John R. Houk
© April 8, 2015
What do Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Pastor Chuck Baldwin have in common? Include in that commonality these organizations and Ministries: National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.
What they ALL do have in common are the U.S. Appellate, Supreme Court and Traditional Marriage. They all are taking a stand against homosexual same-sex legally mandated marriage ESPECIALLY as the Judicial Branch making it legal as opposed to State legislatures and people’s State Initiatives.
ONLY a handful of American States have made same-sex marriage legal by legislative action or a voter’s Initiative. A significant majority of American States have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage at the hands of the Federal Judicial system on every level.
SO, I have to wonder. What Constitutional Article or Amendment gives the Judicial Branch to legislate laws? My understanding of the U.S. Constitution is that only the Amendment process of the U.S. Congress and/or each individual American State has that authority. All the Courts should be involved with is ruling if a law is constitutional or not. Then order the appropriate action from Congress to correct any unconstitutional provisions of a law. AND if the U.S. Constitution does not address an issue each individual State has the Liberty enact a law pertaining to its jurisdiction.
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.
Here is a pretty good picture of the Original Intent of the 10th Amendment which includes the legal marriage of the 9th Amendment:
Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Tenth Amendment: “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.”
What was the original purpose of these two Amendments? … The truth of the matter is that the two Amendments were intended to be a pair that would secure the rights of the people by ensuring a federal government of limited powers. The original purpose of what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is embodied in a letter from James Madison to George Washington in 1789. Madison wrote, “If a line can be drawn between the [federal] powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.” In other words, what became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments serve virtually identical and reciprocal purposes. (Bold-Italic text added by this Editor)
… The Tenth plainly says that there is a federal government only of limited enumerated powers. This is of course a most important principle to announce and clearly enshrine in the Constitution, but it alone is not enough precisely because those powers can always be interpreted to be limitless. … The Ninth was therefore also included to say that in applying those federal enumerated powers, it is forbidden to construe them to the point where everything conceivable falls within those powers so long as they do not violate a right specified in the previous listed Amendments to the Constitution that became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment stands for the proposition that there is only an enumeration of powers and no more, and the Ninth stands for the proposition that the notion of limited and defined powers is to be taken seriously.
Federalist (those who argued for the ratification of the Constitution) Governor Edmund Randolph clearly expressed this intent behind what would later became the Ninth and Tenth Amendments at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788. He asked, “If it would not fatigue the house too far, I would go back to the question of reserved rights. The gentleman supposes that complete and unlimited legislation is vested in the Congress of the United States. This supposition is founded on false reasoning… [I]n the general [federal] Constitution, its powers are enumerated. Is it not, then, fairly deducible, that it has no power but what is expressly given it?–for if its powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless… [Regarding a government] body arising from a compact, and with certain delineated powers…a bill of rights…would not be [necessary]… for the best security that can be…is the express enumeration of its powers” (emphasis added). The “retained rights” of the Ninth Amendment are reserved by the Tenth Amendment’s making clear there is an enumeration of powers. It is in making sure that the federal government is one of limited and defined powers, and that these limitations are taken seriously, that the reserved rights of the people are protected.
Nonetheless, this concern underlying the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is in contravention with Supreme Court jurisprudence. The principles announced in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments has been intentionally gutted by the modern Supreme Court since the New Deal. … The Court stated in the most famous footnote of Constitutional law, in Footnote 4 of the US v. Carolene Products (1938) decision, that there is a “narrower scope for operation of the presumption of Constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments.” The idea expressed by the Supreme Court is the most famous footnote precisely because it is still the framework for much of Supreme Court jurisprudence today. The footnote states that there is a “presumption of Constitutionality” given to federal laws unless a right enumerated in the first ten amendments is at issue. This specifically turns the original meaning of the Ninth Amendment on its head, it contradicts the very purpose of the Ninth Amendment’s inclusion at the end of the Bill of Rights. SHOULD READ ENTIRETY (Original Purpose Of The Most Significant Ignored Amendments To The Constitution: The 9th And 10th; By Steve Lackner; Free Republic; 6/30/11 [at SteveLackner.com – dead link at time of posting] and 7/1/11 3:32:19 AM [at Free Republic])
Undoubtedly a little more research will uncover more SCOTUS overreach, but I want to draw attention to a report by Bob Unruh writing for WND. Unruh’s post is the source of the organizations and Ministries I listed above that are taking a stand for Religious Liberty and a stand against the moral abomination of homosexual same-sex marriage.
Those great Christians are confronting the SCOTUS Justices with the Word of God and the fact that SCOTUS rulings are infringing on the Rights of individual States to define what marriage is.
Unfortunately the Unruh article only focuses on First Amendment violations forced on We The People rather including the imperative of the 10th Amendment and I discovered in reading up on this issue, the significance of the 9th Amendment.
SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING
‘Scripture attests that perversions violate the law of the land’
By BOB UNRUH
April 7, 2015
In a stunningly blunt brief, a team of lawyers acting on behalf of a number of Christian and liberty-focused organizations has told the U.S. Supreme Court that to mandate same-sex marriage is to invite God’s judgment.
And that’s probably not going to turn out well.
The brief was filed by the William J. Olson law firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, the Lincoln Institute, the Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and pastor Chuck Baldwin.
The Supreme Court is to hear arguments later this month in a case coming from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which judges said state residents are allowed to define marriage in their state. The appeal to the Supreme Court contends barring same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.
Other briefs already have pointed out that marriage existed before any government, law or constitution, so the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to allow people to simply change the definition.
The new brief goes much further.
“Should the court require the states and the people to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the nation,” the brief warns. “Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is ‘defiled,’ the people have been cast out of their homes.”
The brief cites Leviticus 18:22 and 24-30, a biblical passages that seldom finds its way into popular discourse.
Verse 22 states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
And the subsequent section warns against such defilement.
“If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. … Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them,” the Old Testament passage states.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly doesn’t mince words in her astounding new book, “Who Killed the American Family?” blaming “feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, school districts” and others.
The court filing, citing the book of 2nd Peter, continues: “Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: ‘For if God … turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha (sic) into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly’” (King James Version).
The brief says the “continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: ‘Even as Sodom and Gomorrha (sic), and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The brief argues: “Whatever justification any judge may believe compels a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples, it is not found in the Constitution, nor is it based in any constitutional principles. For any judge to require a state to define marriage to include same-sex couples is an usurpation of authority that he does not have under the laws of man or God, and is thus illegal.”
Christian evangelist Franklin Graham defended traditional marriage on his Facebook page Tuesday.
