Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:


SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

 

Here is a quote that rings true about Lower Federal Courts striking down President Trump’s Executive Order travel ban from Islamic terrorist ridden nations or areas:

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law”.

 

The quote comes from journalist author Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press speculating with some positive certainty that SCOTUS will strike down the Lower Courts to President Trump’s favor.

 

Gibbs’ positivism comes from the plain English of the U.S. Constitution. Ergo Gibbs posits that SCOTUS will uphold the rule of law spelled out in ink in the Constitution.

 

I pray Gibbs is correct. We are about to find out of a Trump appointee to the Supreme Court was worth waiting to elect him as President.

 

There are roughly two trains of thought on Constitutional interpretation: Original Intent of the Founders and the Living Constitution which can loosely interpreted to fit the Secular Humanist’s view of what society is or will be.

 

President Trump’s EOs ran into Left-Wing Activist Judges committed to the Living Constitution interpretation.

 

The Activist Judges struck down President Trump’s Travel Ban Eos by interpreting Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as being anti-Islam and so the EOs were aimed at discriminating against Muslims rather protecting American citizens.

 

If a majority of SCOTUS Justices follow the Living Constitution methodology of interpretation you can kiss Separation of Powers goodbye in the separate but equal Checks and Balances that Civics so often affirmed as a constitutional doctrine of the U.S. Government.

 

WHY?

 

Because a Living Constitution Judicial Branch becomes the dictator of laws made by man rather than the rule of law. A Judicial dictatorship was one of the great concerns of the Founding Fathers of the constitutionally created Judicial Branch:

 

“[N]othing in the Constitution has given [the judiciary] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistracies are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them… the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature & Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.“- Thomas Jefferson [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton [Undeniable Quotes: The Founding Fathers Warn About SCOTUS]

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: August 18, 1821

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . 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. (Thomas Jefferson – It has longQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

The Judiciary . . . has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will. (The JudiciaryQuotes Database)

 

Thomas Jefferson letter to Judge Spencer Roane

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: September 6, 1819

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. (The ConstitutionQuotes Database)

 

Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 78

Categories: Courts / Judiciary

Date: June 14, 1788

And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments. (And it ProvesQuotes Database)

 

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 47

Categories: Separation of Powers

Date: January 30, 1788

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. (The Accumulation of all PowersQuotes Database)

 

These are just a few quotes by the Founding Fathers on concerns of one Branch dominating the others thus promoting tyranny. To do a little reading on your own about the concerns of dominant Branch tyranny go to Quotes Database category Separation of Powers Quotations.

 

My concern currently is Judicial Tyranny which the concept of the Living Constitution enables. And it was Judicial Tyranny stemming from Living Constitution ideology that struck down the Executive Orders of President Trump.

 

The President has asked SCOTUS to expedite a decision on those Executive Orders. How SCOTUS rules will either strengthen Living Constitution Judicial Tyranny a take an important step toward Constitutional Supremacy.

 

Here is some further reading:

 

Why Judicial Supremacy Isn’t Compatible with Constitutional Supremacy; By RAMESH PONNURU; National Review; 9/10/15 4:00 AM

 

Living Constitution, fancy words for judicial tyranny; Posted by Dstarr; News from the Northwoods; 2/15/16 3:22 PM

 

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny; By Tenth Amendment Center; 6/4/12

 

A ‘Living Constitution’ for a Dying Republic; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 9/16/05

 

JRH 6/4/17

 Please Support NCCR

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

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

By Douglas V. Gibbs

June 4, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

In Trump’s Travel Ban Executive Order, the laws he is executing with the order are listed.  Among them is a law that gives the President the ability to prohibit persons from entering the United States if he believes they may be a danger to the national security of this country.

 

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to make laws prohibiting persons from “migrating” into the United States with legislation.

 

Based on the original intent of the United States Constitution, Trump’s travel ban regarding a few Muslim-majority countries who have proven they are sponsors of terrorism, and are willing to harbor terrorists, is completely constitutional.

 

Lower federal court judges have struck down the executive orders as unconstitutional based on their ideology, not the rule of law.

