Senator Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano drop Bombshells: Obama Administration was Spying on Other Senators Too


Especially if you are a baby boomer, you’d remember the Brady Bunch’s Jan being frustrated with her older sister saying, “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia”.

 

VIDEO: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

That’s what the whining Left sounds to me every time they talk as if President Trump and Russia colluded together to win the election: “Russia, Russia, Russia”. (Yeah, its not an original thought – I heard the analogy first on Fox News)

 

The America is so unreasonably dialed into the UNPROVEN analogy, they fail to deliver the news about easier to access proof about Obama Administration spying on Conservatives. If it wasn’t for Trump-haters rolling over from the Obama Administration, Obama’s treasonous activities undoubtedly draw a picture that would make Benedict Arnold blush.

 

Here is a suspicion from a Conservative U.S. Senator that has zero traction on the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM): Senator Rand Paul believes Obama used American Intelligence to spy not only on him during his Presidential campaign but also on other Senators and SCOTUS Justices.

 

JRH 5/16/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Senator Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano drop Bombshells: Obama Administration was Spying on Other Senators Too

 

By Onan Coca

May 15, 2017

Constitution.com

 

The illegal government spying story continues to grow and metastasize and could soon take on a life of its own.

 

In fact, Senator Paul has discovered at least one other Senator who was most certainly surveilled by the Obama administration.

 

This past week, Senator Rand Paul revealed that he had asked the White House, and the House and Senate Intelligence committees to look into the possibility that he and other presidential candidates and politicians had been unlawfully surveilled by the Obama administration.

 

VIDEO: Sen. Rand Paul on “Varney & Co.” – May 10, 2017 [About 2:50 mark Senator Paul speaks of Obama spying]

 

Posted by SenatorRandPaul

Published on May 10, 2017

 

“I know one other senator who’s already confided to me that he was surveilled by the Obama administration, including his phone calls,” Senator Paul told Fox News on Friday“So when this all comes out, if there are political figures from the opposition party, it’s a story bigger than any of the allegations with regard to Russian collusion… It’s about your own government spying on the opposition party, that would be enormous if true. I don’t know the truth. We’ve asked the intel committees, House and Senate, and I’ve also asked the White House, because there is this whole discussion of Susan Rice unmasking people,” Paul said.

 

VIDEO: Sen. Rand Paul Discusses Comey and Surveillance with Maria Bartiromo – May 11, 2017 [About 3:49 mark Senator Paul speaks of Obama spying]

 

Posted by SenatorRandPaul

Published on May 11, 2017

 

On Monday, Judge Andrew Napolitano explained on the Fox Business Network that Senator Paul is likely right and that many others were likely surveilled as well. Specifically, Judge Napolitano mentioned that former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believed that he and the other Justices were under constant surveillance.

 

Justice Scalia told me that he often thought the court was being surveilled. And he told me that probably four or five years ago… If they had to unmask Senator Paul’s name to reveal a conversation he was having with a foreign agent and the foreign agent was hostile to the United States they can do that. That’s not what he’s talking about. They’re talking about unmasking him when he’s having a conversation with his campaign manager when he’s running in the Republican primary.

 

VIDEO: Were senators under surveillance by Obama administration?

 

Posted by Fox Business

Published on May 15, 2017

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, on allegations Sen. Rand Paul and another senator were under surveillance by the Obama administration and President Trump’s travel ban.

 

This is pretty disgusting stuff folks. This kind of government overreach is tyranny and it’s the kind of thing that we’re supposed to hold our leaders accountable for.

________________

Onan Coca

 

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved. 

 

 

One Liberal Justice Away


Dem Ass gun to American Uncle Sam

Justin Smith writes of the dangers to America’s Constitutional Republic as created by our Founding Fathers, if Obama successfully places another Left Wing Activist Justice on the Supreme Court. This is an awesome Editorial!

 

JRH 3/10/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

One Liberal Justice Away

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/10/2016 12:00 PM

 

Scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”  – Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

 

So much more than the Office of the U.S. President is at stake in the November election. The direction of a partisan U.S. Supreme Court is also a consideration, since the next president will quite likely select two or three of the next Justices; and if the Progressive Democrats and their unconstitutional and anti-constitution agenda control the Court, the future for our children will be damaged and liberty in America will be in grave danger.

