Did SCOTUS Exceed Its Authority In Striking Down DOMA?

The Constitution is anything but unambiguous. The document is four pages long. I'll say that again. It's four pages long. Can be read in about 30 minutes. Incredibly easy to understand.

Although the Legislature is the only Branch that has the ability to MAKE laws, each Branch has distinct ways in which laws may be "revoked."

Congress doesn't really "revoke" a law. They just make another law which supersedes the previous, effectively "revoking" it.

The Executive can can choose to use "enforcement discretion" putting a law so far down on priority that it may as well not be a law anymore. The current controlled status of Marijuana in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon is an example of this. The law is still there, but it may as well be "revoked."

Finally, the Supreme court, has the ability to declare that a law, or a specific subsection (more likely) of a law is Unconstitutional, making it void. It doesn't "revoke" the law, it just makes it unenforceable by the Executive.

So anyone saying the Supreme Court exceeded their authority, on this specific case, is frankly wrong. There is LOTS of case law leading up to this decision, starting with VA v Loving, which established marriage as a (Protected) Right in the US. The debate gets more complex when we talk States' Powers vs Equal Protections, however the States' Power amendment has been generally viewed as "toothless" due to a combination of the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Article 4 of the Constitution (read it, as this actually settled the issue before getting into any of the other clauses).

edit: removed double word

Our Constitution set up the Supreme Court as the final Arbiter. The Supreme Court has Spoken. Marriage is a Right and as such can not be denied because of Sexual Orientation. Equal Protection Under the Law. Hell even Military Law has a "Fairness Doctrine/Fairness Clause.

This popular notion, that only Congress can make law, really misses the point. Congress has "All legislative Powers," and a fair definition of "legislative power" is the power to make law. Strictly speaking, fine, that means only Congress can make law. But the Executive and Judicial branches make decisions that carry the force of law. Does "law" only mean "legislation"? Why does it matter if the non-legislative activities carry the force of law? What is the functional difference between "law" and "force of law" when the only branch qualified to apply the law is the Judicial branch?

Each Branch was designed to exercise an immense amount of power in a small amount of space; co-equal, separation of powers, checks and balances, etc. The Legislature can make law out of nothing . . . but only under an enumerated power (and the Necessary and Proper Clause). The Executive has some discretion in the manner of enforcement, has great power in foreign affairs, and can control all Executive agencies through fiat, subject to the threats of voter disapproval and impeachment. The Judiciary can void any legislative or executive promulgation, but only within a specific case or controversy brought before it (except in sua sponte circumstances); Courts are entirely reactionary.

I think people who dislike whichever administration happens to hold the Executive tend to favor legislative supremacy . . . until the tables turn and their side holds the Presidency. Furthermore, it is entirely inconsistent to denounce the Court for Obergefell/Windsor and wish the Court had invalidated the Affordable Care Act. It either has power to invalidate statutes or it does not. What is the "judicial power"? If it is merely the power to parrot Congress, then it is no power at all.

Then there is the problem of common law. It literally is "judge-made law." It is still reactionary, and cannot stand on unreasonable bases indefinitely. Congress still has a check on the common law.

Supporting the Constitution means supporting the constitutional order. That order was established to prevent any one branch from holding all of the power. Neither the Congress, the President, nor the Supreme Court are supreme. They must be on a level with each other.