 

There is no authority granted to the courts to strike down executive orders in the U.S. Constitution, so the actions of these judges have no foundation in constitutional law.

 

If President Trump understood all of these things, then he would simply tell the lower court judges to kiss off, and he would execute his travel ban, anyway.  The courts have no enforcement arm, and have no authority over his executive branch agencies.

 

However, the president decided to let the courts decide, and the next stop within days will likely be the United States Supreme Court.  A ruling is expected soon that would, based on their “opinion” and the current misguided view of the Constitution, lift a temporary stay on President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six mostly Muslim countries.

Immigration in the sense of who can cross the border, as per Article I, Section 9, is a federal issue.  The 1st Amendment’s religious clauses only disallow the Congress from making law establishing a state religion, or writing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion within our jurisdiction.  It has nothing to do with the religion of who is entering (if Islam is a religion at all in the first place), and Article I, Section 9 does not mention that a religious test cannot be used in connection with which migrants can be prohibited.  It also does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments because this is regarding people who aren’t even citizens of the United States.  As for the alleged ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in a 65-year-old congressional law, all Congress has to do is repeal that law, and replace it with a new one.

 

The Democrats have somehow equated the rejection of Islam by conservatives as being akin to how Germany treated the Jews while under the NAZI regime prior to, and during, World War II.  The reality is, Islam is not a religion, it is a political system and full way of life that calls itself a religion, and it has more in common with the NAZIs than it does with the persecuted Jews.

 

As Commander in Chief, among his primary functions, the President must protect the country (national security), and that is what his travel ban executive order seeks to accomplish.  Despite what one may think, the reality is that terrorism runs rampant in Islam, and in the countries listed.  If Islam doesn’t want us fearing them, and having the inclination that all Muslims are either terrorists, or support terrorist activity, then Islam needs to clean its own house (if that is even possible).  The problem is, like the Germans who were not NAZIs in Germany, the moderate Muslims are a moot point.  The violent jihadists are the ones driving the message of Islam, so that is what we have to address, despite the alleged notion that the poor moderate Muslims are not in agreement with the violence.

 

We, as a nation, have the right to protect ourselves from any potential enemy, no matter what they choose to call themselves (regime, government, or religion).

 

While there is no timetable on how quickly the Supreme Court will issue a final ruling in the case (again, I am not a supporter of the unconstitutional concept of judicial review, but as the system is thought to be now, this is the last resort the President has. . . aside from ignoring the courts, and carrying out his duties despite their opinions), there are other lower court decisions also brewing regarding the issue.  Two federal appeals courts are also currently considering the issue, and a ruling from the 9th Circus is still pending.  Trump’s Justice Department, however, has asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the issue now.

 

According to Fox News:

 

“The justices have the discretion to wait indefinitely to decide the broader merits of the case, but will issue an order in the meantime on whether the ban can be temporarily enforced. The federal government asked the high court to allow the order to go into effect now, and proposed oral arguments be held in October.”

 

The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security, as they should.  Bureaucrats and men in black robes should not be able to interfere with the duties of the President as Commander in Chief.  His job to protect the United States, while on some fronts are dependent upon Congress (such as when it comes to funding), is his to prosecute, and for judges to abandon the rule of law and act in a manner based on ideology regardless of the law is disgusting, and unconstitutional.

 

The executive order is the second one.  Rather than fight for the first one, the language was changed in a manner that was considered to be “bullet proof,” and then was issued March 6.  The revision, in addition to the added “bullet proof” language, also removed Iraq from the list of countries.

 

Officials say the new executive order only applies to foreign nationals outside the U.S. without a valid visa.

 

The appeals court said its decision was based on what Trump said on the campaign trail about “banning Muslims.”

 

Chief Judge Roger Gregory called it an “executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.”

 

Intolerance?  The Islamic culture has declared war on the United States, and the liberal left Democrats are treating this like it is a slight misunderstanding.  What about Islamic intolerance?  How about we ban mosques in the United States until Muslim countries start welcoming the building of churches and synagogues on their lands.  Did you know if you fly into a Muslim country, if they search you and discover you have a Bible, it will be destroyed onsite?  What about the genocide against Christians occurring in Muslim-majority countries?  Is that tolerance?
During World War II, would these judges have considered a ban against persons from the axis powers intolerant?