 

Too many Justices from years past to the present have abandoned objective reason and impartial arbitration concerning our fundamental law, and they have consistently produced rulings that were distorted by their own personal feelings and prejudices, especially in cases seen as representing some aspect of “social justice.” This has resulted in the Supreme Court overstepping its own Constitutional authority by creating new de facto law through its rulings. And, when the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot read the same law in the same way on the same day from the same Constitution and U.S. legal code, splitting along party lines in almost every case, we no longer have a court of law — we have an elitist body politic.

 

For thirty years, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the judicial activists of the Supreme Court, until his death in February. He rigorously defended the U.S. Constitution in all areas, irrespective of the issue. His strong adherence to the fundamental law of the Constitution stood in stark contrast to those who viewed the Constitution as an infinitely malleable “living document”, and he opposed all who attempted to turn the latest left wing fads into the law of the land.

 

In past years, Democrats have called on Supreme Court nominees to accept Roe v. Wade as a super-precedent more fundamental than the Constitution itself. But in a 2009 interview, Scalia suggested that state constitutional amendments may take precedence to prevent abortions, effectively overruling Roe v. Wade; he also noted that nothing in the Constitution, especially in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, specifically delegates the power to fund abortions to the federal government. So under what constitutional authority does the federal government mandate abortion policies over the states?

 

To paraphrase Senator Ted Cruz, America is one liberal justice away from having Her religious liberties erased and from the Supreme Court forcing us to violate our religious conscience upon pain of a fine or imprisonment. America is one liberal justice away from open abortion on demand — one liberal justice away from the Ten Commandments being erased from the countryside and from every government building wherever they are found — one liberal justice away from our Second Amendment being eradicated and one liberal justice away from U.S. law becoming subservient to The Hague and international law. [Bold Italic emphasis is Blog Editor’s]

 

Under the Leftist agenda, homosexual “marriage” is sanctioned by unelected judges, the innocent unborn can be murdered, gun ownership is only for the government, healthcare penalties to coerce behavior are taxes, religious liberty only protects private belief and the president can rewrite U.S. law at will.

 

In this political environment, the Republicans are well within their rights to reject all of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, since Obama treats jurisprudence as a weapon of political warfare. In 2006 and well before the midterm elections, Obama, then a Senator, filibustered Justice Samuel Alito and demanded a 60-vote threshold; and, since his election in 2008, Obama has brazenly abused executive power and ignored Congress, in his race to embed his hard-left agenda within our American culture and force a fundamental transformation away from our Founding Principles.

 

Let’s not forget that then-Senators John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and 21 colleagues joined Obama against Alito. Let’s not forget Obama’s explanation that the Constitution requires “an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology and record”, as he criticized Alito as “somebody who is contrary to core American values.”

 

Nobody is more “contrary to core American values” than Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee, who advocated for the acceptance of the integration of some aspects of Sharia law into the U.S. jurisprudence in 2006 when she was the Dean of the Harvard School of Law.

 

Does anyone really believe that Justice Sotomayor exemplifies “core American values”?

 

The Democrats are two-faced, when it concerns the Supreme Court, they fight dirty and they fight for keeps. They have two standards for judicial appointments – one for themselves and another for Republicans, but now they are crying “foul.”

 

So what if the Democrat controlled Senate under Pres. Ronald Reagan confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy on February 3,1988? They only did so after excoriating and brutally impugning the honorable reputations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg.

 

Obsessed with identity politics and social justice, make no mistake, the brawlers in the Democratic Party, such as Senators Schumer and Reid, would be blocking Republican nominations, if the situation was reversed. In fact, they did filibuster one of Bush’s federal court nominees, Miguel Estrada, in 2003, simply because they thought he might make it to the Supreme Court one day. And more significantly, Obama voted against John Robert’s nomination because of Robert’s “overarching political philosophy.”

 

It is also worth noting that despite the Democrats’ insistence that Justice Scalia’s seat must be filled quickly, the Court is designed to function with very few Justices, if necessary, and it has throughout history. In 1789 there were only six Justices, but a quorum of four was required to do the Court’s business. In 1801 there were five Justices; ten existed in 1863 and Court held seven in 1866: There is no such thing as a rule of nine.

