Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – The way I read history and the way it used to be read all the way up until, I don’t know, maybe 1971 or so, to the “modern era,” the Supreme Court was convened and existed because of Article III in the U.S. Constitution. I know it’s old and antiquated, fuddy-duddy, and we don’t use it anymore. It’s dead and doesn’t mean what it once was. People in 1788 couldn’t have possibly known that Stan would be in love with Steve and would need a marriage license and it would have to be under the blessing of the Supreme Court, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know all those things. Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: How long before we have the Defense of BFF act? That state doesn’t recognize him as my BFF. [mocking] “I ought to be able to claim my BFF as an expense on my taxes.” — “He’s just your friend.” — “He’s not just my friend, he’s a BFF.” Mr. Church, you’re being ridiculous. Exactly. The fact that the Supreme Court is actually hearing this ought to just set off alarm bells from one end of the continent to the other that we truly are at the end of days. I’m going to ask the question of the audience and then I’ll answer it, because I doubt anyone listening out there will attempt to answer it. If the federal union and if the judiciary convened under the federal union, which is what the Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court claims its power — let’s go through a little history here first.
What powers does the Supreme Court have? From whence does it derive its powers? The way I read history and the way it used to be read all the way up until, I don’t know, maybe 1971 or so, to the “modern era,” the Supreme Court was convened and existed because of Article III in the U.S. Constitution. I know it’s old and antiquated, fuddy-duddy, and we don’t use it anymore. It’s dead and doesn’t mean what it once was. People in 1788 couldn’t have possibly known that Stan would be in love with Steve and would need a marriage license and it would have to be under the blessing of the Supreme Court, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, I know all those things.
Still, without Article III of this thing called the U.S. Constitution, there is no Supreme Court. That’s where its powers come from. If that’s where its powers come from, then that’s where its powers ought to be defined. In the definition of its powers, there is nothing in there, not a shred, not an iota, not even an implication that Article III granted any powers to the Supreme Court to hear what amounts to be social distinction and social issues and to settle them amongst the people of a state. We’re not even talking about interstate commerce or anything here. No one is even intimating that.
Let’s go back a priori, from the start. The court has certain powers and it is to exercise those powers — someone asked the question yesterday: Mike, what the hell are we supposed to do, you moron? What can anybody do to stop this? You do have a Congress. The Congress could, if they wanted to — let’s just say that this verdict goes down the way that many says it is, and that is that Justice Anthony Kennedy provides vote five and helps to strike down California’s Proposition 8, and then strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act.
What was the Defense of Marriage Act? The Defense of Marriage Act was a plea from many states that refused to adopt same-sex marriage statutes. It was a plea for Congress to use its legitimate powers and to say that the acts of those state legislatures must be recognized. It specifically says in the act that federal courts can’t overturn the acts of those states. That’s what the Defense of Marriage Act is. That’s what it was supposed to do. It is constitutional.
So the Supreme Court gets its powers from the Constitution. Is there anything in the Constitution that says the people of California cannot debate social policy amongst themselves? No. Is there anything in the Constitution that says that the churches that reside inside the State of California cannot debate whether or not they are to confer marriage ceremonies on peoples of whatever sexual disposition? No. Is there anything in there that would imply that the Supreme Court should hear these things? Ted Olson made the argument: This is covered under the 14th Amendment.
There it is again, the miracle amendment. Amendment 14 fixes everything. If you have a dispute at a bingo hall, Amendment 14 can solve it. If there is an argument twixt you and a guy you sold a used car to, Amendment 14 can fix it. If you have been jilted by a girlfriend or a boyfriend, Amendment 14 can solve it. If you have been asked to leave a neighbor’s house because you were a boorish brute, Amendment 14 can solve it. If you had a disagreement with a soon-to-be fellow shopper at Wal-Mart over which one of you was going to get the buggy with the racecar attached to it for your little brat to ride inside, Amendment 14 can solve it. There’s nothing that the miracle amendment can’t solve.
As I asked my muse on these things, Professor Gutzman, whether or not any of that was true, he said: Of course not. I have the book and I’ve read the pertinent parts of the debate. All one has to do is go back to the time of the 14th Amendment’s writing and when it was debated and ratified to find out that the framers of it knew that Congress could not exert and the courts could not exert the kind of authority that we were told yesterday in the Supreme Court that the general government ought to be exerting.
My question then is, what do you need the union for anymore? What do you need the protection of the federal government for? For what purpose do you need it? You’re going to pass laws and they’re going to strike them down. What do you need them for? You’re going to have legitimate acts of your legislature that are going to come under scrutiny from them. What do you need them for? They’re now going to claim, as they have for over a hundred years now, that the land that your state calls its own is not actually its own, not actually the state’s own. It doesn’t matter who owns it. The feds, if they decide to, can come in and confiscate it, regulate it, cordon it off, make it useless, can render it invaluable or without value simply by saying: No, you can’t drill there. We don’t care if there’s oil down there; there’s a windmill that needs to go up down the street.
What do you need a union for? Why do you need to be in a union anymore if the purpose of the union is not to protect your laws and your people? The Constitution was sold to those that ratified it. To quote the historical record, it was also sold all along the way as it was being used and as it was being referred to to settle controversies. All along the way it was said that the peace of the people and the felicity and good feeling between the people were only existing and the anger and dissention in the ranks was being kept at bay. The things that may have pitted one state against another were being kept at bay, or as James Madison would call it, one faction against another was being kept at bay by the existence of the union and by its courts and legislature. For a long time, that was basically true. It’s not true anymore. Now it’s the exact opposite.
What purpose does it serve? If the states were actually states in the 18th century and 19th century definition, even in the 20th century definition of the word, meaning countries, then why would they accept this kind of totalitarian dominance from the center? Why wouldn’t the State of California just say: You just butt out of our gay marriage, dope-smoking affairs. We got it. We don’t need your help. Then we ultimately arrive at the real reason why all of this is tolerated. The reason all of it is tolerated at the end of the day all comes down to the almighty dollar. The only reason any of this will fly is simply because there are too many dollars at stake.
End Mike Church Show Transcript