 

By the way, the law that started this thing about the President’s authority to prohibit immigration began with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, which gives the president the allowance to restrict immigration into the United States if he believes the persons to be a danger to our national security.  It was passed during a time when we as a country were worried about communist infiltration.  Some Democrats weren’t too happy back then, either, despite the reality that it was a Democrat sponsored law.  Carter, Reagan and Obama all used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, but you don’t remember the courts worried about Obama’s use of it, do you?

 

The court’s attacks against the executive order has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with who wrote the executive order. Congress should drag these activist judges before Congress and make them answer to the legislative branch for their unconstitutional rulings, and then impeach each and every one of them for their bad constitutional behavior.  Congress should also pass law nullifying each and every one of those unconstitutional rulings (a power they have according to Article III’s “Exceptions Clause”).

 

The problem, in short, is not that the courts are misbehaving, but that Congress and the President are letting them.

 

The judicial branch is supposed to be the weakest of the three branches.  They are not supposed to be a check against Congress or the President, other checks exist (or existed) to take care of that.  The judicial branch’s job is clear.  Their job is simply to apply the law to the cases they hear.  If they believe the law is unconstitutional or unjust, then they can issue an opinion so that Congress may reconsider the law.  What they are doing now has nothing to do with applying the law, or the rule of law.  These leftist judges are simply ruling against the president for political reasons, and then are misinterpreting the law to make it sound like their rulings are within the law.

 

They all need to be thrown off their benches, and either replaced, or those particular inferior courts need to be dismantled and the regions absorbed by another court – again, an authority that Congress has, but has been unwilling to wield.

________________

Judicial Tyranny or Constitutional Supremacy:

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling Decides

 

By John R. Houk

© June 4, 2017

________________

Supreme Court to Lift Ban on Travel Ban

 

Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.  Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator.  Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.

 

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com

 

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 4


1st Adam - 2nd Adam in Jesus Christ. Hans Baldung Grien

1st Adam/2nd Adam – Jesus Christ

John R. Houk

© March 25, 2014

 

If you choose to read the preceding parts simply click the links:

 

o   Part One

 

o   Part Two

 

o   Part Three

 

… In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)

 

Dougindeap is absolutely correct that the Founding Fathers separated the three branches of government as described in the U.S. Constitution: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. AND in separating those branches the Founders separated the powers thereof with checks and balances hoping to create a government in which the tyranny of despotism or the tyranny of democracy or judicial fiat could be avoided. The intention for the checks and balances was to give voting citizens the power to be a check and balance to the authority of the government vis-á-vis the Liberty of Civil and Individual Rights.

 

BUT Dougindeap presumes the enumeration of powers, checks and balances is also extended to the form of Church/State separate created by Judicial Fiat beginning with the Hugo Black majority opinion in 1947 Everson v. Board of Education:

 

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” (See Part 3)

 

I went over the reasons that this judicial fiat was and is bogus in Part Three. Let’s suffice it to say here that Dougindeap’s assertion that Hugo Black’s 1947 majority opinion was not in the mind of the Founders as a rule of law prescribed as part of powers of government in a Church/State separated with checks and balances way back in 1789. Dougindeap lists five points he believes the Founding Fathers established within the Constitution separating Church and State with checks and balances in the same way the three branches of government were enumerated.

 

1. Establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity).

 

I guess we need to examine briefly the Constitution’s Preamble from Part One:

 

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Bold emphasis mine)

 

In Part One I explained the reason I bold printed a portion of the Preamble:

 

The Free Dictionary listing for “general welfare” goes from the broad meaning found in the Preamble to a specific context carried on from Article 1 Section 8. …

 

THUS the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers understanding of the general welfare included morality. Since the Founding Fathers’ milieu was the 1760s through and a bit beyond the 1790s their concept of morality was not based on a Secular Humanism devoid of God and God the Creator’s morality established in the Bible. (Excerpted from “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”)

 

The Original Intent ergo, the Founding Fathers were empowering “We the people” in a secular order BUT under the moral guidance of the Christian God. That is strike one for Dougindeap’s point one.