 

Think of all the narrow 5-4 decisions in recent history that upheld fundamental rights such as religious liberty, freedom of speech and the Second Amendment, and one will see this 2016 election to be an historic juncture of the utmost importance to America. Therefore, U.S. Senators have the obligation to the American people to prevent the confirmation of any liberal justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, who would use the Court like a continuing constitutional convention. They are obligated to defend the U.S. Constitution against all who would dismiss our rule of law in favor of their own arbitrary, arrogant and authoritarian rule of men, and this requires U.S. Senators to reject any of Obama’s radical judicial activists for a lifetime on the Supreme Court: Senators have the duty to advise and consent, not to say “yes.”

 

By Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets are the Editor’s.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

Scalia Conspiracy


Bed Scalia Found In

John R. Houk

© February 16, 2016

 

VIDEO: Scalia Was Found with ‘Pillow Over His Head’

Posted by DAHBOO777

Published on Feb 14, 2016

www.undergroundworldnews.com

A first-time guest to the Cibolo Creek Ranch, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was animated and engaged during dinner Friday night, as one of three dozen invitees to an event that had nothing to do with law or politics, according to the ranch owner.

Just hours later, he would be found dead of apparent natural causes, which media outlets reported on Sunday was a heart attack.

“He was seated near me and I had a chance to observe him. He was very entertaining. But about 9 p.m. he said, ‘it’s been a long day and a long week, I want to get some sleep,” recalled Houston businessman John Poindexter, who owns the 30,000-acre luxury ranch.

When Poindexter tried to awaken Scalia about 8:30 the next morning, the judge’s door was locked and he did not answer. Three hours later, Poindexter returned after an outing, with a friend of Scalia who had come from Washington with him.

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,” said Poindexter.

Learn More:

http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php#photo-9402846

With Leftists still swooning with love and affection for President Barack Hussein Obama and his transformation agenda for America, Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow on his head at a Dem Party supporter’s billionaire ranch in Texas.

Justice Scalia would have been pivotal in preserving the integrity of the U.S. Constitution on some upcoming issues for this year’s Supreme Court docket:

Scalia had been set to rule on a number of very controversial and divisive cases before the Supreme Court, now evenly split 4-4 between conservatives and liberals:

  1. Abortion: Next month, SCOTUS will hear the most significant abortion case since 1992, centering on Texas, on whether states can legally impose restrictions on abortion that do not put an “undue burden” on access to the procedure.
  2. Obamacare: SCOTUS is expected to rule on Zubik v. Burwell, on whether Obamacare’s requirement that employers must provide female employees with no-cost access to birth control, including abortifacients, violates religious nonprofits’ religious freedom. The plaintiffs include the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
  3. Unions: Scalia was the swing vote in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case challenging the legality of “fair share” fees that unions charge nonmembers to cover costs associated with collective bargaining.
  4. Affirmative Action: In Fisher v. University of Texas, on the use of affirmative action and race in college admissions, Scalia had argued that affirmative action shortchanges minorities by putting them into an environment where they cannot perform as well as other students.
  5. Separation of church and state: In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, on whether religious schools can continue to be denied publicly-funded grants, Scalia had argued that, if a democratic majority wants to, banning state lawmakers from funding religious schools would impede the free exercise of religion.
  6. Climate change: One of Scalia’s last official acts as a justice was to deliver a large dent in Obama’s climate legacy, providing one of five votes to stay the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from power plants.
  7. Immigration: In April, SCOTUS will argue a challenge to Obama’s use of executive orders to allow up to 5 million more illegals to apply for quasi-legal status and work permits.
  8. Gun rights: The National Rifle Association maintains that Scalia’s death puts gun rights in jeopardy because, given the ages of SCOTUS judges, the next president will have a chance at choosing four judges. The NRA plans to spend over $20 million on the upcoming election to push gun rights. “In my view, all the chips are on the table in this election because the impact is who gets the Supreme Court,” said the NRA’s chief, Allan D. Cors in an interview with Secrets this month.

[Sources: Politico; Washington Examiner] (Scalia found dead with a pillow over his head; By Dr. Eowyn; Fellowship of the Minds; 2/14/16)

I don’t know your thoughts, but when an individual who is pivotal to thwart the Obama transformation is found with a pillow on the top of his head is found dead, there is something rotten in Denmark … or perhaps rotten in Washington DC.

