The following is a summary of Article III of the Constitution which establishes the federal Judiciary. One thing to be noticed in reading the Constitution is the length of each Article. Article I is the longest and Article III is the shortest of the first three articles which establishes how the government will operate.

All the judicial power of the United States, including the courts of law and justice, will be headed by one Supreme Court. Congress can set up other courts as needed. Federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior. Very few are removed for bad behavior and most consider these appointments for life. Besides listing the stated or enumerated powers, the judiciary interprets laws and the Constitution with an authority that must be deferred to. However, Congress can pass laws restricting the jurisdiction of the federal courts, such as prohibiting the courts from hearing cases regarding religious freedom or marriage. Congress can also eliminate the number of seats on the Appeals Courts, thus effectively firing some judges. Article III also defines treason, guarantees trial by jury in criminal cases, and lays the basis for federal jurisdiction.

The Definition of Treason: Betraying the United States is making war against the United States, being loyal to an enemy of the U.S., or giving that enemy help or comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless there is testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act (this is a basic Biblical principle), or by confession in open court.

The Eleventh Amendment (1798), which prohibits suits against any state by citizens of another state or foreigners, was passed in reaction to the Supreme Court accepting jurisdiction of a suit against a state by a citizen of another state. So Congress can intervene and pass legislation that restricts the courts activities in response to decisions Congress deems wrong.

This shows us that of the three branches Congress was to be the strongest because it represented the people. The courts were never intended to do anything other than decide whether the issue before them is found in the Constitution and rule on it based on that finding. They are not to expand on what is written in the Constitution, make laws or levy taxes. And when they do hand down their opinion it is just that – their opinion. It is not law.

This means when a federal judge rules on a law, such as same sex marriage that was passed by a vote of the people or a vote of the state’s legislature, the Governor of the state can legally ignore the “opinion” because it is not a law. It would have to go back to the state legislature to be made into law and in most states that would not get passed into law. There is a vast difference between opinion and law.

In a way it has to do with our understanding of truth. When God gave His Ten Commandments, if the Word of God is your basis for truth then you will view those as His law. But if you believe truth can be what you believe it to be then you will view the Ten Commandments as suggestions or just His opinion.

Unfortunately, we have been seduced into believing that whenever a federal judge renders an opinion that it is the same as establishing a law. And Governors have not stood up to challenge the judicial opinion which is their right.

Next Week: The Judicial Branch and the Separation of Power

Questions for Discussion: Discuss the differences between opinion on a law and making a law. Tie it to Biblical principles and truth.