A Court Decision is No Law at All

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”  – Marbury v Madison 1803.

Constitution_2Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting.  Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

Void –  having no legal force or effect;  not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

Ted Cruz 2016


Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Let me ask you a question:  If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law?  Would we be duty bound to follow it?

Woodrow Wilcox


If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest?  Where do we draw the line?

What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal?  What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted?  What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval?  What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours?  Would that make it right?

Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law?  Congress makes laws.  Courts render opinions.  Opinions are…well…opinions.  Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

For instance, the recent Obamacare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.”  How can an opinion be enforceable?  Especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman.  How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”  President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

Sorry, I know that I am all over the place with this communication, so let me try to bring it together.

The United States is veering aimlessly off course because we have lost control of our government.  This has happened partly because we have ceded to the courts law-making powers that they were simply not intended to possess.

A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!!   Do you understand that?  Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land.  Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges.  Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites?  Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote?  Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

Friends, courts only offer opinions.  Opinions can change when judges change.  The law cannot be changed by a “judge.”  If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today?  Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

Here is my point: All the hubbub over homosexual marriage is a cleverly designed smoke screen.  Who cares what the Supreme Court says?  They are merely rendering their “opinion”.  The people of Alabama and 30 other states have already spoken on this issue.  No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people.  Did anyone vote to give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg the power to change the institution of marriage? I don’t think so, Tim!

Who do they think they are?  No wait…who do WE think they are?   Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama?  I think not.  At some point, this is gonna get ugly…and I believe we are nearing that point.

The right to get “married” based solely on who one chooses to copulate with is one of the most short-sighted “opinions” in the history of the world.  Liberty is not licentiousness.  You have no God-given right to do that which is wrong.

Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America.  You know it, I know it, and heck, even the homosexuals know it.  They don’t want to get married…they just want to destroy marriage.

At some point, if we are to remain free, we are going to have to cast off the chains of government.  That’s what our forefathers did.  That is what they told us we would have to do.

Jefferson told us “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.  What do you suppose he meant by that?

“Are you proposing violence, Coach Dave?”, I hear you asking.  Of course not.  What a foolish assumption to make.  I am, however, proposing resolute, peaceful resistance.  I am proposing open defiance against the tyrannical arm of government.  I am proposing that Christians obey God rather than man.

Metaphorically speaking, Montgomery, Alabama will be the Gettysburg of Gay Marriage after the Supreme Court hands down their tyrannical “opinion” in defiance of the will of the people of Alabama and in direct conflict with the Supreme Court Justice of the Universe.

The question is, what will the people of America do?  Will they obediently acquiesce to the un-Constitutional edicts of the homosexualists on the Supreme Court, or will they, as their forefathers did, stand in open defiance to a tyrannical, over-reaching, amoral Federal Government?

I am reminded of a monument that you will find commemorating what took place at Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775.  Carved into stone are these immortal words of Captain John Parker, the lead elder at the assembly of Pastor Jonas Clark, who ordered the men from his congregation to rise and resist the Redcoats:

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Not one of our key “cultural” issues has ever been changed by a vote of the people.  Abortion, marriage, prayer in schools, sodomy laws, free speech…they’ve all been “changed” by “court opinions”.

In summary, courts offer opinions.  Legislatures and we the people make the laws.  Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are.

Defy them!  Nullify them!  Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand!

Learn more about your Constitution with Coach Dave and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Dave Daubenmire is a veteran 35-year high school football coach who was spurred to action when attacked and sued by the ACLU in the late 1990’s for praying with his high school football team. After a two-year battle for his 1st amendment rights, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement. Challenging the “church of the Status Quo”, Pass The Salt Ministries is calling Christians to wake up and engage the culture. Coach Dave has appeared on numerous national network shows including Fox News, MSNBC, CBS, The Savage Nation, defending Christian values. 
Dave Daubenmire
View all articles by Dave Daubenmire
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • Doug Indeap

    Daubenmire so disagrees with aspects of our law that he will advocate destroying ANYTHING that stands in the way of getting his way-even attacking the role of courts in our Constitutional republic.

    Because the Constitution does not specify what the judicial powers encompass, that question needed to be resolved. Early in our nation’s history, it was-in Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Supreme Court decided that it was the legislature’s role to make the laws and the court’s role to decide and declare what the law is in actual cases. The Court further held that in deciding what the law is with respect to the Constitution, the Court necessarily must decide whether a particular statute enacted by Congress conforms to the Constitution.

