, man should not lie down with a dog, sheep, and another animal – moreover under the Laws of Nature, man should not lie down with another man as he would lie down with a woman. Surely, when the Laws of Nature are considered there would be no ground to approve homosexual marriages. Surely, this will be a test and a task for the Court. The question! Is it the Court’s Will to operate under the rule of Law or the will of a select group?
The Members of the Supreme Court should not resume operations until after members have resigned if there are some who found himself or herself to be unfit to continue and the Court has gained confidence that it can function as a Body upholding the rule of law.
After the Court deems that it is fit to conduct the business of the Court – Revisit Law regarding same-sex marriage and resolve the concerns regarding the constitutionality of the Law.
As the President questioned the constitutionality of DOMA and did not enforce the Law – Here it is recommended that the President issue another executive order to halt all homosexual marriages until the Court resolves this matter.
When the President nominates the next candidate for the Court, he considers the lessons-learned from this failure of this Court and ensure that the candidate that he nominates understand the concerns.
The members of the Senate and House must understand that the Members of the Supreme Court are not an extension of their political party; however they are a separate Branch of the Government. If there is no law on the books, create a law that will strictly prohibit members from any branch of government to interfere in any way with the decisions of the Supreme Court at any time. Since the death of Justice Scalia, there have been talks of blocking the President’s nomination. Surely, this suggests there is an apparent problem with the current Court. Could the problem be political parties influence on the Court? Recommend that every door be closed to ensure that this becomes a reality that the Court does not serve as an extension of any political party.
The People organize to protest the Court for creating social transformation without People representation. Every religious group and concerned citizen should get involved in this movement. First, there must be an educational campaign to empower and equip the people. One of the desired outcomes of the campaign is for the citizens of the United States to understand whereby their entitlements are derived. This should be done by visiting the Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” To this end the People will understand that the entitlements of the People of the United States of America come from the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Under the Laws of Nature – Man should not lie down with a dog, sheep or any other animal – moreover under the Laws of Nature Man should not lie down with another man as he would lie down with a woman.
Recommend that Committees be established in the House and the Senate to address the problem of same-sex marriage because it is apparent that the Court has not resolved this matter. Consequently, this matter must go before the Court again when the Court is prepared to hear it. However, before the matter goes before the Court – the President, the House and Senate must understand that Marriage is an Institution of God – An Institution of the Union between a Man and a Woman. The leadership of the United States must understand that this nation is the youngest most of nations and is has no authority to redefine an Institution of God. The leadership must understand that our entitlements are based on the Laws of Nature and of the Nature’s God. Every leader must understand why the following statement was declared in the Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The President to issue an executive order to cease and desist all training on sexual orientation for youth in the school systems throughout America.
These recommendations are not all inclusive; therefore the individuals and groups who love both God and Country should make recommendations and take actions as God directs them.
Authority for the Report
Now some of you are asking who am I to make this report and make these types of recommendations. Well are you ready for this truth! I am a Prophet of God in the name of Jesus. Prior to the death the of Late Justice Scalia, I did not know anything about him. However, immediately after I learned that he died, I went to the web and made a search on him and read his full dissent on the same-sex marriage case. Next, I did a quick view of the Court Record on the Same-sex Marriage Case. Before I retired for the evening, I asked God to order my steps and show me what was to come. I had a dream about my brother, the Late Pastor Robert Lee Richmond who died last year. He gave me the phone. The next words that I heard were “This is Scalia!” I said Who? Again he said: “This is Scalia!” Again I asked who? The voice said: “Scalia!” I did not awake up immediately from the dream however, next I am at my car ready to get in when I am approached by two young ladies selling women clothing and bags. I told them that I was not interested in buying anything. As I begin to back out the car there was a woman across the street she gave instructions to one of the young ladies. When I pulled onto the street – I saw water shoot up through a storm drain with the pressure of a powerful hose. I put my car in park and I looked on the other side of the street and I could see a wall of water coming between the houses toward where I was. I began to back up my car. Then I awoke from the dream. There was no warning; however there were many homes in the path of destruction.
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 I read the entire Ruling of the Court Case on Same-sex Marriage. On February 15, 2016, I studied the case and then prepared this work. What compelled me to do this you may ask?
Now let me answer your question. God sent me. The Late Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion is a call to action. God loves America – Marriage is an Institution of God – Man does not have the power nor the authority to Change God’s Institution of Marriage. By the time some of you will read this communication the incident regarding the “wall of water” would have already happened or it will happen very soon. This is the way that you will know that God has sent me in the name of Jesus with this message. This is not a new experience for me to receive revelations from God. God revealed to me 9/11 before it happened. I wrote President George W. Bush 13 times at the direction of God and all revelations have come to pass. I have written President Barack Obama more than 20 times and the revelations keep coming to pass.
God loves America and God wants to bless America. However, the leadership has caused the People to err. Today, every branch of Government in the United States is corrupt. The President has demonstrated that He does not Fear God; consequently we do some of the things that God hates. The House and Senate have issued laws that have failed to protect the Democracy - In order to have a government for and by the people – Democracy must keep capitalism in check. Now the Supreme Court must be brought in Check. Visit our web site at www.revelationuptotheminute.org to discover more about the ministry and other revelations.
I pray that you will answer this call for action. Moreover, I pray in the name of Jesus that leadership of America will adhere to the counsel of God in the name of Jesus.
Elmore Richmond Jr., President
Power Pack Center For Social And Economic Justice
A Prophet of God in the Name of Jesus