 

The Signers of the U.S. Constitution that was then sent to the Thirteen Independent States under the Articles of Confederation establishes the importance the Founding Fathers tipped their hat to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible:

 

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

 

In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

 

… (Followed by the signatures of the representative of the thirteen original states formally loosely aligned under the Articles of ConfederationBold emphasis mine) [Excerpted from the last paragraphs of “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 1”]

 

That is strike two for Dougindeap.

 

Hugo Black the writer of the majority of the opinion in Everson v. Board of Education stepped beyond the veil by using Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association offering reassurance to their concerns of being a minority Protestant Denomination in Connecticut in which Congregationalism was the Established Church of the State:

 

The Danbury Baptist Association committee wrote to the President stating that, “Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals — that no man ought to suffer in Name, person or affects on account of his religious Opinions.” (6) The Danbury Baptists believed that religion was an unalienable right and they hoped that Jefferson would raise the consciousness of the people to recognize religious freedom as unalienable. However, the Danbury Baptists acknowledged that the President of the United States was not a “national Legislator” and they also understood that the “national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State.” (7) In other words, they recognized Jefferson’s limited influence as the federal executive on the individual states. (The Myth Behind “Separation of Church and State”; By Mathew D. Staver; Liberty Counsel; © 2000)

 

Here is President Thomas Jefferson’s reassurance letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

 

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.

 

Washington, January 1, 1802

 

Gentlemen,–The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

 

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

 

Th Jefferson


Jan. 1. 1802 (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert E. Bergh, ed. (Washington, D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1904), Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282. On Wall Builders – “
Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson”)

 

Hugo Black warped the intent of the Jefferson Letter pertaining to the Federal Government v. States’ Rights even though the Tenth Amendment specifically forbade the Federal Government to interfere in State legislation that did not usurp the prerogative of the U.S. Constitution:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Tenth Amendment)

 

Hugo Black excluded the Tenth Amendment and ignored the Founding Document the Declaration of Independence that was penned by Thomas Jefferson under the Continental Congress Committee drafting said declaration:

 

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

 

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

 

… (Bold Emphasis Mine – The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription; The Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

 

The Declaration drafters of which Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of, indeed espoused the ideology that the enfranchised people experiencing unjust tyranny from a despot or despotic government have the right to change that government. BUT who does the Committee empowered to draft a Declaration of Independence claim gives the enfranchised people the right to throw off the bonds of tyranny? The empowerment comes from God Almighty:

 

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …”

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Strike three Dougindeap. Just as specified by the First Amendment that proclaims government under the law-making power of Congress cannot get involved in religion (i.e. Christianity) but mankind under the moral guidance of the Creator must influence government to keep government from devolving into a tyranny that permits society to use the guidance of human individuals to establish that which moral and good. Why? Because humanity is inherently a fallen nature that gravitates towards ungodly principles when the guiding principles of God are excluded.

 

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

 

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

 

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5: 12 – 21 NKJV)

 

End of Part Four

 

JRH 3/25/14

Please Support NCCR

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America


Rick Joyner 2

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

 

Rick Joyner is a Minister of the Gospel who leans toward the Charismatic and Prophetic strains of Protestant Christianity. Joyner is either heralded for his insights or disdained as a heretic for his point of the Holy Bible. Here is a simple biography from the website that is part of MorningStar Ministries:

 

Rick Joyner is Founder and Executive Director of MorningStar Ministries and Heritage International Ministries and is the Senior Pastor at MorningStar Fellowship Church. Rick is President of The Oak Initiative, an interdenominational movement that mobilizes Christians to engage in the great issues of our time. He has authored more than forty books, including The Final Quest Trilogy, There Were Two Trees in the Garden, and A New America. Rick and his wife, Julie, have five children: Anna Jane, Aaryn, Amber, Ben, and Sam. ([Top of] Rick Joyner [Archive Page]; MorningStar)

 

