Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Now, it may alter some of the way that common law was applied and used in the federal government in discharging its duties, but it would not alter the common law that the people were living under when they ratified the Constitution. This is why those farmers in western Pennsylvania were so shocked when they got slapped with the whiskey tax. Not that that was common law, but they were surprised that Congress would even claim that authority.” 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
Caller: I’d heard him talking about — forgive me, I don’t remember the article. I want to say Article II where it says the law of nature and nature’s god, and how there was a case that was brought before either a state court or Supreme Court where the state was looking to define, give a secular definition to marriage. The court came back and said the marriage predated our law and therefore, because it was up to the law of nature and nature’s god, it is not up to the state to be able to define marriage in any way, shape, or form.
Mike: Yeah, but that’s not — the law of nature and nature’s god, that’s not from the Constitution. That’s from the Declaration. That doesn’t have anything to do with this. The Declaration of Independence, contrary to Harry Jaffa and the rest of the anti-scholarly blobists out there that the Declaration somehow establishes indissoluble union and that its laws are still in effect is just ridiculous. The Continental Congress didn’t even operate under that ridiculous notion. The Continental Congress in 1776 knew that the Declaration of Independence hadn’t established anything other than declaring independence. You know how we know this? Because in November of 1776, I think November the 8th, what passed out of a committee and went to what we would call a committee of the whole of the Continental Congress to be voted upon? The Articles of Confederation. If the Declaration established an indissoluble government that was forevermore, anyone that got within 5,000 miles of it was forevermore wedded together, then why the heck would they need Articles of Confederation? Just the term confederate, when you confederate, what are you doing? You’re forming a union. You’re forming a pact. You’re forming a compact.
The argument that you heard him make — for all my lawyer friends out there, I’m going to butcher the law and legal terms, but let me take a stab at this. What he meant to say was that prior to the Constitution going into effect — and James Madison actually did write a Federalist Paper about this and he was asked about this and explained this in Virginia’s ratifying convention. Prior to that, there would have been what they would have called then English common law. The Constitution could not repeal common law. It would have to exist side by side.
Now, it may alter some of the way that common law was applied and used in the federal government in discharging its duties, but it would not alter the common law that the people were living under when they ratified the Constitution. This is why those farmers in western Pennsylvania were so shocked when they got slapped with the whiskey tax. Not that that was common law, but they were surprised that Congress would even claim that authority. The authority to tax principally rested with the legislature of Pennsylvania and then the localities that existed inside Pennsylvania. That’s what he was talking about, that common law would predate the Declaration and the Constitution. Men were living under law that had helped them order their lives and had allowed them to create the polite society that could form a Continental Congress. That’s what he was talking about.
The argument still is, if you look in the gospels, you can see the act of marriage mentioned by our Lord. This is as clear as any bell that has ever been rung. If you’re looking for the correct teaching on this, it is to be found in the magisterium. Yes, I’m going to say it. Yes, many of you are going to be angry. I apologize in advance. It’s going to be found in the magisterium of the Catholic Church. That’s where you’re going to find it at. It’s going to go all the way back to discussions that were being held or that were being written about all the way back to St. Ambrose, for Heaven’s sakes, Augustine, even before then, all the way back to the writings and the works of St. John the Evangelist. This is not up for debate. God’s law as truth is not up for a vote. We’re not going to have a vote on it. If we are, then we’re cooked anyways.
End Mike Church Show Transcript