Why Do You People Keep Talking About The Constitution?

"Why do you people keep talking about the Constitution?"

In a recent comment on social media, my brother told me that someone threw that question at him.

Why do we keep talking about the Constitution? 

I'll answer your question with a question: 

Why do you people keep ignoring the Constitution?

Allow me to be clear about my notions.

God created man, the mind of man, the heart of man, to live in a perfect liberty resulting from relation with Him. You may not be a Christian, or the adherent of the many other faiths that adopt this view. But if you live in the United States, you live in a Nation that has adopted that view in its principal founding document, the Declaration of Independence. 

In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Even if you dispute the actuality of the Garden of Eden story, you must catch the underlying truth: while capable of great and good, we choose low and bad, too often, to justify a claim that my preferences (or yours) are good, better, or best.

So when we gather in groups, couple, family, neighborhood, community, city, county, State, Nation, international treaty association, we really just are a collection of folks too often inclined away from the good, away from the great.

It's a truism. It isn't proof of perfect evil in every choice of every person.

It is sufficiently true that you should NOT trust your life, your liberty, your family, your future, to MY goodness and MY judgment.

Now my anarchically inclined friends see this part. That collectivism is just a way of describing group bullying. They reject all involuntary collectives and their authority, for, among others, this reason.

Those, like me, who have not fully made the leap to anarchy, have to find a method of preserving and/or pursuing the rights we claim to be ours innately, as an aspect of our created Nature: rights to life, to liberty, to pursue happiness. In our Nation, the basic idea of how things are, the essence of them, is stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration is a sort of birth certificate for the Nation. It states the basis of our parentage and lineage. It states the causes of liberation and independence from England. And it asserts the philosophical underpinnings of this joint project: Natural Law.

On the other hand, the Constitution of the United States is not our birth certificate.

It doesn't state our identity as a people.

All that it does, and it does this well in principle, less well in fact, is to provide for a general government of 13, and then, ultimately, 50 sovereign States, and in doing so, to provide a set of highly constrained, limited lines of authority and restricted powers. That Constitution separates legislative powers (the Congress), executive powers (the President), and judicial powers (the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts).

Of course, the Bill of Rights, an important component of the Constitution were a demanded condition for support of the Constitution, because the States and the People feared the creation of an overarching, growing, and overwhelming leviathan in the federal government.

But still, this is what the Constitution constitutes: a framework for limited general government, respecting the retained powers and prerogatives of the States and of the People.

Now, why do we keep talking about the Constitution? And, why do you keep ignoring the Constitution?

Because the Constitution is, in fact, a straight jacket of federal power. It was designed to allow the monster of a federal government to be unleashed on the Nation, while restraining it in ways that would keep it in check and incapable of infringing the liberties and rights of the States and the People.

So we talk about the Constitution because we see the federal leviathan exceeding its bounds. And you ignore it because you prefer the seeming largess gained by that miscreantical behavior of that same leviathan.

Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States made a watershed switch, concluding that previously clearly understood limits on federal powers and federal interests had been misunderstood. In doing so, the Supreme Court unleashed the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act on the Nation, and then in subsequent cases found that virtually any program directed toward the general welfare proposed by the Congress and approved by the President had a sufficient nexus to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce that it could be constitutionally justified.

So the rapacious hunger of the federal leviathan found a growing network of fans and lovers, folks that found that what the People would not do for them, what the States would not do for them, an errant Congress and an unbridled Court could inflict on them.

This dispute and contention is as real today and as recent as the horrible and unfounded idiocies penned by John Roberts when he saved Obamacare from constitutional challenges.

Want us to stop talking about the Constitution?

How about this?

Get your wants, needs, desires INSIDE the bounds of your own power to provide for them. Don't demand that your neighbor, or your neighboring State to give to you. Tamp down the adventurism of the overpowering federal government.

When the federal beast is reduced to a federal Chihuahua, we'll hold our peace.

Born in Liberty, Drowned in Govenment

The conservative blogosphere is full of the possibility that the President will shortly release a new set of executive actions designed to infringe on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Patience and fortitude have their place.

But, as Thomas Jefferson quite directly stated, "the tree of liberty must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

A President must remain within the bounds of the Constitution.

A President that trespasses on the natural rights of men during his adventure outside of constitutional bounds commits impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

A Congress that observes a criminal and tyrant in office and fails to impeach him for doing so foments conditions of revolution.

Obama is our new King George III.

The Republican Congress is our new Parliament.

The time to say, "enough" and "no more" certainly comes, if it has not passed already.

The very Declaration of Independence that is the fundamental document of this Nation's founding declares the unalterable principle, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That fundamental right -- to remove, by force if necessary, those agents of government and forms of government, that are destructive of liberty -- is as fundamental an aspect of the American experiment as any that claims to be such.

The question remains. Does our George III dare to impose on the great mass of the American people, who will, rather than surrender arms, remove him and do so, if necessary, by force and violence?

Our Nation knows no king. Our Declaration recognizes no right in government to deform or destroy liberty. I do not yearn for revolution, I yearn for the restoration of the American republic as a limited government answerable to the People and compliant with the Constitution.

But the long trail of abuses of this administration, together with the failure to attend to the pleas of the People to rectify these abuses, and to bring the President to heel, will either produce revolution, or serve as our sad epitaph:

Born in Liberty, Drowned in Government.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States, Vladimir Putin

In which we follow our intrepid blogger into a rabbit hole of alternative future history, as a means, not of exploring the possibility that Vladimir Putin could actually be elected President, but of exploring whether or not, Congress could, by ordinary legislation, make his election possible.