“God’s Word doesn’t need a majority vote. God’s Word is true regardless of the winds of moral change, and we must stand up for biblical truth in the midst of a depraved society.”
WND previously reported some of the top names in Christian ministry – including the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Chuck Colson Center, Southern Baptists, Albert Mohler and Charles Stanley – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect marriage as God defined it.
Their brief also was filed in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the 6th Circuit ruled residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee can define marriage for themselves.
That brief was filed by Liberty Institute on behalf of the National Religious Broadcasters, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Samaritan’s Purse, In Touch Ministries, Pathway to Victory, The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Daniel L. Akin, Mark L. Bailey, Francis J. Beckwith, Robert A.J. Gagnon, Robert Jeffress, Byron R. Johnson, Eric Metaxas, Albert Mohler Jr., Charles F. Stanley, John Stonestreet and Owen Strachan.
“In reaching its decision, this court should reaffirm that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects religious dissenters who disagree with state-recognized same-sex marriage and to reaffirm the importance of free debate and free inquiry in this democratic republic,” the brief states.
Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford said religious liberty and free speech “are our first American freedoms.”
“We hope the Supreme Court will use this opportunity to affirm the Sixth Circuit and reaffirm the constitutional rights of all Americans to speak and act according to their beliefs,” he said.
When the Alabama Supreme Court prevented a federal judge from imposing same-sex marriage there earlier this year, it argued the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to decide the issue when it overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Windsor case.
In its order, the Alabama court wrote: “An open question exists as to whether Windsor’s ‘equal dignity’ notion works in the same direction toward state laws concerning marriage as it did toward DOMA. The Windsor court stated that ‘the history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the states in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute.’”
The Alabama court noted that in Windsor, New York’s law allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.
“Thus, the ‘dignity’ was conferred by the state’s own choice, a choice that was ‘without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.’”
The Alabama court thus asked: Why, if New York could make that choice, would Alabama be deprived of exactly the same choice?
“The problem with DOMA was that it interfered with New York’s ‘sovereign’ choice,” the Alabama court said. “Alabama ‘used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relations’ and made a different ‘sovereign’ choice than New York. If New York was free to make that choice, it would seem inconsistent to say that Alabama is not free to make its own choice, especially given that ‘the recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens.’”
The new brief makes several other points, including that the “constitutional foundation” for the “‘right’ to marry any person of one’s choice” is simply fabricated.
“The same-sex advocates have posited that their right to marry is an evolutionary one, having gradually emerged from the dark ages of the common law into the full bloom of a social science consensus of marriage equality,” the brief explained.
But to travel that path would be to “ignore what [the court] clearly acknowledged in Marbury v. Madison – that the power of judicial review is limited by the words of the Constitution, and by its original purpose – to secure the right of the people to limit future governments by principles designed to be permanent, not to empower this court to change the Constitution to fit the changing times.”
On the issue of homosexuality, the American people “have seen a flurry of judicial opinions with ‘no foundation in American constitutional law’ overturning laws which were ‘designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality’ desired by the people.”
“These opinions together constitute what [was] described as ‘an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.’”
The problem is social science isn’t static, the document said.
“Prior to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association consensus was that homosexuality was a mental disorder. Now the consensus is that homosexuality is a positive virtue. Who knows what tomorrow may bring.”
The brief said today people are being told that marriage cannot constitutionally be based on “a divinely revealed moral foundation, but only according to the secular reasons of men.”
Beware, the brief says.
“The nation was not so founded. The Declaration of Independence, the nation’s charter, grounded our nation on the biblical ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ embracing the principle that all men ‘are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,’ putting its case for liberty before ‘the Supreme Judge of the world,’ and acting in ‘firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.’”
Such a change would require the “entire revision” of every family law in the country, closure of adoption agencies and government persecution of those who preach against homosexuality, the brief warns.
And there would be no logical barrier to three men or three women marrying: “Why not an uncle and a niece as in New York?”
“The current accepted vernacular is said to be “lgbttqqiiaa+,” standing for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, intergender, asexual, ally and beyond,” the brief notes. “Indeed, some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”
Nearly all orders for states to recognize same-sex marriage have come from federal judges. The judges have simply overridden the will of the state’s residents who voted, often overwhelmingly, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That was the scenario in California, where the fight over marriage ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled only on a technicality – the standing of those supporting the state constitution – and not the merits of the case.
Of the three dozen states that now have been forced to recognize same-sex marriage, only a handful enacted it through their own legislative or administrative procedures.
The Alabama court noted: “Only 12 states have accepted same-sex marriage as a result of choices made by the people or their elected representatives. The 25 other states that now have same-sex marriage do so because it has been imposed on them by a federal court.”
Baxter said the court’s decision to overturn a “deeprooted” standard for marriage opened a Pandora’s box.
“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”
Two justices of the U. S. Supreme Court already have made a public stand for same-sex marriage, having performed ceremonies.
The actions by Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have prompted citizens groups to call for them to recuse themselves from the coming decision, but they have declined to do so.
Kagan performed a Sept. 21 same-sex marriage for her former law clerk, Mitchell Reich, and his partner in Maryland. Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., in August 2013.
“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” the American Family Association said.
Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations
John R. Houk
© April 8, 2015
SUPREMES WARNED: ‘GOD’S JUDGMENT’ NOW LOOMING
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com
Robert Smith writes about America’s Left eroding the U.S. Constitution.
Usurpation of our Constitution
By Robert G. Smith
Sent 3/30/2015 9:40 AM
From the lowest city official to the top office in our country, our Constitution is being usurped~~ Yes even in the Supreme Court.
Our Chief Justice, John Roberts has taken on a role [overstepping the] House of Representatives and ruled that a law [Obamacare] was a tax even though there was no tax mentioned in the law. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised the Egyptian parliament not to use our Constitution as a model as it is out dated, even though it has served us well for 224 years and is as suitable now as it was at its inception. Justice Elena Kagan actively advocates the use of Shariah Law in our Constitution. They both should be impeached.
Eric Holder’s Justice Department, with full knowledge of President Barak Obama, refuses to enforce the laws he is obligated to enforce under our Constitution.
The President has, by executive order, made recess appointments to posts that require congressional [approval] even though Congress was not in recess but on holiday closure.
He has endeavored to put disclaimers in the Second Amendment even though there are none [See HERE and HERE]. He has called the Benghazi, the IRS, and NSA problems, phony scandals but has done nothing to enlighten the American people as to what occurred.