Joseph R. Chambers is a Christian detractor of Rick Jordan’s prophetic (often in the sense of metaphorical insight) teachings. He calls those teachings “False Teachings”. Chambers is a Doctor of Divinity meaning he has credentials as an academic theologian. Credentials are a big thing for Mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Just for clarity I am not criticizing Mainstream academic theology in absolute terms. Rather I believe academic theologians place more stock in the aggregated opinions of past theologians of which even today’s theologians may concur or not concur in part or in toto. Here is an excerpt from a Chambers essay criticizing Joyner:

 

The first time I picked up material written by Rick Joyner I immediately sensed the spirit of darkness and deception.  Reading his material is similar to reading New Age materials.  His approach is to take anything in Scripture and make it mean anything that suits his theological aims.  There is no faithfulness to established facts of interpretation.  It’s a smorgasbord of ideas loosely connected with the generous use of out-of-text Scripture to prove his point.  Look at his basic premise for the book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden.  His identification of the forbidden tree lays a false foundation for the entire book.
    

“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a powerful Biblical model of the Law.  As the Apostle Paul declared “The power of sin is the law” (I Corinthians 15:56).  This is because it is through the Law that we must derive our knowledge of good and evil.  We may wonder how this knowledge brings death until we see the fruit.  The knowledge of good and evil kills us by distracting us from the One who is the source of life; the Tree of Life – Jesus. The Tree of Knowledge causes us to focus our attention upon ourselves.  Sin is empowered by the law; not just because the evil is revealed but the good as well. It drives us either to corruption or self-righteousness, both of which lead to death.” (There Were Two Trees In The Garden, Rick Joyner, pp. 9-10.)
    

To suggest that this forbidden tree was the Laws of God as given to Moses or any other Bible writer is blasphemous.  The “Ten Commandments” are the foundational truths and principles of all of God’s revelation.  This attack on “God’s Laws” shows the direction of major deception in religious circles.  Satan cannot present himself as God or present his Antichrist as the “Christ” without first separating Divine revelation or the Holy Truth from experiences in the religious realm. (The False Teachings of Rick Joyner; By Joseph R. Chambers; Apologetics Coordination Team; 1999)

 

Chambers seems that a paragraph from Joyner’s book validates the assumption that Joyner takes Scripture and twists it to anything chosen to mean for the moment. Then indicates (as is typical of academics) claims that Joyner takes Scripture out of context when in reality Joyner is simply using a metaphorical parallel of what would be occurring when Moses received the Law from God Almighty. Chambers suggests that Joyner is saying specifically that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil is equivalent of the Law and that the Tree of Life is Jesus. If you read the paragraph used to vilify Joyner, Joyner says no such thing. Rather Joyner uses metaphorical symbolism to indicate that the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life were models of future Biblical realities that would embodied in Moses and later through the human birth of the Savior and Deliverer Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

Ok, you got me. I am a proponent of Rick Joyner. I do not necessarily side with Joyner hook, line and sinker. I believe every Believer must read and meditate on the Bible to understand what the Holy Spirit has for your journey and that people like Joyner and/or even Mainstream theologians should be used as a framework rather than an absolute acquiescence to their interpretations of Scripture. If you miss the understanding of the Holy Spirit be humble enough to be corrected but not sheepish enough to fail to verify the validity of someone else’s correction.

 

Christianbook.com provides a profile of Rick Joyner that is more even handed than Joseph R. Chambers. The profile lays out how Joyner has helped many and lays out the reasons why he has critics leaving it up to the reader to decide for their self if Joyner is a false teach, a prophet or a person that is sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect. The profile is entitled as Meet Rick Joyner and can be read HERE.

 

Now I had to go over these thoughts on Rick Joyner because I am going to cross post his Word for the Week which brought to us as The Great Commission, Part 50: Time to Rebuild Firewalls. I received the email notification on December 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM. I mention the date because the spiritual essay when you click ‘Read More’ does not seem to have a date on it. I am kind of peculiar about that sort of thing. Indeed the title is a bit different when you follow the link.