A grueling two years has done little to provide confidence to him in a smooth bid for re-election. His base continues to suffer under the burgeoning federal debt.  While federal figures suggest declining unemployment, those figures fail to account for the permanently unemployed. His home State’s payroll sits below the national average, has the highest debt service to State income ratio in the Nation. While hopes can occasionally be buoyed by a successful Wildcats or Cardinals season in the college ranks, the outlook for the Majority Leader is not rosy.

Privately, his managers tell him to consider options for post-Senatorial service, perhaps lobbying, or leading a national think tank, or serving on corporate boards. He goes to bed night after night with a gnawing fear that he would have worked so hard to secure a Republican majority in the Senate but suffer being outcast because the public perception of that majority is that it has been a makeweight that has failed to rescue a nation suffering under two terms of a dour child’s presidency.

On this particular night, though troubled in the thought of laying down, his sleep medication, a lovely hot toddy featuring Kentucky’s Champagne of bourbon, Maker’s Mark, has done the job of smoothing the edges of his worries, and Mitch McConnell drifts toward what he hopes will be a dreamless and undisturbed slumber.

Our scene now shifts to the well of the United States House of Representatives. There is a buzz, a hubbub, and a roiling mass of humanity in the chamber. Just as every winter when the House plays host to the Senate, to the Supreme Court, and to honored guests to receive the President’s State of the Union address, so the scene appears as we look in on it. What is our vantage point? The scene we see before us as through the eyes of Senator Mitch McConnell, on the upmost dais of the House, seated just to the right of Speaker Paul Ryan.

There is a loud rapping on the door of the House Chamber. The door is opened. Members of the appointed reception committee enter, and one speaks aloud:

“Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader, Senators, Representatives, Justices, Honored Guests: Vladimir Putin, the President of the Russian Federation.”

Thunderous applause erupts from the crowd. Of course, the applause is not a gift offered equally by all. Democrats have fumed about the Joint Session literally from the moment that they learned of its planned occurrence. That Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell agreed to the idea shocked them deeply.

Given the history of the waning Obama administration, a history of failed initiatives, failed policies, failed leadership, the last thing that Democrats now heading into the 2016 fall elections needed had become their reality. The startling contrast between the vapid, prissy, weak-kneed, spineless, miasma of the President would now be stood up in stark contrast, if Putin succeeded in his historic address to the Joint Session of Congress, in portraying himself as a reasoned, seasoned, committed devotee of free markets, classic liberalism, and orthodox faith.

Of course, Putin had been positioning himself well to this end for some time. Now, as he ascended the dais, Speaker Ryan banged the gavel to draw the Chamber to order. Bang! Bang! Bang! The Speaker calls out, “Order!”

As the House grows silent, Speaker Ryan states: President Putin.

With a deeply Russian accent, Putin, having donned glassed, began to read from his prepared text, warming to the topics as he went:

My English is very bad.

I cannot help but reflect on the honor you have bestowed on me, inviting me to address this body, which, taken together, expresses the legislative judgment of the world’s oldest government based on a written Constitution. I thank you for the honor you extend to me, and the courtesy with which you have extended it.

I am the wealthiest man, not just in Europe, but in the whole world. I collect emotions. I am wealthy in that the people of Russia have twice entrusted me with the leadership of a great nation such as Russia - I believe that is my greatest wealth. Today I feel as though I have now broken the bank of those collected emotions because of the gracious invitation this body has extended to me today.

Still, there are things of which we must together speak, some on which I confidently conclude that we share deep and abiding agreement, and some, though I am sorry that it would be so, I know that you will find difficult to hear from one who does, in fact, consider himself a true friend of your experiment in democracy.

It's a historical phenomenon that in 250 years, a nation could move from a colony into the most prosperous nation of the world and the leader of the world. It is indeed an achievement, a tribute to the talent of the American nation, the American people and an optimal political and economic system.

I know that your media has occasionally provided glimpses into my day-to-day life. As a result, I know some of you, at least, know my fondness for the martial art of Judo. Such sports as judo, in my view, teach people to relate to each other. They teach us to respect a partner, teach us to understand that an externally weak partner can not only put up worthy resistance, but, if you relax and take too much for granted, may even win.

Russia and the U.S. were allies during the two tragic conflicts of the Second and the First World Wars, which allows us to think there's something objectively bringing us together in difficult times, and I think - I believe - it has to do with geopolitical interests and also has a moral component.  It's not by chance that Russia and the U.S. forge alliances in the most critical moments of modern history. That was the case in WWI and WWII.

Hitler wanted to destroy Russia – everyone needs to remember how that ended.

Even if there was fierce confrontation, our countries united against a common threat, which means there's something that unites us. There must be some fundamental interest which brings us together. That's something we need to focus on first. We need to be aware of our differences but focus on a positive agenda that can improve our cooperation.

NATO was built to counteract the Soviet Union in its day and time. At this point there is no threat coming from the Soviet Union, because there is no Soviet Union anymore. And where there was the Soviet Union once, there is now a number of countries, among them the new and democratic Russia.

Sometimes it is necessary to be lonely in order to prove that you are right. This is how we have to pay for our natural will to preserve our nation, to maintain our state. Sometimes I think our bear should probably just sit quietly and just eat honey instead of hunting animals, maybe then they will leave the bear in peace, but, no, they will not. What they are trying to do is chain the bear, and when they chain the bear they will take out his fangs and claws. This is how nuclear deterrence is working at the moment. If they take out the bear’s fangs and claws, then the bear will not be able to do anything. It will just be a stuffed animal.

I think you realize how it has worn on the people of this great nation to constantly be pressed by its government to serve as the police in every international conflict, the first responder to every burgeoning crisis. [Your] society doesn't want to play the role of international policeman. [Your people are alarmed] that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.

