Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Despotism Of An Oligarchy

August 12, 2010 by  

Regardless of where you come down on the gay marriage issue, that a single unelected Federal judge would overrule the wishes of the majority of Californians should frighten you.

Proposition 8 was put on the California ballot in the November 2008 election, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

Almost 80 percent of the California electorate voted and the measure—which provided that only marriage between a man a woman is valid or recognized in California—passed with 52.24 percent of the vote. It passed by about 600,000 of the 13.4 million votes cast. And it came in an election year that saw Democrat Barack Obama garner 61 percent of the vote, or more than 8.27 million votes in California.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses while failing “to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

As Geopolitical Editor Chip Wood discussed in his article two weeks ago, Don’t Believe This Liberal Lie, the Founding Fathers intended for states to settle their own issues locally. Citizens were free to shape their state’s politics to suit them. If that didn’t work they were free to move to another that better suited them politically.

What has happened is far different, and the Federal courts are becoming the oligarchy Thomas Jefferson warned us about when he said, “[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions… would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jefferson also wrote, “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.”

Vaughn’s ruling is yet another example of an unaccountable, unelected Federal judge overstepping his authority, advancing as a thief, consolidating all government into one.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Despotism Of An Oligarchy”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • s c

    The whore media won’t do it, so if anyone gets a chance to ask that retardate California judge how he defines ‘rational,’ please ask him and let the rest of us know what his response is.
    The basic issue concerns the “right” of a single judge to decide for an entire state if that state’s decision has his blessing. The judge and his reasoning powers make him an excellent choice as a
    Frankly, I’m tired of learning that Herr Obummer has an endless list of future czars. On a good day, that judge is a pc buffoon, and Californians need
    to make it painfully clear to him that they need good lawyers and judges in California. They DON’T need hacks who drool at the thought of pleasing an incompetent prez who despises people who demand to exercise their constitutional rights.

  • Tim Layman

    What should scare everyone even more is the fact that activist judges on the supreme court have given corporations the right to buy our elections, and there will be no disclosure to the American people. Corporations (including foreign companys) are now allowed to invest as much money as they want to in order to influence our election process. I’d say there is a hell of a lot more to worry about than gay marriage.

    • Scott

      Whether or not your analysis of campaign finance is accurate, the gay marriage issue is a more immediate and direct assault on our liberties. Tyranny enforces “tolerance”, in violation of conscience, and at the expense of freedom.

      • Joe

        What should scare people most is all the people here willing to scrap the Constitution for mob rule. People voted for an unconstitutional change. So what I getting from most of you is..that means The Constitution of the United States should be bypassed for ideology. Did any of you read his ruling. Almost all can just admit they have not (yes, I have) and the judge was actually quite conservative in his remarks of why he came to his decision. There was a time when people actually cared about The Constitution but now it just used by many who don’t really believe it and would scrapw it for a dictatorship that agrees with them if they had the chance, to proclaim rightousness. But then why should it be surprising todays political climate has nothing to do with problem solving or figuring anything out it a bitch feast for those that don’t like the bed they help make and looking for anyone else to blame. here is another example of willful blindness to anything that agrees with peoples personal views. If we vote to ban guns would all you support that ban even though it violates the Constitution? How about for government regulation of Churches? Even if it got the majority of vote?

    • Dan Burke

      You are afraid of the corporations? Perhaps you should be. We’ve been stifling their “free” speech for years. Why? I cannot think of a good reason.

      Here, I will try to make it simple.

      1. They never did stop promoting candidates when they could. To believe otherwise would be foolish. Under the prior restrictions you apparently adored, they would have to do their support through back door approaches. Basically, they actually created a few more jobs, and some of the campaign money was spent paying extra people instead of going directly to the campaign. In addition to a few extra steps, now instead of their name directly on the campaign, you got it “funded” by some third-party who you assumed was independent of the corporations you fear. Personally, I am glad this step is gone. Now I can possibly know when General Mills or Wells Fargo actually supports a candidate as opposed to wondering where all these “third-party” organizations get their money to fund campaigns. So, I think having this gone opens up the possibility for some “truth in advertising.” I don’t think it will be perfect, but still….

      2. Some of us are smart enough to realize that will unions claim to be the common worker, if I want my job to stay around a few decades then I want to work for a profitable company (unlike the US government, a corporation running in the red is a corporation that either needs to prove their “too big to fail” for government “bailout,” or they go into default–bankruptcy. The job I have now is at a company coming out of bankruptcy. While I wasn’t here for that part, I hear plenty of stories of people that were laid off…). So as much as you hear the unions support candidates, don’t you want to know who your company supports? Then you can choose for yourself. Union suggestion–might mean more benefits. Company suggestion–might mean the company stays around longer and as long as you are useful to the company you at least still have a job to go to.