 

My attention was lifted to the essay it because it tackles an issue more in Christian leadership would tackle but fail to because of a misunderstanding of the Establish Clause in the First Amendment. Too often Christian leaders and Ministries limit themselves pertaining to politics because they have been brainwashed that somewhere in the First Amendment it says that Government and the Church must be absolutely separated from each other not having an influence. The reality is there is no wording whatsoever anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it is stipulated there is a Separation of Church and State. What the First Amendment does say pertaining to religion is this:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … (First Amendment; U.S. Constitution; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)

 

The clause simply states that Congress cannot establish a State Religion (meaning Church in those days) and that Congress prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Founding Fathers intended for Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law and culture, BUT that Congress cannot make any Christian Denomination a tax supported instrument of the U.S. Government. But I guess that is another post.

 

Joyner tackles an interesting interpretation on Marxism, Capitalism, the Founding Fathers’ original intent for Constitutional Government and how that original intent has been whittled away and unless reversed will lead to the demise of the United States as we know it.

 

Interesting alternative reading:

 

Rick Joyner Predicts Destruction of Republic, Third Great Awakening

 

JRH 12/11/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

By Rick Joyner

December 10, 2013

Rick Joyner’s Word of the Week

 

The American Founding Fathers believed that tyranny could come from either the government or from the people. Because of this, they built a brilliant system of government that had firewalls to protect against the tyranny from either direction. They warned that if these firewalls were torn down, the Republic could not last. In the last century, we tore both firewalls down, and the system has been crumbling since. The American Republic will not last much longer if we do not implement some very radical action to turn from the direction in which we’re headed and rebuild the firewalls.  

        

In some basic ways both Russia and China now have more liberty than we have in America. They are trending toward more individual liberty, even if they are hitting bumps on the road to this and occasionally may even run into a ditch. Even so, they get going again and are trending in the direction toward personal liberty. As impatient as many have been with their slowness in this, we should remember how long we struggled. Even after nearly a century of American democracy, we still had slavery, and America invented the concentration camps that we used for displacing and even killing Native Americans. The march of civilization has not been smooth or consistent anywhere or with anyone. So let us too give grace to those who are struggling.

        

However, after accomplishing so much, Western nations are now trending toward tyranny and the loss of individual freedom. There have been occasional slowdowns in this march to bondage, but then the pace gets even faster. The East and West are going in opposite directions again.

       

Thankfully, there is a third column. It is the kingdom of God. Every good gift that has come down to man, including better governments, has come from above. Even so, no government on earth is the kingdom of God even if they have some of the elements of the kingdom. The kingdom is yet to come to the earth, but it surely will. Many governments on the earth that have been built on at least some kingdom principles will “become the kingdom of our Lord.”

         

One of the things the Lord said that He would do after His return is to separate the nations as “sheep” or “goats.” He explained the qualifications for being a sheep or goat nation. For those who are here to help prepare the way for the Lord, one way that we do this is by helping our nation become a sheep nation. One of the ways that we are called to help prepare the way for the Lord is to help our nations adopt kingdom principles that would help them become “sheep” nations rather than “goat” nations. To help a nation get to where it is supposed to go, we must first know where it is.

         

There are other major forces in the world than Marxism and capitalism, but these have been the two most powerful counterweights in recent times. Under each of these there are nuances. For example, free enterprise is different than capitalism, but can only exist under capitalism. With pure capitalism you must have capital to have opportunity, but with free enterprise you only need initiative to have opportunity. However, if you have free enterprise and you become successful, you will have capital that you will want to invest, so you become a capitalist. The more capitalists and the more capital there is to invest, the more people have been successful in the system.

         

You must have capitalism to have free enterprise. But if capitalism grows unchecked, it can choke out free enterprise and destroy itself by cutting itself off from its lifeblood. Left to itself without any steering and the needed corrections from government, greed can take over capitalism in such a way that it starts to abuse and hurt people. This leads to revolution and is not in anyone’s interest to allow this to happen—except the Marxists. The lifeblood of Marxism is promoting the envy of the successful, which they call “social justice.”

        

Not all who call for social justice are Marxists, and there is a devotion to social justice that we must have to remain a Republic. Even so, Marx, and subsequent Marxists, have been brilliant in the way they have seized popular and even noble terms to mobilize and exploit those whom Marx called the “useful idiots.” The “useful idiots” were the idealists that Marx saw as being so easily manipulated, but which he also despised. They were always the first to feel the wrath when Marxists gained control.