New Jersey is attempting to pass a law that would allow police officers to seize your cellphone and examine the contents- a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments of our Constitution. [See HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE]
Local governments are using medical information against patients- again a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments. And medical ethics concerning releasing your medical information without your acquiescence. [Blog Editor: In full disclosure I can’t place my finger on recent media coverage in which “local governments” used “medical information against patients” pertaining to a Constitutional issue. In act of pure speculation perhaps Robert Smith is referring to HERE, HERE and/or HERE)
These are but a few examples of the misuse of our Constitutional rights.
Don’t you think it is time to take a serious stand against a serious problem and put a stop to the usurpation of OUR CONSTITUTION?
By PSG [ret] R.G. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
All links and all content enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
© Robert G. Smith
John R. Houk
© March 14, 2015
Below is a comment dialogue between myself and Sifu Mode from the SlantRight 2.0 post “Religion and the Constitution
Mar 5, 2015
Anyone who believes Constitutional rights don’t apply to any person or class is irrational and wrong.
Mar 9, 2015
Anyone who believes the Original Intent of the Constitution changes with the whims of immoral Leftists is wrong and manipulative.
Mar 9, 2015
Original intent was that everyone is included regardless of religious beliefs so I have not advocated for changing it, you are.
3/13/15 12:00 PM
Actually Sifu Original Intent was freedom to worship as you please (or not), but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective. Read the beginning and ending of Constitution and the entire Declaration of Independence factoring in each State’s Constitution which were never Federally abrogated by the U.S. Constitution.
3/13/15 12:24 PM
but the rule of law was viewed through the Christian perspective
This sentence does not make sense in context of the meaning of “rule of law”.
Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law. All are equally subject to the same treatment by law.
Now to say that laws were often based on the values commonly taught by the Christian religion is pretty fair. To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.
Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.
John Response to Sifu 3/13/15
Rule of Law means there is NO ruler. The ruler is replaced by the law. This means nobody is above the law.
Sifu you are sorely mistaken! The “Rule of Law” means the law rules the land as opposed to the Rule of Man which implies a man or an oligarchy of men rule the land. Men rule by a pen and a phone (edict) are not subject to laws. When law is the rule no man is above the law. In Western Culture laws are derived from a heritage. The West’s heritage is Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian influences. This heritage is the reason Western nations that don’t have a Third World element thus have evolved a Representative Democratic form of government in laws have replaced men as the ruler.
To assume those values are in perfect parallel or exclusive to the Christian religion is a massive fallacy.
Even the Democratic-Socialist Representative governments of Europe demonstrate the laws have an exclusivity to Judeo-Christianity – although that exclusivity is being eroded by culture destroying Multiculturalism. In America Multiculturalism only has a mere toe-hold because Left Wing Democrats and the Mainstream Media (MSM) have been ramming the concept down American throats.
As long as constitutional interpretation is via Original Intent rather than the make it up as you go along Living Constitution (Rule of Man), the Judeo-Christianity inherent in American culture and intended by America’s Founding Fathers will be preserved which has made America great.
Once Multiculturalism gains more than a toe-hold in America then the erosion of the Christian heritage that has made America exceptional so that the world’s poor dream of coming to America for a better life. The secularist value system promoted primarily by America’s Left is eroding American culture by a determined effort to dilute our Judeo-Christian influence to the point of actually belittling Christianity and calling Bible believing Christians bigots. Once Biblical values are replaced with the acceptance of concepts such as homosexual acceptance and allowing counter-American culture concepts such as despotic Sharia Law that is derived from a specifically antisemitic and antichrist religion known as Islam, then America’s values derived from Judeo-Christianity will cease to exist. America will cease to be exception followed by America ceasing to be great.
Edit: and the Constitution is not any part of those laws. The Constitution constitutes the creation of a federal government with ONLY an explicit set of powers limiting that government to never infringing on natural rights.
Sifu either the Constitution is wholly a part of “those laws” or it is a piece of paper that exists to provide citizens an illusion of the existence of the Rule of Law meaning the Rule of Man is the reality and America is despotic and America has never been exceptional and thus America’s greatness is an illusion. That doesn’t sound like the same America I have studied nor is it the America I have grown up in from birth to the present (58 years). AND my elementary and secondary school learning occurred prior to the American Left making their efforts to revise history in text books and in class curriculum.
Now the Constitution did constitute the creation of a Federal government with three Branches designed in such a way that one Branch does not dominate the other. To prevent Branch domination the Constitutional Rule of Law provides for Checks and Balances. Once those Checks and Balances are breached by any Branch then despotism will ensue that will replace the Rule of Law with an oligarchic Rule of Man.
Part of those Checks and Balances is the influence of Judeo-Christianity and the Constitution maintaining that laws not mandated to the Federal government is under the sovereignty of the several State governments.
An essay by David W. New provides an astute observation the God of Christianity and the U.S. Constitution in terms of Original Intent, State Constitutions and the Federal government:
Where is “God” in the Preamble to the Constitution?
Secularists are very quick to point out that the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. They claim that this is highly significant. It proves that the United States should not be ‘under God’ in their opinion. Of course, they are correct in one point. The word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution or anywhere else. However, it is doubtful that this fact has the kind of significance they claim it has. Generally, the word “God” will appear in two places in most constitutions. The first place is in the preamble to the constitution. The second place is in the religion clauses in the bill of rights. For example, the word “God” appears in the preamble in eight state constitutions. In four states, the “Supreme Ruler of the Universe” is used instead. By far, the most popular divine reference in a preamble is “Almighty God.” This appears in the preamble of 30 state constitutions. In some states, the state constitution does not have a preamble. However, a divine reference can be found in the religion clauses in the bill of rights in each instance. There is only one state constitution which has a preamble that does not have a divine reference of any kind. This is the Constitution of Oregon. But here the words “Almighty God” appear in the state religion clauses. In the case of the U.S. Constitution however, no divine reference appears in either the Preamble or in the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Why is this true?
The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is textual. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is modeled after the Preamble in the Articles of Confederation. Since the Articles of Confederation did not use the word “God” in the Preamble, this is the most likely reason it does not appear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The Preamble in the Articles of Confederation began by listing all 13 states. It began as follows: “Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc. . . . . and Georgia.” When the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was first drafted, this was the model that was used. Later, as the constitutional convention was coming to a close, a short form was agreed to. The 13 states were dropped in favor of the much simpler form We the People. Thus, rather than trying to establish a radical godless state, the most likely reason the word “God” does not appear in the Preamble was because the Articles of Confederation did not have it. It is doubtful that anyone in 1787 could have foreseen the development of radical secularists groups like the ACLU and their ‘spin’ on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Where is “God” in the First Amendment?