    I suppose the Congress or the President, co-equal branches of the government (comprised largely of founders at the time), or the People could have challenged the Court’s power to decide that it had the power it said it had, but they did not and instead accepted and ratified the Court’s decision. And now—212 years hence—their collective decision is part of the bedrock of our Constitutional law and history. Indeed, in all those years we’ve known no other way than the one we’ve taken.

    Judicial review has long been regarded one of the best and defining aspects of our nation. Daubenmire though doesn’t like it. “Who cares what the Supreme Court says?” we’re told. We should somehow turn back the clock, it seems, and retry the American experiment—only this time Daubenmire’s way, whatever that may be.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      No, you have it precisely backwards (and Daubenmire provided more than enough information for you to figure this out). Daubenmire advocates the protection of our constitutional republic, from judicial activists who seek to usurp the rule of law, constitutional limits on the power of government, and Natural Law itself.

      The role of the judiciary is to apply law that ACTUALLY EXISTS, not create law that does not exist.

      That is what our court system-including the U.S. Supreme Court-have been doing far too much of over the past 70 years: creating law (that they, not the people nor their elected representatives) think should exist, rather than restraining themselves to only adjudicate on law that already exists-most importantly, ONLY law that is in harmony with the U.s. Constitution.

      Our nation’s founders-including some wise men to whom our founders looked-made this very clear over 200 years ago:

      There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity — the law of nature, and of nations. – Edmund Burke

      Human laws are measures in respect of men whose actions they must direct, howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher rules to be measured by, which rules are two, the law of God, and the law of nature; so that laws human must be made according to the general laws of nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of scripture, otherwise they are ill made. – John Locke

      The Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must…be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. – John Locke

      man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. – Sir William Blackstone

      Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. – Sir William Blackstone

      The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction, … the moral law, called also the law of nature. -Sir William Coke

      When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts; he introduces confusion and disorder into society, and brings misery and destruction upon himself. This, therefore, cannot be called a state of freedom, but a state of the vilest slavery and the most dreadful bondage. The servants of sin and corruption are subjected to the worst kind of tyranny in the universe. Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends. – Samuel West,

      To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature….Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind. – Alexander Hamilton

      There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. – Alexander Hamilton

      The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. – Justice Joseph Story

      The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. – Justice Joseph Story

      The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law. – Thomas Jefferson

      We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government. – James Jackson, First Congress

      Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. – Thomas Jefferson

      The government, then, of the United States can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted, must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication. – Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (U.S. Supreme Court), 1816

      A Supreme Court-indeed, ANY element of the federal government-which usurps power not specifically delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution, has acted illegally and illegitimately, without authority and without the backing of law. Such actions should, at a minimum, be ignored, and more properly, be strongly punished for their hostility toward the liberty of the American people.

      • Doug Indeap

        You have conflated several concepts and largely missed the one I addressed.

        Daubenmire attacked, and I defended, the role of judicial review in our constitutional scheme.

        You first argue that courts must apply law that actually exists, not create law that does not exist. This is a straw man. Nothing I said and nothing in the concept of judicial review suggests what you rail against. Let’s all agree, shall we, that in exercising the power of judicial review, courts should decide, declare, and apply the law and not make it up out of whole cloth.

        Second, seemingly without intended irony, you tout the “law of nature,” which you suppose is made by god(s), and suggest that courts should apply that law in making their decisions. Really? And this from someone who thinks the courts have already arrogated to themselves too much. While the nature and substance of the law of nature has long been the subject of philosophical musing and has hardly been defined with clarity or consensus, and that is problem enough, there is also the question of how any such law of nature relates to the law as developed and enforced by human institutions. For instance, who would discern what is and is not the law of nature and undertake to conform positive law to that natural law? The courts? Do we really want judges divining natural rights and deciding cases, perhaps overturning laws, on that basis? How about the legislature? If we leave it to the legislature to enact laws in keeping with natural law, how is that any different than what the legislature would do absent ideas about natural law? As a practical matter, to the extent that any such natural law can only be known and enforced through the work of one or another governmental institution, what real difference does it make if we speak of natural law deriving from sources other than or above the government, since it is only through the government that that law is recognized and given effect?

        Finally, you point to various statements about how courts should interpret statutory and constitutional law. Your point in doing so is not apparent, but, again, you seem to set up a straw man. Nothing about judicial review or what I said in the least conflicts with the principles of statutory interpretation.

        So, with those diversions aside, how about addressing judicial review, i.e., the role of the courts to decide and declare what the law is and to apply that law in the cases before them, including cases to decide whether statutes enacted by the Legislature conform to the Constitution.

        • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

          No, it is not a straw man. The courts cannot lawfully adjudicate on a law that does not exist, nor can the federal courts assume authority that is not granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. These principles are paramount. If they are not adhered to, then the U.S. Constitution is of no effect (beyond a “mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please”), and we have replaced our constitutional republic with an oligarchy.

          Second, I don’t “suppose” that the Law of Nature is made by God; I know that it is, and the people who founded this nation and it’s government knew it as well. If you don’t believe me, read our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, and you will find this incontrovertible proof there. You may hold that truth in contempt, but the men who created this nation and its government did not, and your contempt does not change the truth one iota. And I don’t “suggest” that it be regarded as the Supreme Law, I state it unequivocally, as did Alexander Hamilton and many of the men upon whose ideas the founders looked to in the formation of our government.

          It is clear here who is contemptuous of our nation’s system of government, and it is obviously not me.

          As Daubenmire has explained, and as I have explained (if you can’t understand after that, then it is apparent that you don’t want to understand, and hold these founding principles in contempt), the U.S. Constitution delegated a specific list of powers, outside of which it has absolutely no power whatsoever to act upon. As if the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 (which says nothing about defining marriage) were not clear enough, Article 10 makes clear that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. This (in addition to the fact that the definition of marriage, being in the realm of the Law of Nature, is beyond even the reach of the U.S. Constitution) removes any shred of doubt whatsoever that the federal courts have absolutely zero authority to dictate to the states (which, incidentally, almost all of them decided on their own to affirm what every civilization throughout human history has instinctively known: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman) on the definition of marriage.

          If we simply stick with the written law (which is properly guided by the Law of Nature as revealed by special and general revelation), then we can maintain our hard-won God-given liberties as well as our constitutional republic.

          But that’s the real problem for Leftists. They don’t want the people to retain their God-given liberties. Leftist want to force their opinions on everyone else and make everyone else conform to their perverted and corrupt agenda. And they have shown not just a willingness, but an eagerness to utilize judicial activists to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people, and the Law of Nature to force their will on a once-free American people.

          You are clearly against the American way, and on the side of tyranny. For your own sake if not the sake of your country, you really should give that reality some deep, deep reflection, and consider getting on the side of freedom.

          • Doug Indeap

            Your “response” largely misses or avoids the point-which in this case is whether the courts have the power of judicial review under our Constitution. All this arm waving about courts making up law, the law of nature, and the limited powers enumerated for the Legislature in the Constitution are beside the point-that point anyway.

            Even more, you seem oblivious to the irony of your demand that the courts “simply stick to the written law” and also conform to the law of nature (obviously unwritten). Are you supposing that written law, simply by being written, comports with natural law? And don’t think I didn’t notice that you dodged the questions I posed about who would decide what is the law of nature and how it applies in particular cases.

            Perhaps a question would offer focus: If a court rendered a decision in a case and, in doing so, adhered to all of your admonitions about not making things up, conforming to natural law, and statutory interpretation, and such, would its decision be the final word on the case and establish/confirm what is the law on the case? Or, as Daubenmire suggests, are the Executive and the Legislature and the States and the People free under our Constitution to yawn, act according to their own contrary decisions, and effectively nullify the court’s decision?

            • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

              My response doesn’t miss or avoid the point; it IS the point. Judicial review is to ensure the law (if it exists) conforms to the U.S. Constitution. The judiciary is NOT empowered by the U.S. Constitution to adjudicate on issues outside its authority, where no constitutional authority has been granted to the federal government to act.

              Contrary to your apparent assumptions, the U.S. Supreme Court is NOT the oligarchical body designated to rule this nation. It is, in fact, the least powerful of the three branches of government, as evidenced by its tertiary location in the U.S. Constitution as well as its shortest list of powers, not to mention the clear statements of a man who was instrumental to the crafting and ratification of the U.S. Constitution:

              the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them… It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

              the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

              Since the only law dealing with the definition of marriage at the federal level (DOMA) only affirms what everyone used to know instinctively throughout human history, and affirms that the states have the right to determine the issue for themselves, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already shown its complete contempt for that law, there is no other federal law for them to consider here. They are attempting to meddle where they have no constitutional business, i.e. with state law where they are given no constitutional authority to act. Therefore, there is no lawful judicial review to be had! How dense (or constitutionally contemptuous) do you have to be to fail to grasp this after having had it explained to you multiple times???