      3. While big corporations are often unfortunately in league with big government, what of all the smaller businesses. Especially the ones big enough to be hit with the restrictions, but too small fall off the radar too. For many of us, this would represent our employers. Don’t I want to know who my execs support? Who do they think will avoid legislation that will destroy our business, thus our company and my job? And then from there I can make my own choice if I agree with their choice or not. Of course, the risk is that it could hinder productivity if politics takes over the work conversations, so the execs may choose to be careful about their public support anyways even without laws to restrict them.

      4. If you fear something, it will rule you. I do not fear corporations. And while I will often state that I fear what big government will due to us, if you break it down to get to my deeper feelings, my real fear isn’t the big government but rather a fear of losing my “soul.” I pray that I would remain committed to my beliefs and the cause of freedom until my dying breath, but I have not faced that challenge and am all too aware that many break under duress. When the Weather Underground projected that if they had gained power that they would have “reeducation camps,” they were planning to put people under pressure to do just that–and the rest that didn’t break they would then kill.

      • Joe

        What amazes me is you are obviously quite intelligent at seeing through the BS of many things but not of the ones you have embraced.

        1) True is has always been corporate money. But you will not be finding out who contributed what or did you miss that there will be no disclosure to the American people. Its does not make any truth in advertising benefits. While I hate the implications this will have, I have to support the ruling on this as long as a Corporation is afford the same rights as citizens which is the real issue and one that should have been corrected immediately after it was enacted. Sorry, Corporations are legal entities and not citizens nor should they enjoy the basic rights afford to the citizens of a country.

        2)This is just rediculious logic. I agree we shouldn’t have to have unions period. The only reason for them is that the business and goverment dropped the ball on taking care of its employees. But then why is that the companies resposibility? The truth is…its not but it was allowed so that we could live the lifestyle we had become a custom to and it showed to benefit not only the companies but society as a whole. Businesses and its owners understood that at one time. If fact many businesses were going under do to the gap between cost of living and wages but luckily along came a novel idea. Credit! Yep that right no need to pay people more to insure they spend money of products that allow business to strive. They can get credit. No need to question anything or ask whether the American Dream had been hijacked because credit allows you to hide financial reality (at least for alittle while). Now we have a global market created regardless of how people felt, in fact such agreements are not even debated nationally or locally. So it a race to the bottom as American companies are forced to compete with foreign companies that enjoy real slave labor wages. To blame the unions is a rediculious ploy to make you feel better. Its someone to blame rather than admit that maybe just maybe short sighted business models and politicians and the faith in free markets might have screwed the people over and small business as well. And this is coming from someone that does not like unions but sees that they are a necessary lesser evil than the crap that got us where we are today. Sorry folks the jobs aren’t coming back. This country has been hollowed out and gutted. Credit and jobless recoveries hid this from us until it all came crashing down. Who are the small business going to cater to when no one can afford their services at a price that barely keeps the business out of the red? We are and will continue to find out.

        3)You are more than a worker, your entire post is about “job”, “income” that you seem to be little else. Once upon a time (because its a fairy tale now) employee and employer used to be a contract among two parties that were considered equal that is no long true in practice or (as proof of your obsession with business worship) ideology. How did that happened? From your view it seems who cares where here now let do everything we can to keep things the way they are. I admire that from a realist point of view but then that also how we got into such a mess by “just looking out for me and my own and just doing my job”. Part of how they did it right in front of everyone is by the additude you instill in this part of you post. At what point does the argument I can’t afford to pay you more (which is likely true but most likely because there competitors have said the same thing earlier or refused to even attempt at offering a fair wage to undercut you) become an issue worth addressing? We are going to find out. Outsourcing, will continue to push the question.

        4)”my real fear isn’t the big government but rather a fear of losing my “soul.” I pray that I would remain committed to my beliefs and the cause of freedom until my dying breath” And here is what really prompted me to respond in this lengthy post. Had you not expressed this sentiment I likely would not have bother to respond but i be we are very much alike and respect any person who expresses (and means it) such sentiments. My countering, although i believe we probably mostly agree on many of the thing and quite possibly many others, you statements is an attempt to try any get you to consider that you may have missed or disregarded these things. I fear that you may not lose your soul from duress but slow exchange your soul for comfort or rationalize the stripping of it, until you are only a reflection of yourself, one that still tells themselves they are still the same person but slowly because something else.
        I have a similar fear. Worse I worry that if I lose that part of myself that i will become and enabler that allows further errosion of our civil contract. I also fear that the ideal itself will be warped and freedom will be just another brand to be used to sell things without meaning rather then a ideal. Yes, i know that already happening now. But this is bound to happen when belief become more important than truth and that is definately true today and has been for awhile. Not just in this country either. Human nature seems to be to try and force the truth to reflect our beliefs and not the other way around.