As for our drills and development of our military forces, Russia to a certain extent contributed to the tension, but only in a sense that we have been protecting our interests in a tougher way. We are not aggressive. We believe that we are right regarding the Ukrainian crisis.  

U.S. military bases are all over the world. And you are saying that WE are aggressive? Is it us who are moving our military structure closer to borders of other countries? What we hear is just, 'Mind your own business.' Who resigned from the ABM treaty unilaterally? The United States.

Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan, 'You're either with us or against us.' It is time to recognize that what we must be for, or what we must be against, are systems of totalitarian rule over individual liberty and economic freedom. If you would see that we are joined together in opposition to such systems, you could surrender what is otherwise a prideful view that we are joining you rather than that we are joining together.

Our world faces serious challenge. In our Mother, Russia, we do as well. A[] serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world.  In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered; national traditions, differences in nation and culture are being erased.

Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.  The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote pedophilia.

People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

If for many European countries, sovereignty and national pride are forgotten concepts and a luxury, then for Russia, true sovereignty is an absolutely necessary condition of our existence.

You know that Russia has committed itself to the free flow of capital and to free markets.  We are convinced that these are the engines by which our goals and aims can be reached. And what are those goals? Our aims are absolutely clear: They are a high living standard in the country and a secure, free and comfortable life.

Yet, at home, we face the same challenges you address in these chambers day by day: The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts [which] are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.

So, as both our nations face challenging economic circumstances, our solutions must likely be the same. The taming of government excess that adds to indebtedness, the releasing of regulatory restrictions that stifle growth and opportunity. After that, growth is inevitable, due to a changing foreign economic situation among other things. For both our nations, a growing world economy will require additional energy resources. [] I have no doubt that we will be able to do a great deal to diversify our economy, because life itself will force us to do it. There is no other way we could function.

Russian democracy is the power of the Russian people with their own traditions of national self-government, and not the realization of standards foisted on us from outside.

I see that not everyone in the West has understood that the Soviet Union has disappeared from the political map of the world and that a new country has emerged with new humanist and ideological principles at the foundation of its existence. History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior.

The path towards a free society has not been simple. There are tragic and glorious pages in our history. And though that day may yet come, Russia will not soon become, if it ever becomes, a second copy of the United States or England - where liberal value have deep historic roots.

We live in a world much troubled by organized threats and actions in the name of the religion of Islam. It is not my intention today to argue that Islam is, itself, the problem, rather than a perversion of it by thugs and criminals. But these terrorists, armed and organized, must be addressed. So I speak these words to them now.

If you want to become an Islamic fundamentalist and be circumcised, come to Moscow. We are multiconfessional. We have very good specialists. I can recommend one for the operation. He'll make sure nothing grows back.

I think the international community should unite to fight such inhuman phenomena as terror attacks and the murder of totally innocent people. We will chase terrorists everywhere, if in an airport, then in the airport. So if we find them in the toilet, excuse me, we'll rub them out in the outhouse. And that's it, case closed.

Pardon my observation of this reality. Under President Bush, you seemed to understand the dangers of such people. Then, there were the great danger. If America presented any threat then, it was in its bluster for what we all agree was, in fact, right. Under your current administration, our perception is that you have lost the ability to distinguish the very real evils of terrorism from those comparatively minor evils that often accompany less desirable forms of government.

All attempts to appease the Nazis between 1934 and 1939 through various agreements and pacts were morally unacceptable and politically senseless, harmful and dangerous. In this respect, terrorists are no different. Terrorists are always a threat to someone. We face a grave danger within ourselves in how their terrorism moves us.  If we'll be scared of them, it means they have won. We shall fight against them, throw them in prisons and destroy them.

Of course, at the same time, no references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights. People should always criticize the government, the president. When there's criticism, it's good. You can look at things in different ways. It's healthy.

Still, there are hard patches here too. The revelations of the last few years regarding American eavesdropping on allies, in the offices of national leaders, do not inspire a sense of camaraderie. It's difficult to talk to people who whisper even at home, afraid of Americans eavesdropping on them. It's not a figure of speech, not a joke, I'm serious.

I would like to assure you that there is no organization or any sort of repression against people who don’t agree with our actions, for example in Ukraine, Crimea, or any other external issue, no one from official government organs do this. This commitment we have had to make because we have concluded that nobody and nothing will stop Russia on the road to strengthening democracy and ensuring human rights and freedoms.

For example, your Federal Communications Commission is currently examining rules that would give your federal government control over private businesses and how they participate in providing access to the Internet. I think we should not control the Internet. Like the fax machine’s role in the Velvet Revolution, the Internet offers an alternative to force in reasoning with those with whom we may hold deep differences. We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

Yet, your government’s so-called rule of Net Neutrality appears to be nothing more than a grasp at holding sway, keeping power. The worst thing for a politician is to try and cling to power by every possible means, and focus only on that. If the nation is not capable of preserving itself and reproducing, if it loses it vital bearings and ideals, then it doesn't need foreign enemies - it will fall apart on its own.

Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy. [I]ndependently, without any pressure from outside, it made that decision in the interests of itself and interests of its people – of its citizens. This is our final choice, and we have no way back. There can be no return to what we used to have before. And the guarantee for this is the choice of the Russian people, themselves.

No, guarantees from outside cannot be provided. This is impossible. It would be impossible for Russia today. Any kind of turn towards totalitarianism for Russia would be impossible, due to the condition of the Russian society. Russian democracy is the power of the Russian people with their own traditions of national self-government, and not the reali[z]ation of standards foisted on us from outside.

History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior. Russia does not and cannot have any political choice but democracy. I want to say, and even stress, that we share those universal democratic principles taken around the whole world.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I reflect on the impending exercise by the People of this great land of the stupendous power to choose their own rulers for the next term of elective office.