       

That being said, The Bible is still the biggest proponent of true social justice, and requires justice for all with a special devotion to providing justice for those who are weak. It requires freedom for the oppressed, and then it requires generosity from the prosperous to the poor. However, the key distinction between Christianity and the Marxist social justice, or the liberal social justice promoted by many today, is that nowhere does The Bible demand charity from the government, but from individuals.

      

When charity becomes institutional it loses its basic power to uplift. It becomes demeaning, dehumanizing, and always leads to bondage. We will develop this further next week.

______________________________

Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America

John R. Houk

© December 11, 2013

____________________________

Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50

 

© 2011 MorningStar Ministries

 

Donate to MorningStar Ministries

Stand and Oppose Obamacare


Uncle Sam - Time to Take USA Back

Intro to ‘Stand and Oppose Obamacare’

Intro by John R. Houk

9/19/13

 

Justin Smith writes an excellent essay on repealing or actually defunding Obamacare. I truly approve of Smith’s activist call for the States to use Article V of the U.S. Constitution to take the issue out of the hands of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress does seem to buckle more often than to withstand Obama’s Executive despotism. SCOTUS’s 5-4 decision making Obamacare Constitutional if the funding is declared a tax rather than using the Commerce Clause to ram the beginnings of Socialistic healthcare down the throats of Americans.

 

Chief Justice Roberts tried to make a compromise by ruling that reference to the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional; however compelling people to pay for Obamacare insurance is valid as a tax:

 

However, according to the majority decision by John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s conservative chief justice, the mandate cannot be justified on commerce-clause grounds. Indeed, Mr. Roberts wholly affirms the argument that the commerce clause cannot regulate economic inactivity. From the syllabus of the decision:

 

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” (John Roberts’s art of war; By W.W.; The Economist; 6/28/12 21:01)

 

So mysteriously SCOTUS transferred Individual Mandated funding from regulating Commerce to Taxation.

 

Commerce Clause: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a … (Bold Emphasis Mine)

 

So here is the appearance the Dem controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS colluded to circumvent the U.S. Constitution. By a two to one act of despotism the Constitution became irrelevant. However there is still a remedy in the Constitution to overcome two-branch despotism. That remedy is 2/3 of the fifty several states unite to have a Constitutional Convention to propose Amendments that must a 3/4 several state ratification to overcome the political despotism of the Dem Party controlled Executive Branch and SCOTUS subverting the Constitution.

 

Article V

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.  (Bold Emphasis Mine – The Constitution of the United States: Article V; National Archives – Federal Register)

 

The Constitution has never been amended by the initiation of “the several states”. An Amendment Constitutional Convention might be the last legal vestige to overcome political intransience of a polarized Executive Branch and Congress. AND a divided SCOTUS could not overrule any Amendment designed by a Constitutional Convention convened by “the several states”.

 

Justin Smith’s essay should inspire you to participate in an activism on the grassroots level to overcome Federal despotism.

 

JRH 9/19/13

Please Support NCCR

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

Stand and Oppose Obamacare

 

By Justin O. Smith

September 19, 2013 11:58 am

Justin Smith FB Notes

 

In 2010, the Democratic controlled House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 219 to 212, even though there had not been any great advocacy from the public on this issue. To the contrary, most Americans saw only a need in some health care sectors  for slight reforms, and most Americans know now, just as they did then, that this misnamed legislation (“affordable”) will make matters worse for all America, rather than better; the Affordable Care Act is recognized by the majority of Americans as an egalitarian system based on Marxist principles, redistribution of the wealth, and the scarcity that accompanies such a system, as opposed to conservative free-market capitalist principles, tried and true, that have always yielded a great benefit to all; the PPACA is the worse piece of unConstitutional legislation in U.S. history, and Democrats and Republicans alike must recognize the negative impact of implementing the PPACA, and they must immediately defund it this month, as they also set in motion the repeal of the PPACA!