              I offered you an opportunity to pause and reflect (and hopefully repent) of your zeal for tyranny, but you have instead chosen to ignore good and factual instruction in your pursuit of anti-American lawlessness. In doing so, you have demonstrated beyond any remaining doubt that you are nothing but a Leftist propaganda artist with a dark agenda, and as I indicated on another thread yesterday (http://www.americanclarion.com/supremes-contemplate-making-war-against-heaven-38103#comment-2021358817), I simply don’t have time or inclination to attempt to reason with hostile fenceposts. This website exists to educate Americans about threats to their liberty and their way of life, and you have demonstrated that you are not interested in being educated. Facts and truth are anathema to your agenda. So you are gone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    Uh, RIGHT. If you let two compatible adult Gay men (who would otherwise just shack up together) enter into a legal civil marriage, then logically you have to let a fish marry a bicycle.

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Compatible…except for the single most important missing element: genetic, physical femininity. Without a man and a woman, you can’t have a real union or a legitimate marriage, only misused parts.

    • Thisoldspouse

      Why two? Why adult? Why unrelated?

      Until you can logically answer these questions, you have a fatally flawed argument.

      • DCM7

        His argument basically boils down to the usual “we can keep the restrictions on marriage that I personally like, but we have to remove the ones I personally don’t like.”

      • franklinb23

        “Adult” is a rational (though inconsistent and somewhat arbitrary) standard across states. It basically acknowledges that one is sufficiently mature to enter into a legal contract with another person. It’s no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage to a 12-year-old than it is to deny them a driver’s license.

        By the way, the rabbinical traditions permitted marriage as early as 13 years of age. I’m not suggesting that’s a wise thing, of course.

        In terms of why you can’t grant a civil marriage to more than two people: civil marriage simply cannot accommodate or address the intrinsic problems of more than two persons. If a man has ten wives, what happens to his assets? Are they split evenly? Which wife makes medical decisions for him should he become incapacitated?

        As such, you can’t make a claim that there’s a “right” to something that it was never built to accommodate. Some other legal construct would have to be devised.

        Personally, I’ve never approached gay marriage as an issue of owed rights (as if the people who devised civil marriage intentionally discriminated against gays from the onset). This is an absurd argument. Rather, the question is as follows: can civil marriage as it exists accommodate gay couples? If so, is there a compelling interest on behalf of society or civil government to deny them this ability? If so, then do that. If not, and there is no rational justification for denying them this ability (other than personal antipathy or deep-seated religious beliefs), then to do so fails the right to equal protection under the law.

        Here’s the thing: across the country, many judges (including those appointed by conservatives) have listened to the arguments against legal gay marriage and found them wanting. “The Bible says” is not a legal argument, at least not in this country. As such, these judges have deemed it reasonable to conclude that continuing to exclude gay couples from the institution is unjust in the eyes of the law.

        This is a subtle distinction, but an important one.

        • DCM7

          “many judges (including those appointed by conservatives) have listened to the arguments against legal gay marriage and found them wanting. ‘”The Bible says’ is not a legal argument, at least not in this country.”

          While “the Bible says” should be enough of an argument to anyone who understands how crucial following the Bible is, it’s not the only argument by any means, as much as many pretend otherwise. Unfortunately there is simply not enough understanding, much less acknowledgment, among people (judges or otherwise) of the fundamental natures of both homosexuality and of natural marriage. If there were, the legalization of “gay marriage” would have no chance at all.

        • Thisoldspouse

          I’ve stated this numerous times, but I’ll state it again: the change agents (marriage redefiners) bear the full burder to prove why the longstanding Status Quo must be changed. “It’s a nice idea,” or “we want it” doesn’t cut it. The idea that courts must find a compelling state interest in preventing the change is a horribly flawed, modern notion. Actually, courts ought to find a compelling state interest why not changing the definition WILL result in a definitive, provable calamity to society as a whole. It seems that we’ve progressed quite impressively as a society with the long-standing definition of marriage, and failing to redefine marriage to include as-yet-unheard of combinations would result in …. absolutely nothing.

    • DCM7

      “If you let two compatible adult Gay men (who would otherwise just shack up together) enter into a legal civil marriage”
      Did you know that when slaves were not allowed to marry, they still strongly tended to have committed and faithful relationships, with both parents raising the kids together? That’s because a lack of legal recognition did not change what the relationships were: marriages.
      By the same token, the presence of legal recognition cannot change the nature of homosexual relationships, i.e., tending to be unstable, tending to be unfaithful, contrary to natural sexuality, and inherently based on an attraction that only exists because of something having gone wrong (that can and should be addressed).

      • Thisoldspouse

        To the homosexual advocate, “marriage” consists wholly in the bundle of benefits they get when they are declared “married” by a piece of paper.

        What a low, flawed, debased view of marriage.