From a distance, much of these affairs are intriguing yet difficult to uncover the subtle nuances that make one a stalwart supporter or a principled opponent. Yet in Russia we still celebrate so much of your process as is still a true reflection of the judgments of your People. The transfer of power is always a test of the constitutional system, a test of its strength. I think the American people should express their preferences, and we'll accept their choice.

I bid you well, and thank you for your courtesy in receiving me today. God bless you, and God bless both our Nations in His wisdom. **

The stunned silence left by the conclusion of Putin’s address was deafening.

But, in short order, Senators and Congressman knew that this moment was unlike any other in the history of their chambers. To a man and to a woman, they rose as one, in a thunder of applause and cheering that was sustained for nearly a quarter hour. By then, Putin had been introduced to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, with whom, as he knew, they had a common connection in faith. He had greeted and shook hands with dozens of elected officials, as he was guided from the chamber.

Still, there remained the formalities of the session. Speaker Ryan stood, gavel in hand, rapped the gavel again. BANG! BANG! BANG! He paused. Then again, BANG! BANG! BANG! Then, yet a third, and fourth, and fifth time, BANG! BANG! BANG! Eventually, the Chamber came to order, and the Speaker declared recess.

Our scene shifts back to the McConnell home, to the Senator’s bed, where McConnell awakes in a delirium.

“Goodness gravy! What a dream!”

McConnell lay for a while just thinking of the dream, thinking of its meaning, and thinking about the impact that such an event might have on his own prospects in the fall election. Early the next morning, he told his Chief of Staff to arrange a meeting with Speaker Ryan.

Within two months, the invitation had been extended and accepted, and a date for the event selected.

Consternation from the administration over yet another instance in which the Congress went around the President to extend such an invitation to a world leader was nothing more than a blip on the radar of the Majority Leader’s agenda. History was in the making. Our scene again shifts to the House Chamber, but this is no dream, and the momentous remarks of the Russian President draw precisely the ebullient reaction of which McConnell dreamt.

Headlines the next day, as had the evening news the night after Putin’s speech, erupted with effusive praise for the temper, warmth, insight, of his remarks. That he acknowledged the need of Russia democratic revolution, the keen ties of our two nations in times of international turmoil, and both the greatness of the land, and current distresses of it, made some aspects of his remarks remarkable to nearly all the talking heads.

The next phenomenon, the one that McConnell had not envisioned, occurred when his Chief of Staff interrupted his morning thoughts to inquire about the Majority Leader’s reaction to word that a joint resolution was in the works to declare that any person that had addressed a joint session of the United States Congress would be declared, under law, to be a citizen of the United States from birth. On the close heels of speeches by Benjamin Netanyahu, Pope Francis, and Vladimir Putin, it could be that the legislation was intended for Bebe or Francis, but McConnell, who harbored no presidential ambitions, but loved his office, wondered how to position himself on the idea.

“What’s the harm in it,” he posed to his Chief of Staff.

“Honestly, Mitch,” his right hand man replied, “I haven’t come up with the downsides yet. On the upside, his speech was a powerful tonic against the slow disintegration of the West that has been much discussed in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Paris last November. And, even though there was criticism of our Nation, he spoke things that we can clearly cast at the President’s feet.”

“I want to have an analysis by Legislative Counsel, and I want it today,” he dismissed the Chief.

Later that day, as staffers were slipping out for a dinner meeting here and there across the Hill, the Majority Leader, together with his Whip, sat and listened as McConnell’s Chief Legislative Counsel explained the points and counterpoints.

“Mr. Majority Leader,” Legislative Counsel intoned, “there are many provisions of the Constitution that have been the subject of close and careful analysis by the Supreme Court, with careful mincing of sources, language, and applications. The Presidential Eligibility Clause, however, at least as respects the ‘Natural Born Citizen’ requirement, has not been subject to a thorough analysis and construction by the Supreme Court. Still, the meaning of the phrase has been subjected to considerable vetting, and I think that we can rely on that vetting to show that the proposed Joint Resolution is within the power of Congress.”

The next half hour included Counsel’s summarization of scholarly discussions of the meaning and application of the phrase “natural born citizen” by former Solicitor General Paul Clement and former ActingSolicitor General Neal Katyal, in a post on the Harvard Law Review Forum, among other sources. Ultimately, Legislative Counsel expressed a confident conclusion that, if the Congress enacted the statute, it would survive constitutional scrutiny. All that remained, as he reminded Senator McConnell, was to decide whether the Joint Resolution made for good policy.

“Good policy?” McConnell chortled. “If it aids my re-election,” he continued, “that’s good policy. After all, what more can come of it than just a nice gesture by the Congress toward three internationally regarded figures that have already been honored by the Congress with an opportunity very few ever attain. It isn’t as though the Pope will run for election!”

His Chief of Staff chimed in, “True enough, even if he did, the Democrats have certainly locked in on Hillary despite her baggage!”

Now our scene shifts to the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, site of the 2016 Republican Convention. Despite several primary successes, Donald Trump had not secured a clear primary victory. For the first time since the 1948 “brokered” convention that selected Thomas Dewey, the prospect that multiple rounds of votes by acclamation would be required to produce a nominee for the party. Some Jeb Bush supporters, often heard to say that they would rather cast their ballot for Vladimir Putin than accede to the selection of Donald Trump, eventually decided to express their disgust for the popular candidate by doing just that.