  • Sutekh

    Isn’t it amazing that the courts cite Jefferson when they promote national atheism, by mentioning the “wall of separation between church and state,” but they never seem to find what he had to say about separation of the judiciary and legislative powers.

    The prevailing attitude in D.C. is that the 50 sovereign states are mere provinces who are allowed “limited self-government” like the small enclave nations that South Africa used to control. Whenever that self-government offends the main government, it is treated the same way a high school principal treats the student council.

    The Constitution sets up unlimited self government by the states, and limited consolidated government by the federal government. But the Constitution is treated by federal officials the same way that the scriptures are treated by apostate Christian organizations — as merely suggestions to work from.

    I’m ready to go back to the Articles of Confederation.


    • David in Ma.

      “wall of separation between church and state,”
      is not in the U.S. Constitution, it was in a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and the quote I saw said,in effect,the government has no business in religon, but Christain principals should always be in government.

      However, one way to stop these judges is to change the constitution(s), how can a judge say something is unconstitutional if it’s in the constitution?

      The down side is that when a constitutional convention is called and open for debate anything can be approached, not just the reason for the calling for the convention…..and, in todays climate that could be a problem because it would give those who want to destroy altogether the Constitution an opening to do so….


  • FlaJim

    It wasn’t until the 1820s when courts began usurping power, first assuming for themselves the power to be the final word in all constitutional questions. They need to be slapped down, particularly in cases where they presume to legislate from the bench.

    Federal courts were never intended to be anything more than a place to settle specific disputes and their powers are enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere does the Constitution give them the power to interpret it. In fact, there’s even a provision in the Constitution for Congress to overrule any federal court by a simple majority vote, a power that should be exercised to keep these little tin gods in place.

    We allow the courts’ tyranny through implied consent. Andrew Jackson once acknowledged that the Supreme Court had ruled against him, then asked how they were going to enforce its decision and went ahead and did it his way anyhow.

    • David in Ma.

      That is a question I have never heard.

      How does/can SCOTUS enforce their judgements?

      Are there/do they have provisions for doing that?

  • Jason

    The judges across this nation have usurped there powers for so long that they feel that they are rulers, and have the right to include everyone in their jurisdiction to change their ways to meet the rule that the tyrant in the black robe stated. This is Tyranny, and acording to old maxims of law, “may be resisted, as one may resist a theif or a pirate, that is through lethal force”. I wonder how long it would take other judges to abide by the rules if judges like this one were “killed” for his tyrant act. As you notice I did not say “Murder” murder is illegal, however, the bible states that killing is sometimes justified, and since this judge is making a ruling that the majority of Californians disagree with that is tyranny, and Tyranny may be resisted with lethal force.

    • slickporsche

      This is exactly why I have been stating the need for a well run revolution. I’m convinced, it is the only way we will ever get our Republic back. Voting,will not work because the government is so currupt.I seriously doubt there is a serious one amongst them.

      How many that we elect in November will do a 180 degree turn after being elected? It’s a scary thought, isn’t it? Look at the ones that already have. Hell, its like a game of musical chairs. WE need a new government by the people and for the people, using the “Bill of Rights”, and the U.S.Constitution, as road map or guide. Again, this will, never happen through voting.Those of us that want to really save this Union, need to through everything we have out there, including our lives. This is very serious time in our history.

  • Scott

    Mr. Walker claims to seek a “rational basis” for upholding traditional marriage? In reality, he’s denying all of the existing reasons to uphold traditional marriage.

    It is well documented that, in general, children raised in two-biological-parent families do much better than those raised in other types of families (divorced, re-marriage, sperm donation, etc.). This has been measured in areas of education, delinquency, substance abuse, depression, economic prosperity, emotional satisfaction, etc. Same-sex “marriage” on a wide scale is still too recent to know the long-term impact on raising children, so it’s not rational to assume or act as though it will be an equal substitue. But why is it so difficult for liberal elites to identify this trend? Excuse me, the question should be: why is it so easy for them to IGNORE the trend? Why isn’t this “rational” enough for Mr. Walker?

    There is ample “rational basis” to uphold Prop 8. Concluding otherwise requires denying what we do know and claiming to know what we can’t know.
    Now THAT is irrational.

