Christian Baker Wins and Constitution Adversaries Finally Want Limited Judicial Authority

June 11, 2018

Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.
Practicing his Christianity by not participating in a sinful ceremony, Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012. The homosexual couple then filed a complaint, which was upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC).
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the CCRC's ruling, which Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, and in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment in its dealings with the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado…and their opinion is correct! This opinion, backed by legal authority, brought vindication to an innocent man. This is the exact purpose the Supreme Court was given authority by our Founding Fathers: to secure the rights of the Governed.
Unfortunately, for years, courts have been issuing opinions and claiming to themselves lawmaking powers that are outside of their legal or moral jurisdiction.
Traditionally, courts have used the Equal Protection Clauseor the Due Process Clauseof the Fourteenth Amendment to establish national policy.  In effect, they use these clauses to accomplish an end runaround the clear meaning of the words of our Constitution.
A perfect example of this judicial overreach is when the Supreme Court attempted to redefine marriage for everyone in Obergefell, and ipso facto it was wrongly understood to be the new “law of the land.”
However, the advocates of Obergefell are taking a different approach to the Supreme Court’s authority in this recent decision. Adversaries of the Constitution like Sarah Warbelow, legal director with the Human Rights Campaign, don’t want to see this opinion become “the law of the land.”  Ms. Warbelow stressed that the decision “is so narrow as to apply only to this particular baker.” And she is right! 
But you cant have it both ways, Sarah.
You see, in ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court is deprived of the authority to make sweeping rulings with regards to state or federal laws.
Ask yourself the question, How can the courts enforce a law about marriage when Congress doesnt have the constitutional authority to pass such a law?
Like referees, the courts are only responsible to judge the game they officiate today. Their calls, whether good or bad, do not affect and have no authority in tomorrow nights game. 
So…stay tuned, America. With more constitutional decisions coming from the Supreme Court, constitutional adversaries might get on board and demand more constitutional, limited government.

Comments: 0
  1. Email address is REQUIRED, in case we need to contact you about your comment. However, we will not display or use your email address for any purpose other than to contact you about this comment.
  2. Nickname should be a short nickname that you choose to use. Please do NOT enter your full, real name. Nickname will be displayed along with your comment.
  3. Comments will not appear on our website until they have been reviewed by our Editorial Team. Inappropriate messages will be rejected by the Editorial Team. Free speech is important here at ConservativeTruth, however, the Editorial Team reserves the absolute right to determine what content appears on this website.
    • Comments that contain foul language, profanity or vulgarity will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain links will be rejected. (send email to the editor if you wish to let us know about another website)
    • Comments that advertise a product or service will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain email addresses will be rejected.
2500 characters max
Copyright ©2018

Schedule an event or learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Make your tax-deductible donation here!

Visit Jake MacAulay's website at