To the consternation of Jeb Bush, and the Convention Committee, and the Republican National Committee, those delegates announced, one after another, that their vote would go to Vladimir Putin. Putin, of course, by operation of the recently passed Joint Resolution was, technically, a natural born citizen. While some media analysts continued to argue against the eligibility of Putin on the basis of his status as an alien, there seemed to be few legal analysts that would stand and argue against the power of Congress to define “natural born citizen.” Equally confounding was the revelation that Putin had, some sixteen years previous, purchased a loft apartment in New York’s Soho District, seemingly satisfying the only other relevant condition of eligibility on which his election might be challenged, that he had been, for the fourteen previous years, a resident of the United States.

Trump, whose bluster before and during the primaries seemed incapable of harming him in anyway, began by amused chuckles as Bush delegates cast their ballots for Vladimir Putin. His robust demeanor, however, took a decided turn when delegates from several States in which he was the clear primary winner announced splits in their votes, or outright cast their ballots for Putin. Although that round of balloting did not produce a winner, the disturbing shift in the tide of Trump’s fortunes became obvious on his deeply reddening face. When the final round of balloting resulted in the selection of Vladimir Putin as the nominee of the Republican Party for the 2016 General Election, Majority Leader McConnell was uncertain if his late night fantasy had been a dream, or a nightmare.

**Those portions of the Vladimir Putin speech to the Joint Session of Congress offered above that were not in italics are the actuals remarks of Vladimir Putin,  gathered from numerous sources over several years. The italicized portions belong the author of this post, who apologizes if they have failed to provide sufficient context and continuity to give the impression that these remarks could have been offered in a single speech.

Congress Has the Power to B.O.I.L. the Supreme Court

[This is Part Two of my answer to the question: Is there anything that Congress can do to address the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges? 

In this second segment, I provide a list of possible actions of various kinds available for Congress to undertake. I am not providing likely, practical, or certain to succeed tactics. I’m providing here a list of available options. I’ll allow Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner explain why none of these is worth exploring.]

As I closed part one of this blog, we watched Sheriff Buford Pusser (played by Joe Don Baker) use his recently discovered legal authority to punish an uncooperative trial judge. Of course, the scene shows what happens when the judge interfered with his efforts to clean up the county in that fictionalized account, Walking Tall, based on Sheriff Pusser’s true life story. The film, of course, employed staff writers who created the humorous device of revenge depicted. In real life, our limits, however, are no different.

First, we have to know what power Congress might have to bring to bear in this circumstance. Second, we have to know whether Congress might exercise that power. Remember, this discussion is focused particularly on whether Congress is stymied by the Supreme Court’s same sex marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Pusser made the task look easy. One minute, he’s being verbally rebuked by a judge over his lack of knowledge of the law. The next minute, he’s relocated the judge to his new basement bathroom chambers, after having reviewed at least one full volume of the law. I’d like to tell you that our task -- discovering whether Congress is stymied -- is so simple, so easily accomplished.

I’d like to tell you that . . . so I will.

Even if you are beginning this post with virtually NO KNOWLEDGE on the topic, in a short period of time, you will understand the extent of power the Congress holds over the Court. I will warn you: such knowledge can be maddening. You may not be happy to discover what you will learn today.

Both Congress and the Courts Answer to the Constitution

The US Constitution sets the parameters of power and authority for each of the branches of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution creates the Judicial Branch, endows that branch with all the judicial power of the federal government, and provides a basic framework for the branch.

Article III, section 1 provides that there will be one Supreme Court, and then delegates to Congress the question of whether and how many inferior courts to establish. That section also provides lifetime tenure for judges and bars the government from ever reducing the compensation paid to a judge while they are in service.

Section 2 establishes the extent of the judicial power and sets out the parties and matters in controversy reached by the judicial power of the United States. This section also sets out a limited category of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, as though it was the original trial court in such matters, and those in which it hears appeals from decisions of lower courts. Section 2 also subjects the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to “such regulations” as Congress shall make. Section 2 also sets out a limited set of principles regarding the trial of federal crimes, particularly the requirement that crimes committed within a State must be tried in that State.

Articles I and II of the Constitution contain provisions relevant to our subject.

Article I, Section 2, grants to the House of Representatives “the sole power of impeachment.” Article I, Section 3, grants to the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments,” requires the vote of two-thirds of the Senate to convict on impeachment, and limits the effect of impeachment to “removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 grants to Congress exclusive power “[t]o constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court[.]” Article II, Section 4 subjects all civil officers of the United States to impeachment and removal from office based on treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I, Section 2 bars the President from granting pardons or reprieves to persons convicted of impeachment.

What Congress Can Do: B.O.I.L. The Supreme Court

B.O.I.L.: BUDGET, OVERSIGHT, IMPEACHMENT, and LEGISLATION Offer Four Distinct Categories of Responses by Which Congress Can Answer the Obergefell Decision

If a Representative’s or Senator’s sole defense against legislative action is that there is little likelihood of success in any of these efforts, and if you are content to leave your Representative and Senators in peace when they let slip the “wolf” cry of “futility,” then read no further. Simply accept that there is nothing that Congress will do in response to what many perceive to be a lawless decision of the Court.

On the other hand, if you recognize that the Constitution has equipped the Congress with important tools for the maintenance of the separation of powers, and for the maintenance of federalism, then read on. I will offer you a framework of available kinds of Congressional actions, and several specific proposals to be pursued. To make the tools easy to recall, I’ve even devised a mnemonic to summarize them. The mnemonic is B.O.I.L. Those letters stand for four distinct powers of Congress relevant to the maintenance of the separation of powers and the accomplishment of the duties assigned to Congress.

“B” stands for Budget.

With only one exception, the power to allocate funds for spending by the federal government is entirely and completely in the hands of the Congress. The scope of that power is extensive, and includes the ability to adjust virtually every penny spent in the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts, except the salaries of current judges.

“O” stands for Oversight.