The most likely reason why the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment is textual as well. Here however the textual reason is due to the subject matter of the First Amendment. The religion clauses in the First Amendment are very different from the religion clauses in most state constitutions. The subject of the religion clauses in the First Amendment is the government or “Congress.” This is not the case with most state constitutions. In most state constitutions the subject is the individual. This difference in the subject matter is the reason the word “God” does not appear in the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Let’s compare the religion clauses in the First Amendment with the most popular religion clause used in the United States. Most states copy from the religion clauses found in the Pennsylvania Constitution. In particular, the first sentence appears in many state constitutions which says: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .” The subject of the clause is clear. It is “All men.” The New Hampshire Constitution which copied from Pennsylvania uses’ better wording. It says “Every individual . . .” In either case, the individual is the subject of the clause. Thus, a major difference between the religion clauses in the First Amendment and most state constitutions are their points of view. The First Amendment was written from the point of view of the government. Most state constitutions were written from the point of view of the individual. In addition, the religion clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution protects a “natural right” of an individual to worship “Almighty God” according to conscience. Since the focus of the religion clause is on the “right” of an individual, the word “God” naturally appears. This is not the case with the First Amendment. Here the focus is on the role of the government. There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the “Congress.” The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words “God” “natural right” “worship” or “conscience” do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word “God” in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.
Where is “God” in the Constitution?
The mistake modern secularists make is obvious. They take a twentieth century concept like “secularism” and read it back into the Constitution. They take a concept that didn’t even exist in the eighteenth century and attribute it to the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, this is a very common mistake. The fact that the word “God” does not appear in the Constitution means little. It is actually a rather shallow observation. The reality is “God” is in every word of the Constitution, including the punctuation. Below the surface of the words in the Constitution, there are a mountain of ideas that made its formation possible. The belief that God exists and that all nations of the world are subject to Him sits on the summit of that mountain. As the Supreme Court of Florida said in 1950: “Different species of democracy have existed for more than 2,000 years, but democracy as we know it has never existed among the unchurched. A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the ten commandments and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalog and the ethics of Jesus . . . No one knew this better than the Founding Fathers.” (Where is God in the Constitution? By David W. New, Esq.; posted by Ed Current; Free Republic; posted 12/10/2004, 5:38:41 PM; Originally from Faith and Action [dead link]; November 04)
Sifu God is in the Constitution.
Rule of Law Legal Definition (Duhaime.org)
Rule of law (TheFreeDictionary.com – Legal Dictionary)
Edited by John R. Houk
“Es lebe die Freiheit” [Long live freedom] – Hans Scholl’s [Jewish Virtual Library] last words (White Rose opposition to Hitler)
© Justin O. Smith
Chris Cuomo interviewing AL Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore
Mark Alexander writes about how Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (Politico gives a decent profile yet as expected is a bit judgmental by I think to attain to neutrality) contradicts Lefty Chris Cuomo (Andrew’s bro and Mario’s son) assertion that America’s Rights and Laws come from Man’s collective agreement and compromise. Cuomo’s assertion was in response to Moore’s assertion that “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”
God bless Roy Moore and my fellow Americans be wary of the American Left propaganda. That propaganda is a part of President Barack Hussein Obama’s 2008 promise to fundamentally transform America. That transformation agenda is to increase government meddling, decrease the influence of our Christian heritage, embrace a Socialist-Democratic governing model that weakens our future with Multiculturalism trumping our Founding Fathers.
See Also Mark Levin on Cuomo’s assertion.
The Unalienable Rights of Man
A Brief Civics Lesson on the Fundamentals of Liberty
Feb. 18, 2015
“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)
Just in time for the faux celebration of “Presidents’ Day” this week, faux CNN celebrity “journalist” Chris Cuomo, brother of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (both heirs to the Mario Cuomo Demo Dynasty), managed to dispense with the Declaration of Independence and its 239 year enshrinement of American Liberty – in a mere 10 seconds.
In Cuomo’s interview with a real Patriot, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, on a Tenth Amendment (States’ Rights) issue, Judge Moore stated that the “Rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.”
Cuomo, endeavoring to redefine the origin of Rights, rebutted, “Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
I am quite sure that Judge Moore, a West Point graduate, Army captain and Vietnam veteran who later earned his JD and embarked on a law career, wanted to grab Cuomo, who has spent his entire adult life as a media talkinghead, and slap some sense into him.
Instead, Judge Moore responded thoughtfully and respectfully, paraphrasing our Declaration’s foundational assertion, which reads, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [not man] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among [not over] Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [not the government].”
Given that Cuomo’s knowledge of history and law is unduly limited by his Ivy League education, and unduly revisionist by his Democratic Party indoctrination, allow me to provide an elementary civics lesson in regard to the words “endowed by their Creator.”
First, Cuomo argues, “Our rights do not come from God. … That’s your faith, that’s my faith…”
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
The first paragraph of our Declaration references “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” which informs the words “endowed by their Creator” in the second paragraph.
To better understand what is meant by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” recall that our Declaration’s signers were not of one mind on matters of theology and doctrine. They were Christians, Deists and Agnostics, but they did, however, uniformly declare that the Rights of all people were, are and forever will be innate and unalienable, as established by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
This is not an article of “faith” as Cuomo assumes. It is the assertion that the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” while enshrined in our Declaration, is inherent and applicable to all humans of every nation, religion, race and ethnicity, for all time.
It makes no difference what your concept of “Nature’s God” or our “Creator” is, or whether you even subscribe to any such conceptualization. You, and all people, are entitled to Liberty and all the rights it embodies.
As Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote, “The sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among parchments and musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
Next, Cuomo insisted, “That’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
Now that is an absurdly malleable heap of horse pucky. Cuomo has discounted the universal guidance of the Declaration, as if our Founders intended the Constitution as a substitute for it. Of course, it did no such thing, nor was that the intent of our Constitution’s delegation or ratification.
In that regard, I note that on the occasion of the Declaration’s 50th anniversary, James Madison (our Constitution’s principle author) wrote to Thomas Jefferson (our Declaration’s principle author), that the Constitution was subordinate to the Rights enshrined in our Declaration. Madison noted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government … of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in … The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.”
In other words, although the Articles of Confederation and its successor, the U.S. Constitution, were the contractual agreements binding the several states into one union – E Pluribus Unum – the innate Rights of Man identified in the Declaration are the overarching act of that union, and would never be negotiable by way of “collective agreement and compromise.”
