Rediscovering and recovering lost and endangered American liberties by studying our Founders' ideas, contemporaries, and etymology – because our united States "…are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…"
In response to my letter to the Ohio Governor’s office requesting a motion for a rehearing of the Obergefell v Hodges ruling, Director of Constituent Affairs David Ward was good enough to write me a detailed, thoughtful explanation, which ended with the below paragraph:
In our constitutional system of government, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final word on what the law is. The Court has now spoken. I know you are very disappointed in the Court’s ruling and Governor Kasich shares your disappointment, but no further proceedings are available in this case after the Court’s ruling. The case is now concluded.
Thank you again for contacting the governor’s office.
Director of Constituent Affairs
Office of Ohio Governor John R. Kasich
Although I greatly appreciate all the Governor’s office has done in upholding their State marriage statutes thus far, the above answer is unacceptable to me. Therefore, I sent Mr. Ward this response:
Dear Mr. Ward,
Thank you very much for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I deeply appreciate the Governor’s office standing up for Ohio’s marriage statutes. I was not aware that a motion for recusal had been brought to the court before the ruling. I very much admire the effort that has been made by the Governor’s office in this lawsuit.
However, I strongly disagree that we must resign ourselves to the biased opinions of five unelected individuals – I do not believe that the “U.S. Supreme Court is the final word on what the law is,” in matters of unconstitutional rulings. In 1857 this same U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 7 -2 vote that no one of African ancestry could legally claim U.S. citizenship, in the case of Dred Scott v Sandford. Would you say the Court had “the final word on what the law is” in that case? Or, in the 1973 case Roe v Wade, in which another 7 – 2 vote determined that women have the “right” under a gross misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to terminate their own offspring. Would you say “the case is now concluded” in that case? I should hope not – the U.S. Supreme Court has been horridly wrong on many occasions, as they are now in the Obergefell v Hodges ruling – also a detestable result of misinterpreting the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s power of Judicial Review has been (most likely legitimately) inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution, in which the Court attempts to interpret the constitutionality of laws, many of our Founding Fathers strongly resisted the idea that the Court was the final arbiter of disputes and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson clearly declared that:
“…the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself…”
Jefferson here insisted that the Federal Government was not by any means the final authority in determining the scope of Federal powers, and that in disputes between said Government and States, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as there is no common judge between them!
I hope you and anyone reading this letter understand that I mean no disrespect in this passionate response, but in the words of Patrick Henry, “this is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country.” Regardless of the unconstitutional precedents that have been set time and time again by the Court, it is now high time to stand up to them, and to not stop resisting Federal tyranny. Sir, I understand the pressures involved in going up against the Federal machine, but please do not relent. I again urge you to file a motion for a rehearing, no matter how unlikely success seems. If the motion is rejected again, I strongly urge the Governor’s office to take steps to nullify this unconstitutional usurpation of Ohio’s Tenth Amendment state powers by proposing State legislature to ignore the ruling.
Again, the power to override the will of the State of Ohio and the will of its People is NOT delegated to the Federal Government by its Constitution, and the Obergefell v Hodges ruling is based on a skewed and sloppy interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This moment may be more momentous than any of us realize.
Sincerely on your side for liberty and the Republic,
Seth J. Delconte