Check out some of these tidbits of information:

JUDGE SCALIA’S DEATH TO BE RULED A “HEART ATTACK”

The more we learn about the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the more that the whole thing grows more and more suspicious. First,  a seemingly healthy Scalia dies unexpectedly in Texas, but amazingly no one wants an autopsy. Then, under the cover of darkness, his dead body is whisked away to be embalmed before anyone can examine it. Why would this be?  Lastly, Judge Scalia was found with a “pillow over his head” as if he had been suffocated to death. (SUDDEN DEATH OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA DESCENDS INTO CONSPIRACY; By Geoffrey Grider; Now the End Begins; 2/14/16)

Here is the Obama and ranch owner/billionaire Poindexter connection:

The photo below is Barack Obama shaking hands with a man by the name of John Poindexter, a Texas millionaire businessman also noted for being a donor to the Democrat Party and who also received an award from Barack Obama related to his military service in Vietnam.

Poindexter is the owner of the very Cibolo Creek Ranch Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at earlier this week.

Obama & John Poindexter -Ranch owner Scalia's death

(Above photo from a Houston Business Journal report, August 15th, 2010)

It has been long-standing policy for the Obama administration to grant presidential awards to those who are among the president’s most prized political donors.

It was Poindexter who reportedly was among those who initially discovered the Justice’s body, and who then coordinated with local officials to have Justice Scalia declared dead via a phone conversation with the area medical examiner – but without an actual medical examination of the body.

Mr. Poindexter was also said to be the primary point man between the ranch location and federal authorities who were notably slow to arrive on scene.

… (Justice Scalia Dies At Ranch Resort Owned By Democrat Party Donor & Obama Award Winner; DCWhispers; 2/14/16)

Judge Guevara ruled Scalia’s death as natural causes without even the body. She made the ruling over the phone:

What’s more, following Scalia’s death at the remote Cibolo Creek Ranch near the Mexican border, authorities said it took hours to find a justice of the peace. When Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez finally tracked down Guevara on her cellphone Saturday afternoon, she told WFAA-TV she was shopping.

“He says, ‘Judge, I’m at Cibolo Creek Ranch, and a Supreme Court Justice has just passed away, and I need someone here immediately. Both justices of the peace are out of town at this time,’” Guevara recalled to the station.

Guevara acknowledged to the Post that she pronounced Scalia dead over the phone on Saturday without seeing his body. She told WFAA she had planned to head to the ranch but that a U.S. Marshal told her over the phone, “It’s not necessary for you to come, judge. If you’re asking for an autopsy, that’s what we need to clarify.”

Guevara told the station before deciding that she wanted details of Scalia’s death.

“As part of my investigation one of the things I did ask the sheriff and the U.S. Marshal: ‘Were there any signs of foul play? And they said, ‘Absolutely not.’ At that time, I still wanted to be careful and asked them if [Scalia’s] physician would call me,” Guevara told WFAA.

The Post reported that another justice of the peace was called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time — and that she would have made a different decision. “If it had been me … I would want to know,” Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Texas, told the paper in a Sunday interview.

But Guevara cited Texas laws that permit a justice of the peace to declare someone dead without seeing the body, the Post said.

(‘It Wasn’t a Heart Attack’: Confusion and Conflicting Reports Surround Justice Scalia’s Death; By Dave Urbanski; The Blaze; 2/14/16 9:31pm)

So recapping: Justice Antonin Scalia had a robust conversation at dinner but left the table saying he was a bit under the weather. In the morning the next day John Poindexter knocked on Scalia’s door to rouse him for breakfast – no answer. Poindexter leaves and comes back – according to him – a few hours knocks on the door – still no answer. I’m not really sure what he did to enter the locked room unless he had some kind of key. As Pondexter enters, he sees Scalia in bed covered but with a pillow mysteriously on Scalia’s face. Poindexter a billionaire but not a doctor, determines Scalia is not able to be resuscitated so calls the Federal authorities.

“He was lying very restfully. It looked like he had not quite awakened from a nap,” he said. Scalia,79, did not have a pulse and his body was cold, and after consulting with a doctor at a hospital in Alpine, Poindexter concluded resuscitation would have been futile, He then contacted federal authorities, at first encountering a series of answering services because he was calling on a weekend. (ibid. Now the End Begins)

More timeline inconsistency:

Cibolo Creek Rancy on TX road map

Texas Road Map Locating Cibolo Creek Ranch & Transport Cities

  • After lunch on Feb. 13: Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez reached Judge Guevara in Alpine on her mobile phone.

  • At 1:52 p.m., Feb. 13: Guevara pronounced Scalia dead. She had planned to drive to the ranch — about 30 minutes south of Marfa — but returned when a U.S. Marshal told her by phone: “It’s not necessary for you to come, judge,” because she was not asking for an autopsy, having determined Scalia had died of “natural causes”.

