Which Presidential Candidate Rejects Judicial Supremacy? Only One...

Which Presidential Candidate Rejects Judicial Supremacy? Only One…

By Dr. Patrick Johnston

“Judicial supremacy” is what Mike Huckabee called “the greatest heresy of our day.” It is the belief that Congress, the president, and the states have a duty to obey whatever nutty, lawless decision the Supreme Court hands down. As of September 24, 2015, Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate who insists he will not comply with the Supreme Court’s unlawful, unconstitutional rulings, but will be duty-bound to defy them. Cruz, Carson, Carly, Christie, and all of the other Republican presidential candidates harbor the belief that the judiciary is supreme and its every decision binding.

Watch Huckabee defend the president’s duty to disregard lawless Supreme Court opinion here.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that the Constitution is supreme, not the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court trespasses its lawful, constitutional boundaries, they defy the law of the land – they do not become the law of the land. What are the Supreme Court’s lawful boundaries? Articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights says that whatever right or duty is not explicitly granted to the federal government is forbidden them, and “belongs to the states, or the people.” The federal government’s jurisdiction is limited to specifically enumerated powers; marriage law in the states, for example, is outside their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the three branches of the federal government are co-equal. “All” law-making power is vested in Congress, and the Executive branch is the enforcement branch. The courts cannot make law – they render opinions. They have no more right to make law than a terrorist does to pilot a domestic airline. Those who respect the judiciary’s lawless decisions are accomplices in their lawless acts. Especially when those Supreme Court decisions violate not only the Supreme law of the land – the U.S. Constitution – but when they dare to violate the laws of nature and nature’s God to justify child-killing by abortion and homosexual sodomy. Such decisions are no more binding than Hitler’s order for his subordinates to commence “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question” (aka the Holocaust).

The refusal of the Supreme Court to abide by the law makes this the most important issue for Christians and lovers of liberty. If a presidential candidate believes the High Court’s decisions are unconditionally binding, then what good is having the right opinion on life, on property rights, on gun rights, on immigration, on any issue that is important to religious conservatives? If they have a pre-commitment to enforce whatever tyrannical feces the Supreme Court dares to dump on the states, they will be accomplices in the tyranny, all their opinions notwithstanding. Judicial supremacy must be a deal breaker for us! That is why I could never support Ted Cruz – regardless of my appreciation for his faith and his defense of Christian values. If he is committed to obey any judicial decision from the Supreme Court, then he’d act tyrannically if ordered to do so.

What are the Republican candidates’ remedies for protecting marriage from sodomite distortion? A constitutional amendment? What a joke! Do you know how expensive and difficult it is to get a constitutional amendment passed? That’s like saying I will only be faithful to my wife if Congress will pass a resolution that I should do so. The hurdle we must jump to protect marriage is not nearly that high.

What’s the most common remedy proposed by conservatives to protect the preborn? Elect Republican presidents who will appoint enough pro-life justices until we finally acquire that majority on the High Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. They must think we’re idiots, especially since the Republican presidents keep appointing judges that destroy children. Most of the judges that gave us child-killing-on-demand with Roe and reaffirmed it in the Casey case were appointed by Republicans. (Check out Bush’s appointee Sam Alito’s pathetic record of killing preborn children with his gavel, a record most religious conservative leaders were all too happy to cover-up to save Bush’s reputation – and theirs.)

As Huckabee said, the president would be acting under his oath to unilaterally, under the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, protect the preborn from being killed, and protect traditional marriage from the Supreme Court’s vast over-reaching. Not only the president, but Congress and the states have no obligation to obey lawless and unconstitutional judicial decisions. All our leaders take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, which says government shall not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process. Our leaders do not have the duty or right to respect unlawful judicial decisions any more than Lincoln had a duty to respect the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that declared a runaway slave to be “property” and not a “person.” Thank God he defied the High Court, and passed the Amendment banning slavery. Our leaders have no more duty or right to enforce judicial tyranny than Ohio, Wisconsin, Pastor John Rankin, or Evangelist Charles Finney had to duty to obey Congress’ Federal Fugitive Slave Act, which they defied when they hid runaway slaves from the federal marshals and whip-wielding slave masters.

Huckabee’s views are confirmed in the words of our American forefathers:

 “[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson

Listen to these words from our forefathers: 

 “The powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.” – James Madison

 “A question arises whether all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, shall be left in this body? I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, whose government is in one Assembly.” – John Adams

 “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison

If we Republicans elect another Romney, McCain, or Bush – who fund Planned Parenthood, appoint pro-choice judges, and believe that they must enforce whatever nutty, lawless court decision that is flushed down the judiciary’s toilet, then we deserve the tyranny about which our forefathers warned us.

Read more about Huckabee’s commitment to defy judicial tyranny can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

To learn more about the right and duty of civil authorities to resist lawlessness from higher powers, purchase Matthew Trewhella’s book The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates, or my novel The Revolt of 2020.