 

The PPACA/Obamacare has begun underfunded, and the system is ripe for corruption, bribery and abuses that will cost all Americans a great deal more than they are currently paying for health care. Whether one supports Obamacare or not, our tax-dollars, as prescribed by the PPACA, are now funding advertisements that excitedly explain just how wonderful Obamacare will be; those same collective tax-dollars will fund abortions and violate the conscience, religious beliefs and First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens who stand in opposition to abortion. And eventually, Obamacare’s poorly organized funding and implementation will force us all into a single-payer system, which will become the principle instrument of social control of the Progressive Democrats or any other unethical and immoral future administrations.

 

The flaws in Obamacare will become more apparent, and Americans will find themselves standing in long health care queues and provided medical services of dubious quality, because the more proficient medical professionals are already leaving medicine or planning to serve outside of Obamacare, until this is made illegal. Americans will necessarily need to join private medical groups comprised of citizens, who pool their resources in order to ensure the care of their members, which also leaves their freedom of choices and their privacy rights in place, because Obamacare has already shown itself to be a pipe-dream that will significantly increase the cost of a rationed health care system, kill jobs and the economy and still leave 30 million Americans un-insured!

 

“There are very few issues that are as personal and as tangible as health care, and implementation of the law over the next year is going to reveal a lot of kinks, a lot of red-tape, a lot of taxes, a lot of price increases and a lot of people forced into health care that they didn’t anticipate,” Brad Dayspring (Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee) recently stated.

 

Due to all the aforementioned, Obamacare is going to be an issue of critical importance in both the 2014 and 2016 elections, and it is beyond damned disgusting to watch Progressive “Republicans in name only”, such as Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lamar Alexander and Speaker John Boehner, pretend that they cannot stop Obamacare. Corker, in his slow drawl, laments, “Well, it’s the law now,” as if Congress has never before rescinded a U.S federal law. Boehner, feckless and pretentious, presides over one vote after another to repeal Obamacare, when he has known all along that the House can remove the government mechanisms that implement Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution and essentially kill Obamacare. And, while Alexander says he has voted 23 times to repeal Obamacare, he voted extra funds for Obamacare during a shortfall of funds for the state exchanges.

 

These Progressive RINOs are no more anxious for the repeal of Obamacare than the Progressive Democrats, due to the power and wealth they look to gain in association with this Obamacare behemoth; these people are also representative of the status quo Republicans, who simply content themselves to work within the framework of any defeat the Progressive Democrats hand them, as they genuflect, lift their petticoats and await whatever favor Obama grants them!

 

The stage was set for this when the Progressive majority rammed Obamacare into law, and the U.S. Supreme Court did the bidding of the most extreme and radical U.S. President in history and found Obamacare “constitutional” in a fit of judicial activism aimed against our U.S. Constitution and against the will of the people. Americans witnessed firsthand tyranny, as described by James Madison in ‘Federalist Paper #47’:

 

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

 

Just imagine if past leaders had adopted the attitude of today’s Progressives concerning the Dredd Scott v. Sanford case (1857), and they never fought to abolish slavery, or they never passed the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. One must take a strong stand in opposition to any bad law of the magnitude of the Dredd Scott Decision or Obamacare, either one.

 

It is our responsibility and duty to defend the U.S. Constitution and our individual liberty in order that our children will live more free than now and, at the very least, as free as America’s Founders. This demands that we fight to our last dying breath to defund and repeal Obamacare. Those of you, so enamored with “Obama bucks”, Obamacare’s “free health care” give-away programs and “hope and change,” that you willingly give up your freedom to the State in exchange for the promise of “equality for all” in poverty, have wrapped yourselves in the cold embrace of the Statists’ chains. As for the remainder … the True American Patriots… demand that Congress remove Obamacare from the appropriations part of the continuing resolution before September 30, regardless of the imagined or real pitfalls that they envision; it’s better to lose a battle standing on one’s feet as a Free Man than to lose it on one’s knees…a coward!

 

If Congress fails America in this one simple task due to any fear that guides it, everyone should organize, in some form or fashion, and contact all their state legislators in every single state, blue and red alike, to start the process of involving each of their respective states in a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, that repeal Obamacare and halt several other aspects of government overreach in the manner described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution: “The Congress… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which… shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”. This process trumps the President, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court!

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________________

© Justin O. Smith

Intro and Edited by John R. Houk