The Congress has extensive powers to conduct hearings and investigations. The scope of oversight power includes everything that could be the subject of Congressional action, as well as the actions of the Executive Branch as it fulfills legislative policy.

“I” stands for Impeachment.

The power to impeach is exclusive to the House of Representatives, and the power to try an officer of the United States that has been impeached is exclusive to the Senate. The Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch have no authority to interfere with this power of the Congress.

“L” stands for Legislate.

Congress has the power to enact legislation relevance to this issue.

In fact, Congress had already done so when it enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, and when it enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Congress also has power to enact legislation affecting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of the inferior federal courts.

These powers of Congress – budgeting, oversight, impeachment and legislation – are considerable. These powers, too, are effective when actually employed. In fact, knowing how considerable they are, how effective they can be, might make you BOIL with anger at the failure of Congress to begin immediately deploying these powers in answer to the Court’s decision.

Budget Actions

Congress has the power of the purse.

If Congress clamps the federal purse shut, monies cannot be spent by the Executive Branch. Few limits at all exist on that Congressional power, so long as the spending to which Congress commits us falls within constitutional categories, such a promotion of the general welfare. Congress has the ability to establish policies across a broad expanse of human activity simply in the decisions it makes about how to spend funds. South Dakota v. Dole, which I discussed in another post, shows how Congress can reach into areas of even severe constitutional limitations on its powers (the 21st Amendment grants plenary authority over issues related to the sale, distribution, and use of alcohol to the States; yet, South Dakota affirmed the Spending Clause power of Congress to induce the States to choose to raise their legal drinking ages in order to maximize receipt of federal highway funding).

There are limits on the power of Congress with respect to budgeting. One is directly relevant. The Judicial Article, Article III, provides that judges of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have life tenure, on their good behavior, and that their compensation may not be decreased during their service:

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Thus, while Congress has a broad power over the budget, the Congress is bound by the Constitution to provide for the compensation of appointed federal judges. That limitation, however, only directly bars Congress from reducing pay. Neither taking away a future increase in judicial salary nor applying generally applicable tax provisions to federal judicial salaries violate the Compensation Clause.

Congressional control over the budget of the Judiciary is a substantial power. One of the curiously satisfactory moments on Capitol Hill each year is the annual visit by Supreme Court justices presenting to Congress their justification for the Court’s proposed budget:

 

The budget for the federal judiciary includes program costs, payroll costs, and capital costs. While, constitutionally, payroll for Justices and Judges may not be diminished, the same is not true for other employees within the Judicial Branch. While such picking of nits may seem petty, the problem that Congress faces with a resolute Judiciary may require it to make important, and to the Judiciary, painful decisions.

For example, while the Congress cannot diminish the salaries of the Justices (approximate annual salary totals 2.27 million dollars), it could ELIMINATE paid law clerk positions at the Court, reducing federal expenditures there by 2.6 million dollars. Supreme Court law clerks are NOT part of the constitutional framework of the United States. They are an asset for federal judges for whom they serve as research assistants, ghost writers, and sounding boards.

The Constitution, however, knows no such position as a Supreme Court law clerk. In fact, the Court’s justices went without clerks for the first century, nearly, and when they got their first clerks, the clerks were, purely, stenographic clerks. Clerks were not the seeming “junior justices” whose influence over various justices today is occasionally hotly debated. There is a significant lifetime value to a Supreme Court law clerk resulting from having held that position and the connections it provides. Consequently, I have no doubt that the Justices of the Supreme Court (and of the inferior courts) could fill their needs through programs of voluntary clerkships.

Other elements of the budget of the Courts could be taken in hand by the Congress.

When Jimmy Carter faced the twin evils of inflation and energy shortages, he imposed rules adjusting temperatures in all federal buildings. The rules demanded lower thermostat settings in the winter to reduce heating costs, and higher thermostat settings in summer to lower cooling costs. Carter’s rule was not a well-loved program. It did, however, help the federal government in pursuit of desired cost-savings.

Back then, a federal judge unsuccessfully sought to resist the rule. Essentially, he claimed that the changes were a reduction in judicial compensation and that the rule violated his separation of powers. His argument failed.

Congress – properly incensed by a lawless judiciary – could induce savings in the budget by requiring that the ambient temperatures in the Supreme Court be raised by a few degrees in the summer months and lowered by a few degrees in the winter months. Perhaps you consider such action petty? No, it is not petty. Just as the Court seems to conclude that Congress should simply recognize that, the Court has only done what the Constitution empowers it, and requires it, to do, the Court would and should recognize that the Constitution empowers the Congress to make decisions regarding budgeting.

In addition, the Supreme Court has a library. When I used that library while working on cases we had pending at the Court, I noticed a variety of subscription publications in the library. The Court’s magazine and newspaper subscriptions can be, and should be, closely reviewed.

In the 1980s, the House passed a budget amendment that stripped funding from a Braille services program of the Library of Congress. That budget reduction matched the costs incurred by the Library of Congress’ creation in its creation of Braille versions of Playboy magazine. A federal trial court found that particular decision to be a form of viewpoint discrimination against speech related to sex, and unconstitutional. That decision, however, would not implicate a viewpoint neutral evaluation by Congress of such expenditures.

Based on its power of the purse, the Congress could review the subscription expenses of the Supreme Court and make appropriate cost cutting there. The New York Times or the Washington Post might wince, but there is nothing wrong with, and a lot to be commended in, bringing a close eye to determining precisely the publications necessary to the completion of judicial tasks. No others should be funded by Congress.

