The Mike Church Show World HQ
The Mike Church Show World HQ
The latest "American Statesman" book from Mike Church, hailed by Professor Kevin Gutzman
The latest “American Statesman” book from Mike Church, hailed by Professor Kevin Gutzman

The Supreme Court only owns that power Alabama gave Congress when they ratified the Constitution. Mariage was NOT on the list

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript “Wilson got it backwards.  As to the purposes of a union, the union can’t be sovereign.  It’s a country club of states.  It acts upon the will and the power that is granted it by the state.  Only a sovereignty can grant power.  So then, the State of Georgia was acting as a sovereign entity, it only delegated some of its sovereign functions.  See, Wilson has it backwards here.  What I mean by Wilson has it backwards — I think there’s a transcript or two on my website at MikeChurch.com where I’ve discussed this before.  Only a sovereign entity could tell the union or the government that was going to be formed to serve some of the purposes of the union: Look, we want you to do this for us.  But them conferring a power to be executed on their behalf does not confer a sovereignty.  Only a sovereignty can confer a sovereignty.  That should make sense.”  Check out today’s transcript AND Clip of the Day for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW!

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Taylor’s concept of sovereignty is one that would serve the people of Alabama very well today.  The people in Alabama standing up to, or a judge in Alabama standing up to the Supreme Court of the United States and saying: I am not going to issue homosexual marriage licenses.  The Supreme Court is saying: It’s a lower court judge and it’s unconstitutional that you don’t so you have to.  Well, the answer ought to be, from the people of and from Judge Roy Moore, the answer should be not that we’re just going to defy you because we can, although I don’t have any problem with that, standing as a matter of faith and saying: No, a majority of the people in this state have a religious objection to it and we’re not going to do it.  That’s not going to happen, though.  There will be some legal codicil or reason that will be attached to it.  I’ll give you one that’s legal, and it has to do with the issue of sovereignty.

I’ve asked this question before on this show: What is a state?  Most people answer: A state, that’s where I live.  Okay, so you live in Virginia.  I live in Louisiana.  We’re talking about Alabama.  We perceive a state is what then?  What makes up a state?  Is it a geographical border?  This is another part of the modern perversion of governmental systems that we are infected and afflicted with.  In the empires of Europe, or in the countries and states [private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime] of Europe in Christendom, from around the fifth century or so all the way up until — Italy wasn’t formed as a concentric country until after World War I or around that time.  They were just made up of a bunch of little states that called themselves the Italian States.  This is how it was.  You might have had borders “We go all the way to that river there,” but not map borders the way we have today.  The people that would live under a certain cultural identity might have a specific language, French, for example, Spanish, for example.  Different things made a territory what we would call a state.  Here today most people think a state is whatever the boundaries say it is.

Let’s just pretend there aren’t any boundaries, just for a moment here.  Would the people of Alabama be able to distinguish themselves from the people of Tennessee?  It’s nearby and has a border with it.  With the people of Georgia?  It’s nearby and has a border with it.  With the people of Florida?  It’s nearby and has a border with it.  With the people of Mississippi?  It’s nearby and has a border with it.  I think I covered it all.  I don’t have a map in front of me.  If I didn’t, forgive me.  With all those states that I mentioned, with the people that are claiming that they’re not going to buckle to the pressure of the Supreme Court to issue the homosexual marriage license, without the borders with the states I just mentioned, would they be able to distinguish themselves from those other peoples?

If we were operating under the way our forefathers operated, it’s very probable that yes, they could and they would.  It would be because of certain customs, certain distinctions, maybe certain laws, the way they conducted their affairs or businesses, the way property was treated, the way it was taxed, etc., etc.  This question was asked in this case in 1792, Chisholm v. Georgia.  What then makes a state sovereign?  If it’s not the border, is it the people?   The Supreme Court said that — you’d have to read the ruling.  James Wilson argued:

[reading]

. . . that the citizens of Georgia, when they acted upon the large scale of the union, as part of the “People of the United States,” did not surrender the supreme or sovereign power to that state; but, as to the purposes of the union, retained it to themselves. As to the purposes of the union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state . . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  Wilson got it backwards.  As to the purposes of a union, the union can’t be sovereign.  It’s a country club of states.  It acts upon the will and the power that is granted it by the state.  Only a sovereignty can grant power.  So then, the State of Georgia was acting as a sovereign entity, it only delegated some of its sovereign functions.  See, Wilson has it backwards here.  Alabama could use — I don’t want to get too deep in the weeds in this.  What I mean by Wilson has it backwards — I think there’s a transcript or two on my website at MikeChurch.com where I’ve discussed this before.  Only a sovereign entity could tell the union or the government that was going to be formed to serve some of the purposes of the union: Look, we want you to do this for us.  But them conferring a power to be executed on their behalf does not confer a sovereignty.  Only a sovereignty can confer a sovereignty.  That should make sense.

