Five freud’s in minister’s robes

Lex iniusta non est lex (Latin: An unjust law is no law at all).

~St. Thomas Aquinas

No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.

~ First Chief Justice John Jay

Prologue to legalizing Perversion

Happy 239th Birthday America! In a recent Facebook posting where the Court did something that over 400 years since the advent of the Pilgrims and Puritans didn’t recognize; that over 230 years of legal and political policy the constitutional Framers didn’t discover – that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. I wrote: ‘Despite Justice Anthony Kennedy’s affirmation in his majority opinion last week legitimizing same-sex marriage; that Christians can do whatever they want inside their churches and still have Freedom of Religion protected by the First Amendment. That’s a Big Lie. All Christians and Churches are now on notice; they have a bulls-eye in the center of their foreheads targeted by the Progressive-Communist Left… Wake up America! The Barbarians are at the Gates.’ I then went to SCOTUS Blog and read an essay by Chemerinsky on the case Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Court declared unconstitutional state laws prohibiting marriage equality – (Doublespeak for legalizing sexual perversion).

This isn’t my first encounter with uber-Leftist Professor Chemerinsky. In 2012 I wrote a review essay of an article he did on a SCOTUS case regarding juvenile justice reform. Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law and the Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. “The Court’s decision striking down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be regarded as a landmark ruling advancing equality and liberty. It is the Court playing exactly the role that it should in society: protecting those who have been traditionally discriminated against and extending to them a right long regarded as fundamental,” Chemerinsky wrote in an essay titled, Symposium: A landmark victory for civil rights.

In a review essay I recently wrote on the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, SCOTUS: 6 despots in minister’s robes on Professor Nicholas Bagley’s Symposium: Words still have meaning, I stated the critical issue of all legitimate (not activist) constitutional jurisprudence – “The issue of ultimate concern here is either words mean their obvious construction, or they don’t; either the original intent of the constitutional Framers is relevant in modern times, or it isn’t.” Affronted by a dissenting, conservative minority view of the Court, Chemerinsky bristled, “The difference between the majority and the dissents, and between the liberal and conservative commentators, is about the appropriate role of the Supreme Court in a democratic society. Not surprisingly, the four dissenting opinions all accuse the majority of undue judicial activism and usurping the democratic process. This is always the dissent’s charge when the majority strikes down a law,” he continued.

Professor Chemerinsky’s entire legal arguments are terribly ahistorical here because he sets up a false paradigm that judging the law is like a game – whatever team has the majority wins, and thus doesn’t understand the historical and transcendent nature of Law. “In that case, Shelby County v. Holder, it was not even possible to tell what constitutional provision the majority thought was violated by the Voting Rights Act. None of the four dissenters were the least bit concerned with deferring to the political process when they declared unconstitutional key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Ah yes, now we get to the real origins of Chemerinsky’s rage: the boogie man of the Left, the Citizens United case. In a 2010 essay I wrote on the Citizens United case I traced the jurisprudence history of that case that either Chemerinsky didn’t know about, or he hopes you don’t find out about concerning the racialist judicial necessity that prompted the Citizens United majority in the first place.

“Why was the majority so clearly correct in Obergefell v. Hodges in declaring unconstitutional state laws prohibiting marriage equality? Chemerinsky wrote. “First, laws that prohibit same-sex marriage unquestionably treat gays and lesbians unequally and keep them from marrying. That does not resolve whether the laws are constitutional, but it does mean that undeniably there is a constitutional issue that the courts needed to resolve as to whether the state laws denied equal protection or violated due process,” he continued but once again his legal analysis is woefully obtuse. Same-sex marriage is not a question of equality (which Chemerinsky conflates with egalitarianism – or equality of results), but is a question of legality integrated with morality, which the constitutional Framers under natural law mandated as the critical element to sustain America’s Republic. “The dissenting Justices, and some of the critical commentators, have said that the Court’s decision was purely politics and not based on law. But all must agree that there were legal issues presented: do laws that allow opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples, to marry, deny the latter equal protection? Do such laws violate the right to marry, which the Court has said in prior cases constitutes a fundamental right?” Chemerinsky’s legal analysis here seemingly ignores the oblivious slippery slope devolution of the law he must understand is inevitable even before the ink dries on this outrageous Obergefell opinion – Polygamy marriage; Bestiality marriage; Marriage to inanimate objects like a computer, to name just a few nihilisms. Chemerinsky and the Justice Kennedy majority in Obergefell are apparently imperceptive to the repeated lessons of historical – that once you separate law from morality you open Pandora’s Box upon society including moral deconstruction, anarchy, nihilism, Cultural Marxism, and ultimately democide… or perhaps the Cultural Marxists in their radical Progressive legal worldview compels them to push society into the abyss? Yet, I won’t theorize which camp Chemerinsky is in, history will be the final judge of his deeds to paraphrase JFK.