  • At 8 p.m., Feb. 13: Scalia’s personal physician called and spoke with Guevara.

  • Night of Feb. 13: Scalia’s body was transported by van from Cibola Creek Ranch to El Paso, Texas.

  • At 3:30 a.m., Sunday, Feb. 14: Scalia’s body arrived at Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, where it was promptly embalmed, less than 24 hours after Poindexter had found the body in the suite. (No autopsy for Scalia because his body is already embalmed! By Dr. Eowyn; Fellowship of the Minds; 2/15/16)

Okay, I realize I realize that I am walking on the area that all Leftists call Right Wing delusions and undoubtedly a majority of Conservative pundits and politicians also will publicly say this is unsubstantiated Conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. Regardless, for me, this sounds more like the continuous cover-ups and denials unloaded on voters and especially Dem Party loyalists that has emanated from Obama (and ironically both Clintons earlier) since the 2008 campaign right up to this present time.

VIDEO: Why Some People Think Scalia Was Murdered

Posted by Paul Joseph Watson

Published on Feb 15, 2016

It doesn’t take a wild conspiracy theorist to understand why people have questions.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

JRH 2/16/16

Please Support NCCR

Other Links that speculate the effect Justice Scalia’s death will have:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/urgent-calls-begin-for-scalia-autopsy/

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=3967

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/February/South-Carolina-Free-for-All-Gloves-Come-Off-at-GOP-Debate

The First Freedom


Justin Smith captures the essence of SCOTUS joining the American Left to destroy Christianity in a stealthy slow whittling manner.

JRH 7/6/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

The First Freedom

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM

Natural law – God’s law – will always trump common law. God will have the final word in this matter.” – Alveda King, a Christian leader and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece

The Supreme Court’s recent egregious and error-filled ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, favoring homosexual marriage, has seriously endangered the liberty of all Americans, through its gross distortions of the documents fundamental to American liberty. This ruling, facilitated by five Progressive Justices acting like oligarchs, created through judicial decree a previously non-existent “constitutional right” to sin-based “gay marriage,” and it showed all Americans that they can never again trust in the rulings of the Court, when Liberty hangs in the balance.

The First Freedom — Religious Liberty — is currently in crisis, because the many activist federal judges and “conservative” Justices, like Anthony Kennedy, are willing to move Left, even if they must defy the Constitution. Too many conservatives have refused to stand in defense of religious liberty, and they follow rules that Democrats ignore, as these Progressives unfold their Machiavellian plan. If religious liberty can be undone by decree, and the people allow it, then so too can every other liberty be undone.

The Framers of Our Constitution thought that Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” and would provide “a complete security against the justices’ deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.” [The Essential Federalist Papers; Edited by Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers Project; 10/3/13; Federalist 81- pg. 24 of document – pg. 25 of PDF] But, with Congress currently lacking will and backbone, any prospect of impeachment is virtually non-existent and still offers no remedy.

In March of 1788, Robert Yates, a New York judge, published the ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ under the name “Brutus.” [You can find the text to all Brutus Anti-Federalist essays HERE.] He noted that the Supreme Court would favor the increase of federal power at the expense of the states [Blog Editor’s opinion: These Brutus essays are must reads to ascertain Justin Smith’s exegesis of Robert Yates’ on SCOTUS, the States and Legislature – XI, XII, XIII and XV], just in the manner we now see state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman recently eradicated. Brutus also worried that SCOTUS could use its interpretive “principles, whatever they may be” to explain its own power and define that of the legislative branch through the threat of having its laws declared unconstitutional; so the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges portends terribly evil events surrounding any future legislation on abortion or marriage.

Justice John Roberts’ dissent proves the truth of Brutus’s words:

“The majority’s ruling is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution … The majority expressly disclaims judicial ‘caution’ and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own ‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice.'” [Entire Roberts Dissent]

Isn’t it curious and sickening that homosexuality, considered a mental disorder throughout the 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association and considered perverted and criminal by society until this century, is now supposedly acceptable, with homo-marriage “a constitutional right”?

Obergefell v. Hodges effectively nullified the votes of 50 million Americans, representing 60% of votes cast on the matter to date, and negated their affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, five Black Robes — the Court — trampled on the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.