    • slickporsche

      I can answer your questions. It is all about CONTROL. At this very moment our government has seized almost all of it. THey deny the very existance of our constitution, by their actions,and use the civil rights laws to enforce much of it. I have watched this since the civil rights acts, and have seen the country in a downhill slide ever since.At this very moment in time, The US government does not give a damn what you or I want, nor the rest of the world it tries to bully constantly. There is only one thing left for us to do, and it won’t be pretty. Obama has already put things in place to stop us,as he anticipated what would happen. However I think he underestimated how many of us would respond to this take over.

  • oldbill

    It depends on what the issue is. Is there a right to marriage? Who knows? If marriage is a right, then the Federal Government certainly doesn’t have a Constitutional mandate to regulate marriage. Rights not specifically given to the Federal Government are issues for the People and the States do decide. The Federal judge has no Constitutional authority to decide one way or the other, and morally and ethically, he should have declined to hear the case. It is a State’s and People’s rights issue.

    Personally, I don’t care who marries who, as long as children and farm animals are protected. I don’t have to marry another guy or a sheep. As long as weird laws don’t force me to do something, who am I to complain? If people who are slaves to their perversions think that the average person, who is horrified by what they do, is going to like them and condone their conduct because it is made legal, then they may in the end, be disappointed.

    • slickporsche

      Well Bill that is where you are wrong! You really do need to care what others are doing, and stand up for what you know is correct, even though it may be uncomfortable for you.

  • thefedupamerican

    I think that the government should get out of everybody’s marriages. If the government MUST be involved, then let’s do as in Europe…have a governmental ‘civil union’ for all. Then those people who believe that ‘marriage’ is a church rite or sacrament, can go and get married. But really, why is the government even involved.

  • Russ

    RE: Marriage Discussion.
    Any reading of history clearly indicates that all societies have considered marriage to be between a man and a woman. The present efforts to make other unions acceptable and legal is totally contrary to nature as well as most relgious beliefs. The fact that this country is even considering these issues shows how its judges and political leaders have forsaken all common sense and real moral standing. This judge has done a disgraceful thing and it will stand as a memorial against his egotistical mind set and his terrible assault against the California electorate. Impeachment needs to be considered since all officials vow to uphold the Constitution. There was no need for the founding fathers to define marriage since they had good sense and knew what it was. Today we have more educated fools than ever before.

  • slickporsche

    To all you s–t packers out there, your day is coming. Gay bashing will be returning with a vengence and a violence like this country has never seen before. Damn I hate that term “gay”, it is so incorrect and just plain dumb. Queer describes the behaviour the best and is not a cuss word, it just does an accurate job of describing this sick behavior.

    • George Halepis

      Now, now; we must be politically correct. I prefer “fudge packer” myself.

  • Jimmy

    I think that everything that is being reported in the news is just a distraction to what is really going on within this country. As far as Obama is concerned , he is a pawn, a distraction. If all attention is focused on him and his administration, no one will see or be aware of what the real truth is as far as our freedoms and God given rights . There is a great evil at work and Obama is just a “Trojan Horse”, being used to divert everyones attention away from the world money changers who are slowly closing the doors on America,The Land Of the Free.Wake up ! Look past what is not made public and dig deeper into how everyone is being mislead by the Politicians. There is a lot more going on than what meets the eye.


    Judge Walker would have us believe that his decision is based on his interpretation of the 14th amendment. This is all subterfuge, in an attempt to hide his true motive.The judge is just another one of many with an agenda, and who permeate the raw edges of society.They infect our senses and seek to corrupt and destroy the values and traditions we hold as sacred. They do this in their ongoing effort of “Defining deviancy down”

  • Mike

    Is this a problem with democracy or is it really exactly what we should expect when we allow government involvement in something that should be decided by individuals, their conscience and their God.

    What the hell gives 52.24 percent of the people of California the right to impose their will on the other 47.76 percent? The Judge, in this case, is right and the reasons he stated are correct, but I suspect his decision was really more politically motivated than by any judicial integrity, i.e. if 99% of the people voted to take away the natural God given right of the other 1% to defend themselves with firearms, would he have been so constitutionally pure?


  • Smilee

    If he interpreted it right and I believe he did interpret it right as you do. then his motivation is irrelevant as it has no bearing on the outcome. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution but Congress or the States in any laws they write cannot discriminate, and in this case States can write marriage laws but the laws can not treat one person covered by the law different from another in the case of marriage it is a relationship between two adults and gender discrimination would be just that if gender identity was ignored or allowed . I think every court has ruled this way so far the last before this being in Iowa.

  • http://ticle Smilee

    The author of this article would have us believe that the 10th amendment applies to anything, in fact if any part of the constitution restricts the tenth then the tenth does not apply and in this case the 14th amendment trumps the tenth and this judge ruled as such as he had to if he was to follow the constitution which the author does not. Jefferson’s opinions are just that and have no force of law what so ever which the author seems to imply it does.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.