Nor are those Rights negotiable today or tomorrow.
However, Cuomo’s conflation of Rights and laws asserts that the Rights of Man are, at any time, subject to the whims of agreement and compromise. Again, one wonders what part of “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” Cuomo doesn’t understand. Perhaps it’s the “unalienable” part, which means “unable to be taken away or transferred.”
Not only do Cuomo and his leftist ilk refuse to acknowledge that the Rights of Man are non-negotiable, but they subscribe to the errant notion of a “living constitution” – one which is subject to executive and legislative encroachment, and particularly judicial amendment by diktat, instead of its prescribed method of amendment in Article V.
Though they take solemn oaths to “to Support and Defend” our Constitution, most politicians on the Left and too many on the Right ignore that obligation, and have trampled Constitutional Rule of Law with reckless abandon. The implications for Liberty are dire.
The debate between Judge Moore and Cuomo is the foundational basis of all historical debate regarding Liberty and tyranny, or in contemporary political parlance, between Right and Left – between conservatives and liberals. The core question being debated: Who endows the Rights of Man, God (as ordained in natural law) or government (ordained by man)?
The Left’s position has been made plainly evident by Barack Hussein Obama, who has a history of deliberately and repeatedly omitting the words “endowed by their Creator” when citing in open constituent forums the Declaration’s reference to “Rights.”
Obama and other contemporary leftist protagonists seek to substitute Liberty as ensured under Rule of Law with the rule of men. They do so because the former is predicated on the principle that Liberty is innately “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that government is the sole arbiter and grantor of Liberty.
Ignorance of the true and eternal source of the Rights of Man is fertile ground for the Left’s assertion that government endows such Rights. It is also perilous ground, soaked with the blood of generations of American Patriots defending Liberty at home and around the world. Indeed, as Jefferson wrote, “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Our Founders concluded our Declaration with this pledge to each other, and all who would follow: “With a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Millions of fellow Patriots honor that pledge today, and stand ready to extend Liberty to the next generation.
(To promote Liberty and recruit additional Patriots to our ranks, please distribute our Essential Liberty Pocket Guide to your family, friends and colleagues.)
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2015 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401
John R. Houk
© January 23, 2015
Well here we are. I’ve been working on a post for two days. It is taking me so long because I keep scraping it and start over. So here’s what I’ve decided to do.
I’m on the email list of the Florida Family Association (FFA). My interest in this group is they keep an eye on they consider Radical Islam in America. Their name has ‘Florida’ in it but really their counterjihad watch is on a national basis.
I received an FFA update on 1/20/15 exposing that the Federal government has been in secret negotiations with the NYPD to remove a report on local area (NYC and NJ) activity of Muslim hostility that leads or could lead to a terrorist attack. The NYC area Muslims and Obama’s Federal government (I am guessing under the auspices of Eric Holder’s DOJ) want the open source free to the public report REMOVED from the NYPD website. The FFA is not pleased with this kind politically correct inspired censorship, I am not pleased and YOU as an American should not be pleased.
The NYPD is considering to comply with the pressure because of a couple of Muslim civil suits not to mention Holder’s DOJ civil suit over NYPD surveillance of Muslims to detect terrorist threats.
The Muslims and the Federal government have made this a Bill of Rights issue roughly related to Religious Freedom and 4th Amendment privacy guarantees pertaining to needing a warrant to engage in the kind of surveillance the NYPD in.
I’m as much a Bill of Rights guy as any Conservative; however the Left and Muslims have not or I should say refuse to look at the balance of the Bill of Rights issues. For instance it bugs me that a huge amount of Mosques and Muslim-American organizations spew hate toward America, Jews and Israel as a normal part of their religious dogma.
It is my opinion that 1st Amendment Religious Freedom does not guarantee Islamic efforts to topple the U.S. Constitution to satisfy Islamic Supremacist Sharia Law. To put it bluntly the Left will do anything that undermines Original Intent Conservatives and Muslims remarkably forget about the rest of the Constitution to simply destroy it. AND Conservatives are too fearful of political correctness to point that out to the Left and to Islamic Supremacists!
Indeed my experience with Google is when searching for someone who understands this Constitutional is countered by Muslim organizations (primarily) and Left oriented media decrying NYPD surveillance as a complete breach of the Constitution. Make no bones about it. If balance the entire Constitution with Religious Freedom and Islamic terrorist violence with the object of overthrowing the Constitution, Religious Freedom does not include allowing the theology violent overthrow and murder.
Now what has bogged me down in writing this post was the “How?” I at first began by looking at the Muslims and Muslim organizations that are plaintiffs against the NYPD to see if they had any connections to Islamic Supremacist global Caliphate-minded thinking. This is still a path I am going to pursue but it is too daunting with my apparent not up to the task search engine skills.
So you got to read this little rant of mine and below is the FFA email which I have since learned is also available on their website.
Islamists demand that NYPD scrub online report on Islamist terrorism and stop surveillance of mosques.
From Florida Family Association
Email Sent: 1/20/2015 11:30 PM
Click here to send email urging the Judge and Magistrate to make public safety in this case a priority.
The New York Post reported on January 18, 2015 “NYC may yank terrorism report to appease mosque ‘spying’ critics”: The article states in part:
In top-secret talks to settle federal lawsuits against the NYPD for monitoring mosques, the city is weighing a demand that it scrub from its Web site a report on Islamic terrorists, The Post has learned.
The groundbreaking, 92-page report, titled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” angers critics who say it promotes “religious profiling” and discrimination against Muslims. But law-enforcement sources say removing the report now would come at the worst time — after mounting terror attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris, Boston, Sydney and Ottawa.
The federal lawsuit mentioned in the first paragraph of the New York Post article is Raza et al v. City of New York et al. This lawsuit seeks to stop the New York Police Department’s surveillance of specific Muslim individuals and mosques.
Peter G. Farrell, Senior Counsel for the City of New York, wrote a letter to United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack in which he outlined some serious issues regarding is Raza et al v. City of New York et al.
Regarding Plaintiff Masjid At Taqwa
The NYPD’s investigation of certain individuals associated with Plaintiff Masjid At Taqwa was based upon information about their lengthy history of suspected criminal activity, some of it terroristic in nature. This information includes but is not limited to: illegal weapons trafficking by members of the mosque’s security team and the mosque caretaker both within the mosque and at the store adjacent; illegal weapons trafficking by certain attendees of the mosque; allegations that the mosque raî a “gun club”; and allegations that the assistant Imam had earmarked portions of over $200,000 raised in the mosque to a number of US Government-designated terrorist organizations.