In part, Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent stated [Search Page: “SCALIA, J., dissenting]:

“The five Justices … have discovered in the 14th Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds … John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand … Hugo Black … could not. ,,, These Justices know that an institution [marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman] as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until fifteen years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance and bigotry. … The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause would conclude that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, “gay marriages”; however, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to “exercise” religion, the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges omits any mention of the free exercise clause, suggesting only that the Keepers of the Faith may continue to “advocate” and “teach” our views of marriage.

Without a doubt, a total purge of America’s Judeo-Christian principles and values is underway in the public square and our education systems, and this “gay marriage” and sodomite deviancy nonsense is nothing more than a move to force Christ’s faithful, under penalty of law to abandon Biblical Truth and accept sexual sin in their midst, with the endgame essentially being the silencing of all Christian dissent: I will not let them silence me.

Pat Buchanan recently asked (in ‘Quo Vadis’),

“Does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?”

Todd Starnes (Fox News Radio) recently reported that Linda Barnette, from Grenada County-Mississippi, left her County Clerk position after 24 years of service, rather than issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She wrote, “I choose to obey God rather than man,” in her one paragraph resignation letter. Unfortunately, the Court Clerk of Rutherford County, my home, did not have the same moral compass, resolve and strength of conviction, issuing homosexual “marriage licenses” immediately.

This homo-marriage ruling comes straight from Hell’s abyss, even though it supposedly still protects religious liberty. Aside from creating new furious debate, this ruling will also increase Christian persecution, through Leftist Progressive lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals, like Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who recently appealed a $13,000 fine they received for refusing to host a “gay wedding” at their privately owned Liberty Ridge Farm (Albany, NY) in June, as they argue that the lower court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs.

More than equality under the law — more than toleration — the “gay” community wants to force all Americans to validate their immorality. And, as such, Christians must refuse to comply with any ruling that forces us into any unwanted association with homosexuals, and we must demand that Congress restrains the Court by defunding it, if necessary: America — do not obey this rogue Court’s ruling.

Christians must tell the truth and fight back hard, if they don’t want to become second class citizens. Tell about a nation founded on Religious Freedom and rights that don’t end the moment we leave church, and fight for the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christians. Tell about the raw hatred for Christians that is driving the illiberal Progressives to crush religious freedom just as Marx and Engels mandated, and fight for religious freedom acts in all fifty states in order to counter today’s open warfare on Christians by the Left.

By Justin O Smith

________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

America Rising


It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

America Rising

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

“The Liberties of Our Country … are worth defending at all hazards … We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors … purchased … with toil … and expense of treasure and blood. — It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation … if we should … be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” – Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that “shining city on the hill,” a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare – King v. Burwell – and the issue of same-sex marriage, the “land of liberty” is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) “We should start calling this SCOTUSCare … this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy … Today’s decree says that … the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In Katie Pavlich’s Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right, the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts’ accusation that the Court acted “out of preference” is “an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee’s assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent. Huckabee said: “They [the Justices] didn’t rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage”; and Roberts stated: “The majority’s decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America’s core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God’s commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ “Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.”

The Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America’s public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: “As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties “You don’t belong here.” Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it’s not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called “Utopia”. Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it’s not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority’s misapplication of clauses like “due process”, aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of ‘liberty’ and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man’s age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we’ve allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America — because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there’s a place here beside me or out there against me, once you’re moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty’s dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Criticizing the Current Interpretation of Disestablishment Clause


Fisher Ames Framer 1st Amendment

Fisher Ames

 

John R. Houk

© June 16, 2012

 

On my AC2C blog I posted this title: “Keep Govt. OUT of Church – NOT Church out Govt.” The main focus of the post was a Youtube video of excerpts of President Ronald Reagan speeches with a definite portrayal of Christianity on the U.S. government.

 

I wrote this as a little introduction to the Ronald Reagan excerpts:

 

The disestablishment clause of the First Amendment is a one-way action as far as Separation of Church and State is concerned. That one-way is that government must be separate and out of the religion business AND NOT that the Church be separate from the government.

 

Here are the limited comments on my AC2C blog pertaining to my introduction to the Reagan video:

 

Comment by CJ on Wednesday:

 

If they want to keep their tax exemptions they can’t preach it at the pulpit.  So, what? … they [can] go out in the political world. the church can interfere, influence government but government can’t interfere with the church…???????

 

I do believe the Founders wanted “religion” out of politics and politics out of ‘religion”.