Now, against the idea of using the power of the budget, and in particular making reductions in the budget for the Supreme Court or the inferior federal courts, I suspect that the key argument is that such a reaction constitutes a kind of petty recrimination. I suppose it could be viewed that way. But then, these kinds of tit-for-tat if an American citizen with reasonable income declines to subscribe to a health insurance policy, she is required to pay into the federal government an annual, ever increasing, “Shared responsibility fee,” for the privilege of doing so. Nor is such pettiness limited to individual taxpayers. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court sustained a federal funding program requirement that a State refusing to raise its legal drinking age to 21 would forgo a petty 5% of federal highway funding.

As it turns out, Congress, through its enactment under Democrats of Obamacare and its enactment under Democrats of the inducement to the States to raise the legal drinking age to 21, has demonstrated a perfect willingness to engage in what some might consider rather petty power plays. So, here, where the cause is just, and the means exist, Congress has EVERY RIGHT and EVERY REASON to use the Spending Power to express its displeasure with the Court for it decision.

The principal drawback to BUDGETARY recriminations is that Congress must demonstrate political will. To prevail, the Republican Leadership must possess resolve, they must have real commitment to the purpose. While Congress may want to bring the Court to heel, the current President celebrated the Obergefell decision by illuminating the White House with a rainbow of colors. It is altogether unlikely that Barack Obama will accede to such Congressional acts. So if Congress were to pass spending legislation with limitations on the budget for the Judiciary, it would need to have the political will to stand by their enactment, even if the President threatens to, or actually does, veto such legislation.

Oversight Actions

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Congress can use its power of investigation and review -- its oversight power -- to illuminate whether Obergefell is an instance in which justice has been done.

Justice Scalia, dissenting in Obergefell, noted something quite disturbing about the Obergefell Court:

Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage.

In the past week, I have seen recriminations on line against Twitter due to the under-representation in its labor force of African Americans. And, within the current year, there have been voices calling for a change to Army Ranger School training standards after EVERY FEMALE RANGER CANDIDATE FAILED.

These stories show that the racial composition of the workforce of private employer such as Twitter can be made a matter of public concern, and that the gender composition of a government unit like the Army Rangers, too, can be made a matter of public concern.

Can it fairly be claimed that the religious affiliations, schooling, geographic origins, and schooling of members of the Judiciary, in particular, of the Supreme Court, are not of concern to the American people? In fact, how can it be unreasonable to suppose that the very real difference between the demographic composition of the Court, when compared with the composition of this Nation’s People, is significant?

It would be perfectly within the power of Congress to conduct oversight hearings on the “railroad track” that leads from one or two Ivy League law schools to a select federal trial and federal appellate clerkships, thence to which Supreme Court clerkships and to which law firms and/or government agencies and then to which administrative appointments and then judicial appointments, and, in a select set of cases to which Supreme Court appointments. Why shouldn’t the American people learn that the seeming disinterest of the Judiciary in the topics upon which it is called to rule is actually, or may be, the product of a careful career of grooming by institutions not necessarily in sync with the views of the American people on various matters of policy?

Beyond inquiring into how a law student becomes a clerk becomes a federal employee becomes a federal appointee becomes a judge, there are some real, important, and helpful matters of oversight that could be made the business of the Judiciary Committees of the House and the Senate.

For example, the Obergefell decision itself could be examined by the Constitution Subcommittees of Judiciary Committees of the House and the Senate.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court lays the foundation for same sex marriage within both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress could certainly examine the body of law and logic, both historical and current, to evaluate the quality of the decision. Indeed, as each Branch of the government must judge for itself the meaning of the Constitution, it is appropriate and necessary that they do so.

Oversight could also bring before the Judiciary Committees questions about the Defense of Marriage Act, and the power of the Congress exercised adopting DOMA. When Congress enacted DOMA, it employed its authority under Article IV of the Constitution to confirm that each State would have the right to decide for itself how, and whether, it would recognize same sex marriages created under the law of sister States. It also employed its Legislative power to define marriage as being between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law.

The Obergefell decision finished off DOMA by concluding that States were required to give “full faith and credit” to the acts and judgments of other States with respect to the creation of, maintenance of, and dissolution of, same sex marriages. Two Terms ago, the United States v. Windsor decision from the same Court struck down that portion of DOMA by which Congress limited the definition of marriage for federal law purposes to opposite sex marriage.

Both Windsor and Obergefell implicate powers of Congress. Both are worthy of particular evaluation and consideration by the appropriate Committees of Congress. Oversight hearing would afford the Congress with important opportunities to review the impact of decisions of the Supreme Court on the powers of Congress.

Finally, there are post-Obergefell ramifications that must be taken into consideration, and it would be appropriate for Congress to begin the process of assessing those ramifications. Here I have particularly in mind the impact of the decision on individuals who, by reason of religion or conscience cannot provide services or support for the formation of, and celebration of, same sex marriages.

First, because there is a real risk that the Internal Revenue Service might treat Obergefell as determining a national question of policy, not merely on same sex marriage, but on discrimination based on sexual orientation, Congress should conduct oversight hearings of the Internal Revenue Service. Congress should inquire of the IRS how it interprets Obergefell in relation to a determination of national public policy. [For those who may not know why this point is important, the IRS revoked income tax exemptions from a private college and a private school based on racially discriminatory policies. I have explained the implications of the Bob Jones University case previously.]

Second, Congress should conduct investigative hearings to assess the state of the law regarding public accommodations requirements around the Nation, and how non-discrimination requirements in the States interplay with conscientious objection. Such hearings can inform how Congress decides to proceed with respect to strengthening the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, proposed constitutional amendments regarding marriage (either defining marriage as between one man and one woman or confirming that the States alone have the power to determine for themselves the definition that governs marriage in their borders).