Certain individuals associated with Masjid At Taqwa have historical ties to terrorism. The mosque’s Imam, Siraj Wahhaj, was named by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to bomb a number of New York City landmarks in the mid-1990s (the “Landmarks Plot”). Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the “Blind Sheikh,” who is serving a life sentence in federal prison for his role in the Landmarks Plot, lectured at Masjid At Taqwa. Wahhaj testified as a character witness for Abdel Rahman during Abdel Rahman’s terrorism trial. V/ahhaj also testified as a character witness for Clement Hampton El, a Masjid At Taqwa attendee who was convicted as one of the Blind Sheikh’s co-conspirators in the Landmarks Plot. Members of the mosque’s security team have instructed individuals on how to disarm police officers and have led martial arts classes involving individuals convicted on terrorism charges. Since at least 2003, Masjid At Taqwa members have participated in and sponsored paintball exercises and survival training outside New York City, activities which have been carried out for training purposes by violent extremists in multiple terrorism cases in the United States and abroad-such as the “Virginia Jihad” case, the Fort Dix plot, the 717 attacks in London, and the UK fertilizer bomb plot (“Operation Awakening”). On one of these outings, the leader of Masjid At Taqwa’s security team instructed the members of his paintball team to “form up, jihad assassins” and called them his ‘Jihad warriors”. Farooque Ahmed, who is currently incarcerated after pleading guilty to terrorism charges in connection with a plot to bomb the Washington, DC metro, promoted and participated in at least one of these trips.
Mr. Farrell’s letter outlined many more public safety concerns related to this lawsuit. Click here to read Mr. Farrell’s letter.
The Masjid At Taqwa mosque is run by Imam Siraj Wahha who was the key note speaker in the Garland Texas Islamist rally on January 17, 2015 that called for the defeat of Islamophobia.
The Islamist lawsuit was assigned to United States District Judge Pamela K. Chen. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack.
Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Judge Chen and Magistrate Azrack to make public safety in this case a priority by not tying the hands of law enforcement and by not censoring information of great importance. The email will be copied to the New York City Hall.
To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.
Does Religious Freedom Trump Entire Constitution?
John R. Houk
© January 23, 2015
Islamists demand that NYPD scrub online report on Islamist terrorism and stop surveillance of mosques.
Posted edited by John R. Houk
Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE AND CONFIDENTIAL. Florida Family Association is a non-profit 501C3 tax exempt corporation that is devoted to educating citizens on what they can do to defend, protect and promote family values. Checks may be made payable to Florida Family Association or FFA. Contributions are tax deductible and confidential. Florida Family Association will never sell or give away any contributor’s name to anyone else, will never solicit contributions by phone, and will never report a contributor’s gift or bequest through a Will or Trust in any publication.
FFA About Page
Florida Family Association is a national organization that is made up of thousands of supporters across America who share in the same goal of defending American values and improving America’s moral environment. These supporters send more than one million emails every month to Corporate America officials associated with issues posted on this web site. Florida Family Association’s accomplishments are a direct result of the dedicated people across the country who support the efforts of this organization.
Florida Family Association’s mission statement in our IRS approved 501C3 application is to: Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values.
Florida Family Association, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Florida as a non-profit corporation. Florida Family Association is a tax-exempt 501C3 corporation under the Internal Revenue Service Code. Contributions made to Florida Family Association are tax deductible and confidential.
Florida Family Association is not an affiliate or subsidiary of any other group. It is an independent organization with tens of thousands of supporters outside of Florida.
Operations and Finance
Florida Family Association chooses to …
David Caton founded the organization that is now called Florida Family Association in November 1987. David left a ten year accounting career as a corporate accounting controller in June of 1988 to become the executive director of Florida Family Association.
John R. Houk
© December 11, 2014
Yesterday Danny Jeffrey wrote what many Conservative Patriots will find disturbing. Danny lays out the scenario of the Republican Establishment Elites running the GOP to the detriment of the Conservative vision to keep America great. Danny points out the Senator Cruz could be the last hope for a Reagan-like figure to set the ship of our Republic aright. He believes that never will happen because of the collusion of the GOP Establishment with the Leftist (Danny prefers the term “Progressive”) Dems in maintaining corruption duping America’s voters. Below is the comment I posted to his essay entitled “THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER”:
Danny I sense that your outlook on America’s elections and America’s ruling elite among both the Dems and the GOP is very prescient. In my case I am probably one of those hard cases that desires to retain faith in the Constitutional process that America still enjoys. However, the scenario you have developed is extremely plausible. And that plausibility is very said for me.
A coup d’état by American Generals is also plausible. After all history shows us that when the Roman Republic’s governing situation became too corrupt with deceit, bribes and manipulating the favor of Roman citizens eventually led to the Roman factions vying for popular Generals. Julius Caesar won. Then Octavius Caesar managed a coalition of winning Roman Generals that defeated die-hard Republic supporters (the supporters who were still faction oriented subject to bribes and corruption).
If the Constitutional process fails as you predict, then the American Republic will probably evolve to some kind of one-man rule able to maintain some kind coalition of Generals.
I neglected to mention that Octavius was Julius’ nephew and became what is consider the first Emperor of Rome. Julius’ family name became synonymous – Caesar – with Emperor for centuries of the Roman Empire. Octavius was considered a benevolent leader compared to future Caesars that would rule Rome. Octavius’ (or Octavian) named was changed to Augustus as a name of honor. His reign was about 45 years ending in 14 AD.
If the government becomes so corrupt that We the People and some annoyed people of power grow weary of the corruption maintained by the Dems and the apparent collusion of the Republican Establishment, could Senator Ted Cruz be America’s Octavius?
As I said I still have faith in the Constitution of America’s Republic. A coup d’état that threw off the Left Wing agenda would still be a government that would break the existence of that Constitution. America might remain great but for very different reasons than our Constitution made America great.
The only way to preserve America’s Constitution legacy is for a Ted Cruz-type leader to grip the attention of American voters either by taking over the GOP, forming a viable alternative political party or by forcing the constitutional path to a Constitutional convention in which delegates are chosen on a grassroots level rather than any political party national leadership.
If the constitutional process does not take effect, then most assuredly Danny Jeffries prescient predictions will come to fruition.
I encourage you to read Danny’s “Thirty Pieces of Silver”. Then you should really follow that up with at least Part Three of an ongoing essay entitled, “Conservatives in Fantasy Land” which was posted today 12/11/14. You probably will even desire to backtrack to Parts One and Two.
THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER
By Danny Jeffrey
December 10, 2014 12:59 AM
The term ‘Thirty pieces of silver’ always invokes the image of betrayal, and so you probably know where this essay is leading.
I have long written of my belief that there is NO political solution to the problems we face today. This one essay, Tahrir Square U.S.A., dates back to February of 2014. Allow me to offer an excerpt:
‘I make no secret of the fact that I have absolutely no belief that there is a political solution to today’s problems. No election is going to alter the course of this nation. If that course is to be altered it will be done only with an uprising of our people as we witnessed occurring in Tahrir Square in Egypt. Anything less and we are simply delaying until tomorrow what should have been done years ago.’
‘In a recent essay Of Moral Leaders And Sleeper Cells In The GOP I put forth the idea that the 2014 election that so many look forward to will change nothing. Even if we hold the House and gain the Senate the GOP is so heavily infiltrated by Progressives we are still on the road to ruin. The numbers that really matter are not Republicans vs Democrats, it is Progressives vs Patriots. That is where we come up short.’
Sadly most Americans have not yet come to the same realization that I did years ago. They, still following in the same beaten paths that their parents trod, grumble in near silence and await the next election when we hope we will get it right. My friends there will be no next election. Before November of 2016 we will see widespread anarchy and chaos, a financial collapse, and martial law. It is beginning right now. If in the unlikely event an election does come about it will simply be a well choreographed sham to appease those who still have not been able to comprehend what has already taken place.
One after another conservative ‘heroes’ have stepped forth uttering the right words and American conservatives have swooned over their new found messiah. Then one after another those messiahs have proven to have feet of clay as one after another they sold us out.
The one exception to that thus far, and I do believe him to be a man of true integrity, is Ted Cruz. Today, the frightened, the weary, and the desperate turn to Senator Cruz as our last and only hope. I hope that you choose to read past the bad news as that is where you will discover the truth.
The Bad News: Ted Cruz will never be President unless the American military stages a coup d’état and puts him into the Oval Office.
We hope to rid this nation of its emperor. Short of assuming the temporary powers of an emperor Ted Cruz could not possibly govern.
Here is why:
I am not telling you anything new in writing that the Democratic leadership sold us out long ago and have now become the next best thing to communists. Nor am I telling you anything new in writing that the GOP is in hot pursuit, following their Democratic allies to the far left, leaving us high and dry, leaderless and unrepresented in the process.
Years ago I wrote that there would never be another like Reagan. I grow more certain of that fact with each passing day, even though Cruz seems to have the same vision that Reagan once had. However, in this day and age Senator Cruz is the odd man out. The problem is that prior to Reagan the Progressives had been slowly changing our laws, taking over a little at a time then Reagan rocked the boat, and put America back on course. Years ago I wrote that the Progressives would never allow this to happen again. Today I am more convinced than then that I was correct.
Ronald Reagan was a man with a dream and he largely fulfilled that dream to the benefit of the American public, but he did not get into office without help from the leaders of the Republican Party. He did not choose George H.W. Bush as his running mate. The powers that be did, knowing that Bush would in all likelihood become the next President. He did indeed and shortly announced the coming of the New World Order (Video).
The NWO which I now refer to as Transnational Progressives will never again allow one such as Ronald Reagan or Ted Cruz to influence the direction of world events. Nor will they ever allow another such as Margaret Thatcher in England. Today we have the likes of David Cameron telling his people they should be more like the Muslims and a member of the royal family leading the way. This is not just happening in the U.S., this progressive movement is gaining control of all of the nations of the west, and this is the group to which our elected officials are selling out. You have all heard of George Soros; he is but the front man, liking the lime light.
But out of desperation, hundreds of pro-Ted Cruz groups are forming, and many thousands of frightened followers believe him to be our last hope. Let us be realistic. I stated above that short of being emperor, Cruz could not govern. I shall now explain why.
So many have posted the rallying cry of ‘Impeach Obama’. That will never happen as none in the Democratic Party and few in the GOP would vote for such a thing. Today … Here and now … Put Ted Cruz into the oval office and ALL Democrats and Most Republicans would vote for impeachment. Senator Cruz is one brave man and he has often revealed the intent of the Republican elite to you, making him none too popular with the puppet masters of the GOP and their puppet masters in the worldwide progressive movement. So many from his own party would love to have Cruz’s head on a platter.
Obama has enemies to be certain, but not nearly as many as Ted Cruz. Hussein, knowing the ways of communism, has much in common with Joseph Stalin, including the practice of ‘Keep your friends close but keep your enemies even closer.’ Those who have opposed Obama have been bought off one at a time and brought into the fold; thirty pieces of silver, or perhaps thirty million. The exact terms of their capitulation matters not, but they each had their price.
Ted Cruz buys none. As a man of honor he appeals to the sense of honor he expects of his fellow Republicans, not yet understanding that they have none. The following two paragraphs are excerpted from my last essay Conservatives In Fantasy Land Part Two, to illustrate my point:
Breitbart … December 3, 2014
Cruz rallied the crowd saying, “This is a choice between truth and mendacity,” pointing out that many Republicans campaigned during the midterm elections on stopping executive amnesty.
“What I’m here urging my fellow Republicans to do is very, very simple. Do what you said you’d do”
Reread Ted Cruz’s last sentence in the above excerpt. Why would he sound as though he is almost begging his fellow Republicans to honor their promise to the American people. Why should such a man have to beg? Should we not, in all fairness, expect them to honor their words?
But … are they doing what they said that they would do?
I have used the following before to warn you of the traitors in the GOP. I use it here to illustrate why the same GOP will never allow Cruz to be elected, and I shall probably use it again when the situation demands for it is a powerful statement of fact.
Breitbart … February 13, 2014
“Make no mistake about it,” Cruz said. “This was their desired outcome. An awful lot of Republicans wanted exactly what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid wanted, which is to raise the debt ceiling. But, they wanted to be able to tell what they view as their foolish gullible constituents that they didn’t do it, and they’re mad because by my refusing to consent to [a bare-majority vote] they had to come out in the open and admit to that.”
As for anyone ice skating in hell, it is simply not going to happen, primarily because the GOP does not give a damn what you and I want and they seek Cruz’s head on a chop block for revealing that fact.
From just a few days ago…
Breitbart … December 7, 2014
In a lengthy interview on Friday afternoon, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) exposed how House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise strengthened President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty with procedural trickery former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber would envy—and they did it all in the name of pushing a bill that they told Republicans would block Obama’s executive amnesty.
First off, I find it impossible to believe that 216 House Republicans were tricked, nor that they needed to be. The House leaders agreed to be the bad guys to provide cover for the progressive sleeper cells in the Party.