Cultural Marxism = Perversion over Natural Law

Chemerinsky calls “The primary argument made by opponents of same-sex marriage, in the briefs and at oral argument, is that marriage primarily exists for procreation… both false and irrelevant. It is false because no state has ever limited marriage to those who can or will procreate.” The fact that the Court invented a constitutional right of same-sex marriage from their own perverted, Will to Power jurisprudence seems to elude Chemerinsky when he writes “The argument is irrelevant because same-sex couples will procreate whether or not they can marry, by artificial insemination, surrogacy, and adoption. It is estimated that 200,000 children in the United States are being raised by same-sex parents. Marriage always has been thought to be good for family stability and for children. Children of same-sex couples should have these benefits as much as children of opposite-sex couples.” If same-sex marriage was so “good for family stability and for children” then why wasn’t it ever mentioned as a legitimate policy in American history until very recently? Because it was rightly viewed as an abomination to God’s laws upon which the U.S. Constitution was established.

I would estimate that Dean Chemerinsky’s Will to Power and evolution atheist jurisprudence is perhaps shared by 98% of all law schools and college faculty who hold views on constitutional law, legal philosophy or jurisprudence, and thus believe that the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision was decided rightly. Why? Because since the 1860s (not the 1960s) the Left has exercised a growing militant hegemony over all education including the Academy projecting an evolution atheist worldview affecting like a virus or cancer all existential institutions. Secondly, in order for Socialism jurisprudence to possess the impact that it has over society, it must mandate strict adherence to the logical fallacy of separating law from morals and legality from morality. Using Fabian Socialism (Gradualism), the Left’s Progressive Revolution has triumphed in the law since FDR’s Socialist New Deal treason was rule “constitutional” by SCOTUS circa 1937 by substituting a Natural Law worldview based on the Bible, morality, and the original intent of the constitutional Framers for a Positive Law Progressive worldview based on evolution atheism and Nietzsche’s Will to Power paradigm.

Freud’s Psychopathy Revisited – Brown, Justice Thomas and Natural Law

Chemerinsky writes that “June 26, 2015 thus will be remembered, like dates such as May 17, 1954, when the Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, as the Court taking a historic step forward in advancing liberty and equality. And I have no doubt that history will regard Obergefell, like Brown, as a decision that was clearly right and that was an important advance to creating a more equal society.” Although Chemerinsky has a reputation of being a virtual genius in the law, here he shows the utterly ahistorical nature of a Progressive worldview that foolishly celebrates the Brown decision when all the Court had to do was incorporate Black Americans as the “We” in the Preamble of the Constitution’s opening words – From this point [1954] forward “We the People” includes Blacks. But the Progressives and Cultural Marxists had a revolution to push throughout America, thus by 1954 the Socialist revolution on the Court was virtually complete so that Brown was decided not on the natural law arguments I cited above, but on silly non-legal, positive law arguments like studies on doll colors and protecting “Blacks feelings of inferiority.”

As a Black man whose people have been continuously discriminated against to this day, the Brown decision may serve as a useful soap box for the hypocritical Left to bloviate from regarding how enlightened or non-racist they are, but where is my equality in 2015? With 33 years of academic scholarship under my belt, why can I not get any law faculty position at any law school or college in America even though I published not one but two law review articles on Brown in 2004 commemorating its 50th anniversary? (Articles which were accepted into the personal Brown Collection of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a March 2005 letter she sent to me).