Impeachment Actions

For those who’ve watched over six years of criminality and incompetence of the present administration without Congress ever taking any step toward consideration of impeachment, it will be, perhaps, frustrating and pointless to be reminded of that the sobering tonic of impeachment belongs to the House of Representatives. The House has the power to draw up Articles of Impeachment against the Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the inferior federal courts. If the House were to do so, and were to approve Articles of Impeachment by a sufficient margin, the Senate would have the power to conduct trials of justices or judges so impeached.

This power has been exercised by Congress before. More importantly, in the only instance in which the House ever actually impeached a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Chase, the impeachment resulted entirely from political disagreement between Chase, a staunch Federalist and supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and supporters of Thomas Jefferson, who bested the Federalists in the 1800 Presidential election and ardently opposed the same Alien and Sedition Acts. While Chase was acquitted in the Senate, he has that curious asterisk by his name in the annals of history, indicating his status as the only justice of the Supreme Court to be impeached by the House.

There are good reasons to look at impeachment.

Before the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, while the case was pending there, two justices of the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elana Kagan, officiated at same sex marriages. Their “dispassionate participation” of Obergefell can be reasonably doubted. Indeed, only a cynic could conclude that it was proper for these two justices both to officiate weddings that the Court might well find were not constitutionally required and to decide whether, in fact, the weddings they officiated were constitutionally protected. Ginsburg and Kagan ought to have recused themselves from deciding Obergefell. Their decision to participate may well constitute misbehavior in office. A reasonable observer would find the task of distinguishing their involvement in that case from another justice deciding cases involving corporations in which that justice holds investments.

Nor should Congress ignore that the Obergefell majority trespassed boundaries on the judicial power set out in the Constitution. The States created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution. They bounded the power of that federal government by limiting its powers to those donated by the States expressly to it. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make policy regarding marriage for any State or, as it did in Obergefell, for the entire Nation.

Such trespassory invasions of State powers – reserved to the States the Tenth Amendment – constitute misconduct in office. To be sure, we could simply categorize such matters as disputes over outcomes. Doing so, however, explains in substantial part how we have arrived at a place in time and policy where politicians and citizens are unsurprised at the notion that the final word on the power of States to define marriage belongs to the Supreme Court. Congress can curb the aggrandizement of power at the Supreme Court by examining the institutional abuse that Obergefell constitutes.

Impeachment is not just for “crimes” like murder or theft. Political wrongs can be answered by impeachment. Impeachments of that sort have been done before, and they should be considered here again.

Legislative Actions

Congress has significant power to curb the Supreme Court by legislation.

The Constitution states:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

While we are accustomed to viewing the United States Supreme Court as the nation’s court of last resort for a panoply of issues, that is so only because the Congress has expanded the reach of the Court through legislation. Truth be told, Congress has the power to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over questions related to marriage, or other matters.

The Supreme Court typically exercises its power of judicial review to review decisions of the inferior federal appeals courts, and  to review certain decisions of State courts. The Supreme Court exercises that power because Congress has granted it to the Court in accord with Article III.

The idea of limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is neither new nor untested. In fact, Congress has limited the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the past. In fact, in the era of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, while the Court was actively considering a case, Congress stripped the Court of its jurisdiction in the matter. The Court acknowledged that they could not decide a case then currently pending before it:

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.... It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.

Nearly a century later, Justice Owen Roberts, writing in the ABA Journal, Volume 35, at 1, proposed an amendment to the Constitution to strip Congress of this power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Roberts explained the need for such an amendment by describing the existing power of Congress:

I do not see any reason why Congress cannot, if it elects to do so, take away entirely the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States over state supreme court decisions.

As Justice Roberts understood (and feared) Congress can reconsider the scope of review on appeal and on certiorari available in the Supreme Court.

[If you want to get down into the fascinating weeds of the stripping of jurisdiction by Congress of the Supreme Court’s appellate review, here is a dated, but relevant consortium worth the time taken to read.]

In addition, Congress can limit the availability of the inferior federal courts for litigation of the kind that led to the Obergefell decision. In fact, current federal statutes include restrictions on the jurisdiction of lower federal courts in a variety of matters. When the design, placement, and building of the now-complete World War II Memorial was underway, Congress enacted a statute stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the site selection process.

Congress also used its jurisdiction-stripping power when it enacted three federal laws related to crime, to illegal immigration and to terrorism. In those cases, Congress restricted the power of federal courts to review various questions that were previously within their jurisdictional reach. Those three laws are the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Congress can, and should, examine the role of the inferior federal courts in the judicial sweep that preceded the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell. In light of how the federal courts became embroiled in questions properly ones for the political branches of State government, or to the People of the States, Congress should strip the inferior federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain such cases.

In addition, Congress should address topics indicated in previous sections of this blog:

Congress should expressly state that tax exempt 501(c)(3) status may not be stripped from an organization based on policies that may be considered by the IRS (or complainers) as inconsistent with “national policy” regarding same sex marriage expressed in Obergefell.

Congress should expressly state that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious bodies and individuals in the maintenance of their practices related to marriage, even if viewed as inconsistent with, or contrary to, Obergefell.

Congress should expressly state that the RFRA protects those in private enterprises who contract with, or provide services to, the federal government (that latter point anticipates that the Obama administration is likely soon to embody a nondiscrimination provision in federal contracting) against violation of their religious conscience with respect to same sex marriage.

* * * *

Indeed, Congress is not powerless in the face of the Supreme Court. To permit it to claim powerlessness requires that the People ignore the Constitution. The tonic for a Court that ignores the Constitution will not be found in a People that do so, or that tolerate a Congress that does so.

Ultimately, we must ask, not does Congress have power, but is Congress willing to act? Will they use their power over the budget, their right to conduct oversight, their power to impeach, and their legislative power to reprove the Supreme Court in answer to the Obergefell decision? Let that question stew in your mind. Then insist that Congress BOIL the Supreme Court.