So the only power then that the federal government or the union would have acting as the federal government was whatever power the actual sovereign people and the sovereign states granted to it.  That’s the only power it could exercise.  Therefore, the federales, the federal government as we know it today — the IRS is not a sovereign entity, in other words.  It can’t grant itself its own power.  It does but it can’t, it’s not supposed to.  The Health and Inhuman Disservices Department is not a sovereign entity.  The congress of the United States is not a sovereign entity.  It relies on elections for members to be sent from the people, from the sovereign people of the states to go discharge a few specific powers.

If you read the book that I edited and labored over for nine months, John Taylor of Caroline County American Statesman, in those Spirit of ’76 essays, he explains all this.  He explains it very well as a matter of fact.  I’m drawing heavily upon Taylor to make this argument.  So then, did the people of Alabama, acting in their sovereign capacity, did they delegate to the federal government of the United States, when they ratified the Constitution or any of the amendments, did they delegate the sovereign authority or a sovereignty over them to make, for example, their marriage laws or to comment on their marriage laws, or to comment on their incest laws, etc., etc.?  If you were to ask the people of Alabama, they’d say no.  Vast majorities of them would say no and they’d be correct.

So what did they delegate?  They delegated a few specific powers, they were very clear about it, and that’s all they delegated.  Anything else they didn’t delegate was reserved.  That does not mean that the entity that they created is then free to act as though it’s a sovereign entity, make its own rules up that the people of Alabama are going to live under, and then force them or compel them to live under them.  Again, the process is backwards.  Had Alabama or Louisiana or Oklahoma or any other state that’s fighting the federal monstrosity on the issue of homosexual marriages, had they granted that authority, then they could use it against them.  But they did not grant them that authority and no one ever thought they did grant that authority until very recently, in the last 15, 20 years.  Of course, if you go back to Griswold v. Connecticut, there is an implied power that the court has.

Folks, these are powers that have been grabbed.  They were not delegated.  There is a vast difference between the two.  If the people of Alabama — and they are the state.  The people are the state.  You are the state.  I am the state.  I am the state of Louisiana.  You people listening to me in Louisiana, you’re the state.  The legislature, again, acts on your behalf.  If you did not grant these powers, then who did?  Can anyone answer the question?  Who did?  Congress certainly didn’t grant to the Supreme Court this power.  If it did, it could rescind it.

What is Alabama to do as it’s being told by the Supreme Court that it must start issuing homosexual marriage licenses?  They could have an emergency session, if they’re not already in session, and they could vote like the citizens of Georgia did in their legislature in Chisholm v. Georgia.  They could vote to tell the federales: You come in here and try to enforce this edict, we will arrest you.  If we find you guilty, we’re going to try you as a heretic and hang you.  Of course, they weren’t trying federal marshals as heretics in Georgia.  They were just protecting what they thought was their sovereign right to their own land, which is what came up in the case.

Probably by the end of today or tomorrow the State of Alabama will cave, just like everyone else is going to cave on this, because someone is going to threaten to withhold money, etc., etc., and the rot will continue.  Ladies and gentlemen, they will not stop, meaning the Supreme Court and those that are driving it — it’s a joke to call the court supreme, by the way.  The Supreme Court and the forces that are driving it are not going to stop at this.  It would be nice to think that finally a state is going to say: No.  Come hell or high water, no, we’re not going to do it.  It’s not going to happen. [/private]

Andrew Bieszad mentioned the story of St Fernando fighting the Muslim hordes and we carry James Fitzhenry's wonderful biography of Fernando, autographed by the author.
Andrew Bieszad mentioned the story of St Fernando fighting the Muslim hordes and we carry James Fitzhenry’s wonderful biography of Fernando, autographed by the author.

But I’m under no delusion that it will happen.  That doesn’t mean I can’t wish for it, but I just wish for the people of Alabama to be apprised of the fact that you did not delegate this authority to this exterior body, and, therefore, under what legitimate authority, under what form or sense of subsidiarity do they claim to be able to tell you you have to do this?

Depending on whose side you’re on, you have a duty to resist this.  Of course, you’re going to have to resist it from a religious point of view.  Unless you’re going to do like Oklahoma is doing — these guys have it figured out, which is to say: We’re not issuing any more civil licenses.  Screw you.  There aren’t going to be any licenses issued in the state.  You only get married in this state if a clergy of the Catholic Church or other denomination of church decides to marry you.  There are no civil authorities.  We won’t recognize them.  If Oklahoma passes this law, are they going to force Oklahoma to recognize civil marriages?  Can they?  Isn’t that a First Amendment issue?  I think so.  Draw the battle lines, my friends.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

Become a CRUSADER Today!

SUPPORT THE MIKE CHURCH SHOW
AND BECOME A PREMIUM MEMBER TODAY!
CHOOSE A MONTHLY SUPPORT LEVEL
$9.00 Basic Founders Pass
$16.67 PREMIUM Founding Brother
$49.99 PREMIUM Founding Father

GO PREMIUM FOR 30 DAYS FREE!

Click for 30 days FREE of the Mike Church Show

Signup for Mike’s Daily [r]epublican Newsletter

Subscribe: Red Pill Diary Podcast

>
Scroll Up