 

Let’s just agree to disagree John.

 

Comment by John on Wednesday

 

I respectfully disagree CJ. The Church in various denominations can and should be an influence on government and the government should never interfere with the Church in its various denominations. Both sides of that coin can work and did in America until the 1960s.

 

Comment by CJ on Monday

 

[N]ot sure about this….can’t have it both ways…if you want government out of the church then let the church stay out of the government….

 

Now just for clarity’s sake I am not criticizing CJ. We are friends on AC2C. Indeed, at AC2C CJ is a big fish and I am just a little mackerel. I am thrilled when CJ reads my posts and comments on them. We are both Conservatives. You should also know Conservatives do not agree on all issues. On the Church/State issue I am all about the government needs to mind its business relating to the Church and the Church needs to be a moral foundation for the rule of law in America and thus the U.S. government.

 

As the moral foundation, I am not advocating that Christianity itself be the law of the land. I am advocating that Christian morality and principles be the measuring stick for the rule of law in Congress enacting laws and the Executive Branch enforcing those laws or appending rules in conjunction to Congressional enacted laws to define enforcement. Neither the President nor the Judiciary Branch should enact laws according to the U.S. Constitution that are outside the scope of duly enacted Constitutional Congressional laws. The Executive enforces or manages the rule of law and the Judicial Branch merely interprets the enacted law or the enforcement of an enacted law according to the U.S. Constitution and the duly State ratified Amendments.

 

As far as the Church, the State and the Constitution are related I like this statement on a Jeremiah Project article:

 

While the concept of separation of church and state might be implied by the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”, it says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” And, even if you accept the principle of the separation of church and state being implied by the First Amendment, it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

In their desire to promote their secular humanist philosophy using the power of government, many liberals today want to alter America’s Christian heritage and replace it with the 10 Planks of Communism. They want to remove religion from our history and replace it with the Soviet doctrine of the separation of Church and State. They don’t want to safeguard denominational neutrality by the state as the Founders intended, rather they want to eradicate every vestige of religion from our public institutions. (The bold emphasis is mine. America’s Godly Heritage; Jeremiah Project)

 

For me the First Amendment in its Original Intent means that which I placed in bold print above: “it’s implication is not there to protect Americans from religion, it is there to protect religious Americans from the government.

 

This is what I meant by Church and State separation is a one-way street. This is why I disagree with CJ. In CJ’s reasoning there is no two-ways about it; i.e. if government cannot be involved Church then Church cannot be involved in government. There is one I can agree with CJ’s reasoning. That agreement is the Church cannot be a Branch of the government say like Islam is a part of the Iranian government making Iran a theocracy. In this line of thinking CJ is absolutely correct in keeping religion/Church separate from government.

 

The USA is a democratically representative Republic by the people and for the people. There is nothing theocratic about America. In promoting Christian principles in government Americans are doing that which keeps America great. The more God that is prohibited in American government the less America is great. So on government property whether it is Federal, State or local government the emblems of America’s heritage should remain to remind the government what the basis for the rule of law comes from. Part of that heritage is also Judeo-Greco-Roman influence. There is no shame for a secular government to emblemize reminders of our heritage following the Judeo-Christian-Greco-Roman line.

 

This is the one-way street: no government meddling in religion; however religious influence on government is needful for good government for the people and by the people.

 

The thing is most Democrats disagree with the one-way street paradigm I briefly stated because of the Living Constitution doctrine has allowed Left oriented activist Judges to begin slowly aligning the nation away from the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers to utilize Christian morality and love to be the foundation of the rule of law.

 

Here are some remarks that disfavor the Living Constitution doctrine from deceased Chief Justice William Rehnquist:

 

At least three serious difficulties flaw the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution. First, it misconceives the nature of the Constitution, which was designed to enable the popularly elected branches of government, not the judicial branch, to keep the country abreast of the times. Second, the brief writer’s version ignores the Supreme Court’s disastrous experiences when in the past it embraced contemporary, fashionable notions of what a living Constitution should contain. Third, however socially desirable the goals sought to be advanced by the brief writer’s version, advancing them through a freewheeling, nonelected judiciary is quite unacceptable in a democratic society.