Am I retarded to you, Dean Chemerinsky? Am I not up to your prodigious intellectual level, or is it Institutional racism? Is it Intellectual racism? Is it Ideological racism? Will Dean Chemerinsky use his exalted position as the head of UC Irvine Law School to lift a finger to help one deserving blacklisted Black conservative intellectual get academic justice in America? To be an equal and accepted law scholar by his side? Or is Chemerinsky content to conflate the existential racial struggles of Black people in America to be treated like human beings with people holding deviant sexual perversions, more dangerous than cancer, advocating same-sex marriage? Chemerinsky’s views exalting same-sex marriage as a constitutional right equal to race is not what MLK and the Civil Rights movement fought, bled and died for and I resent Dean Chemerinsky, President Barak Obama, the Democrat Socialist Party, and the Marxist Media Inc.’s conflation of the two disparate groups. Why? Because under a natural law paradigm it is not a sin to be Black, but it is a sin to be a homosexual and same-sex marriage, a great perversion of nature, is also an evil not worthy of special constitutional rights based on the Bible which is the original, philosophical, and legal foundation of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

My intellectual mentor, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his Obergefell minority opinion, wrote about the “inherent worth” of all humans in God’s eyes, writing: “That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

I believe that Justice Clarence Thomas, a Black man and a natural law and originalist jurist of the highest order, has written the truth about the patent immorality of the Obergefell case; that governments and man’s law cannot bestow dignity (which Justice Thomas means “rights”) which under natural law philosophy are derivative from God alone. However, Chemerinsky’s Will to Power jurisprudence is myopic, atheist, and militantly fascist and thus does not pay any regards to Justice Thomas’s natural law jurisprudence, or even mention his name in passing in his article despite the fact that American constitutional law for the past 24 years since his ascension to the bench Thomas has been the singular intellectual force on SCOTUS – a legal scholar par excellence who has upheld the moral foundations of natural law and original intent of the constitutional Framers more consistently than any jurist since the first Chief Justice John Jay.

In conclusion, MLK in his iconic Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963) quoted St. Thomas Aquinas whose words – “An unjust law is no law at all” – would apply against Obama’s Communist healthcare system affirmed by the majority in Obergefell. Conservatives and all people of faith should follow Mike Huckabee’s admonition for Christians and churches to use civil disobedience to protest against this Marxist dialectical deconstruction of the Constitution by evolution atheists on the Court, Marxists academics dominating our colleges and law schools, and the Democrat Socialist Party who using Fabian Socialism since the advent of Karl Marx’s evil opus, Communist Manifesto (1848) has exerted such an existential, liberal fascist hegemony over society.

Not even the morally demented ancient Greek Empires, nor the most depraved Roman Emperors like, Caligula, Elagabalus, Commodus, Nero, or Domitian, ever suggested same-sex marriage, let alone dared to enshrine it into “law”… and they held the power of life and death over everyone! Not even Sigmund Freud in all of his endeavors to push society in sexual psychopathy ever proposed the idea of same sex marriage, yet Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and the Justice Kennedy majority in Obergefell has brought this illegal abomination upon American society as a tactic of Cultural Marxism. John Adams wrote that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” There are literally tens of thousands of quotes by all of the constitutional Framers linking legality with morality that the Obergefell decision mocks, for example: “No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion,” wrote the First Chief Justice John Jay. “Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, we will then, be surely doomed.”

Epilogue to a forgotten Genius: Professor Arthur R. LaBrew

For over past 30 years I’ve literally researched and edited dozens of history books, most of them by the eminent, unheralded Black classical music historian, Professor Arthur R. LaBrew (1930-2015), whom I studied under from 1987-2015. Professor LaBrew taught me always to follow Veritas (truth) wherever it may lead you. LaBrew wrote over 40 books on Black historical contributions to art, culture, society and especially classical music, from antiquity, circa 1750 B.C. – to modern times. During those decades under the tutelage of Professor LaBrew, never have I read one sentence citing a Black slave (who by law was uneducated), who did not know he wasn’t free; that he was indeed shackled under the evil institution of slavery. Nevertheless, in 2015 we have over 330,000,000 American citizens, (most of them presumably ‘educated’ to some degree) including legions of Cultural Marxist academics like Dean Erwin Chemerinsky who arrogantly and ignorantly think they are free while content, since FDR’s 1937 Socialist Revolution against SCOTUS, to live under the despotism of a judicial oligarchy of five Freud’s in minister’s robes.

Lex iniusta non est lex! (Latin: An unjust law is no law at all).