 

 

The brief writer’s version of the living Constitution, in the last analysis, is a formula for an end run around popular government. To the extent that it makes possible an individual’s persuading one or more appointed federal judges to impose on other individuals a rule of conduct that the popularly elected branches of government would not have enacted and the voters have not and would not have embodied in the Constitution, the brief writer’s version of the living Constitution is genuinely corrosive of the fundamental values of our democratic society. (The Notion of a Living Constitution; by William H. Renquist – Read Entire PDF Document)

 

Here are some thoughts from Justice Antonin Scalia:

 

 

In a 35-minute speech Monday [2005], Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. …

 

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

 

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

 

 

Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

 

“Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution,” said Scalia … (Scalia Slams ‘Living Constitution’ Theory; by AP on Fox News; 3/14/05 – Read Entirety)

 

Here is excerpted definition of Original Intent from The Free Dictionary:

 

The theory of interpretation by which judges attempt to ascertain the meaning of a particular provision of a state or federal constitution by determining how the provision was understood at the time it was drafted and ratified.

 

Sometimes called original understanding, originalism, or intentionalism, the theory of original intent is applied by judges when they are asked to exercise the power of Judicial Review during a legal proceeding. (The power of judicial review is the power of state and federal courts to review and invalidate laws that have been passed by the legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)

 

… Judges who do attempt to apply this judicial philosophy generally agree that only through its application may courts be bound by the law and not their own views of what is desirable. They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution.

 

 

… They argue that the interpretation of most written documents, legal or otherwise, involves a form of “communication” in which “the writer seeks to communicate with the reader”, Constitutional interpretation is no different, originalists say, because it involves the attempt of judges, as readers, to understand the meaning of a constitutional provision as conveyed by the Framers and ratifiers who authored it. Originalists believe that judges who fail to employ this method of interpretation transform courts into naked power organs.

 

Originalists contend that judges who deviate from the original understanding of a constitutional provision are forced to replace that understanding with their own subjective sympathies, social preferences, and notions of reasonableness. When judges substitute their own value choices for those actually written in the Constitution, federal courts become super-legislatures that make decisions based on the personal will of judges and not the law of the land (Day-Brite Lighting v. Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 72 S. Ct. 405, 96 L. Ed. 469 [1952]).

 

Originalists assert that judges who legislate from the bench violate the separation of powers by making law rather than interpreting and applying it. These judges also violate the principles of federalism, the second essential feature of U.S. constitutional democracy identified by originalists. Under these principles, courts must strike an appropriate balance between the sovereignties of state and federal governments, not allowing the smaller state governments to be wholly consumed by the ubiquitous federal government. Originalists contend that this balance impermissibly tips in favor of the federal government when federal courts invent new constitutional rights that state governments are then required to enforce.

 

 

Respect for principles of federalism, then, is intimately connected with the third essential feature of U.S. Constitutional democracy identified by originalists, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects certain freedoms from the popular will no matter how democratically the majority attempts to trample them. In all other areas, originalists assert, state and federal majorities are entitled to rule for no better reason than that they are majorities. Originalists explain that majority tyranny occurs if legislation invades areas properly left to individual freedom, and minority tyranny occurs if the majority is prevented from ruling where its power is legitimate.

 

Originalists argue that the judiciary facilitates minority tyranny by improperly interpreting the Bill of Rights to guarantee liberties not contemplated by the language and intent of the Framers. To avoid this pitfall, originalists believe, judges must safeguard only the liberties that can be clearly derived from the Constitution. Originalists cite a series of cases in which the Supreme Court recognized a right to privacy as the antithesis of proper constitutional interpretation.

 

… (Read Entire Definition)

 

That is stage I have attempted to refute on the so-called Separation of Church and State theory the courts have maintained since the mid-20th century to stop America’s Christian Heritage on or in anything that is supported by any kind of taxpayer money.

 

In 1947 a five to four decision in the Supreme Court ex nihilo added Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Church assuring them that the Federal Government would not establish a National Church thus that Church would not have worry about its parishioners paying taxes to a State Church as the British citizens had to do to support the Church of England (Anglican Church – Episcopalian in USA). In that letter Thomas Jefferson promised a “Wall of Separation” between the Church and the State.  Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the five Justices that egregiously added to the Constitution via a misinterpretation of Jefferson’s intent in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church. (Dissenting Opinions of Everson v. Board of Education: Jackson and Rutledge)

 

Here is a great rendition of Original Intent pertaining to the First Amendment and the Disestablishment Clause.

 

JRH 6/16/12 (Thanks to CJ for inspiring me to ponder)

Please Support NCCR