Now to the next event. (From Today) And this pretty much says it all…
Breitbart … December 9, 2014
There are 435 members of the House, and to pass this bill, Boehner and his allies—including Louisiana’s Republican Whip Steve Scalise and California’s Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy—need to get 218 votes. There are 234 Republicans in the House as the 113th Congress finishes its final days of the lame duck post-election session, meaning Boehner could theoretically pass a bill that all Republicans agree with.
But according to Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon, a conservative, there are at least 50 Republicans—probably more—who won’t vote for this bill. If even 18 Republicans vote against the bill, that means Boehner needs Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenant Steny Hoyer to get to 218.
Now look at the numbers above. 234 Republicans in the House. Fifty of them may choose to oppose Obama’s treason. That is less than one in four Republicans, and counting the whole House, less than one in eight.
This is why I am telling you that Ted Cruz cannot get elected nor govern. Traitors far outnumber our patriots. The traitors could block his every move and pass anything they so choose, and when he vetoed their treachery, they would simply override the veto. This has always been the American way, and now it is being turned into a weapon against us.
I feel that Ted Cruz has the makings of a Reagan, a Lincoln, or a Jefferson, but he never will do so because he is in the wrong country. That comment has nothing to do with the debate about being born in Canada and his eligibility to run. It is my reflections on a statement made by John Adams so many years ago.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Ted Cruz is a man who believes in and would govern by the Constitution, but our people, due to their failing morality, parted company with the Constitution long ago. I cannot help but feel that so many our of (sic) citizens are undeserving of a man such as Senator Cruz.
Take a hop with me across the pond to the Netherlands where another great patriot is being hounded by the progressive overlords. Geert Wilders had the courage to warn his people of the Islamic danger, but such warnings are not politically correct. In fact a man can go to jail for speaking out against Islam.
Geert Wilders, in many ways reminds me of our own Senator Cruz. Both are men of conviction, men of integrity, and men of courage, and both are standing against an overwhelming tide of evil. I cannot help but believe that Ted Cruz would echo the words of Martin Luther King as quoted by Geert Wilders.
The Gatestone Institute … December 9, 2014
To speak with the words of Martin Luther King: “I close by saying there is nothing greater in all the world than freedom. It’s worth going to jail for. It’s worth losing a job for. It’s worth dying for.”
Just above I mentioned that some of our people are undeserving of a man such as Senator Ted Cruz. With such people in mind I shall close this essay with a final thought, also from John Adams.
“Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.”
Dems Betraying America – It will be Stopped One Way or Another
John R. Houk
© December 11, 2014
THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER
From “Introduction to ‘Fix Bayonets’”
… My first website [Blog Editor: i.e. Freedom Rings 1776] was named with a sense of optimism, while this one is from a sense of desperation, for we are most assuredly losing in the political arena. Since Obama was first chosen by the Progressive overlords, we have been subjected to betrayal, deceit, a loss of liberty, and rampant corruption, and as an honest people, we simply do not know how to engage on their terms.
We seek truth while they propagate lies. We hope to engage in honest debate, but the Progressives shun that honesty for it exposes their plan of domination, while liberals turn away choosing not to know the truth. We hear epithets such as ‘Racists’, “Bigots’, ‘War on Women’, and ‘Islamophobia’, while they delude America with feel good platitudes about ‘equality’, ‘fairness’, ‘helping the poor’, and ‘sharing the wealth'; the very things the Founders warned about.
Look at the vicious attacks launched on those such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Luis Gohmert, and many others. The success of those attacks can be laid squarely in the laps of our RINOs, for they have infiltrated what was once the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and smear any who have the courage to stand for the Constitution. These traitors to us, their party, and our country, march in lockstep with our enemy for they have given their final seal of approval on what is to become of this nation.
I no longer sign petitions, phone my Representative, Email my Progressive Senators, or believe that there is any political solution to today’s events, or the slightest hope of change in elections to come. Our enemies own the voting machines and adjust the vote as they deem appropriate. They allow people such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, and Chris Christie to remain in office to foster the myth that the Republican Party is still viable and fighting for America, but this is no more than illusion, smoke and mirrors!
Such traitors have charted our course, and if we continue on the path they have laid out then we may as well take down the Stars and Stripes, and retire that noble standard with a solemn dignity, then behold the specter as the world slips into another dark age of a thousand years.
The entire Democratic Party has morphed into the American Communist Party, with the elite of the GOP following in hot pursuit, leaving us, the conservatives behind. They seek the votes of the growing multitude of those who put their own private agenda ahead of the entire future of the United States.
In short, I have cast off all of my once held beliefs in the wisdom of ‘The People’. They are not wise. They are greedy, self centered, self serving, and could give a hoot less about what is happening to this once great nation. Of such people and their future I have no concern. I find strength in the company of those who still care for what this country was in our younger days, for they are the ones who have long carried the burden and kept the torch of freedom aglow.
We may well find that our efforts are too little and too late, but if freedom is ever restored it will be due to our efforts, and ours alone. Patriots gave birth to our liberty, and if that liberty is lost, then we have none to blame but ourselves. If on the other hand, it is ever reborn, it will be by … READ ENTIRETY
Intro to Smith’s ‘A Constitutional Crisis’
Editor: John R. Houk
November 23, 2014
Justin Smith writes a brilliant piece on President Barack Hussein Obama’s immigration amnesty speech notifying America on television he has the constitutional authority to provide amnesty on his terms for illegal aliens (the more pc term these days is illegal immigrants) coming and staying in America beyond the rule of law’s stipulations.
I am trying real hard not to mar Justin’s essay with my editorial comments and links so I am handling that issue with a quote some interesting links to the quote:
During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too. [Bold Emphasis Mine] –Justin Smith
Now I realize Mainstream Republicans claim impeachment is a bad idea because of the belief the Senate would never garner the sufficient votes for a conviction. AND I realize the Leftist Dems are openly daring Republicans to proceed with an impeachment process propagandizing the same fears of the Mainstream Republicans. BUT dear God in Heaven, there is more than enough constitutional criteria to impeach Obama and to convict him.
If the Republicans fail to make a substantial effort to smear the Dems’ faces with the legitimate impeachable criteria, then Justin’s solution in his last paragraph becomes a greater possibility to occur!
A Constitutional Crisis
A Republic Lost
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 11/21/2014 11:38 PM
No U.S. President has the right to destroy the U.S. Constitution and completely disregard it, in the course of his duty to all Americans. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, but on November 20, 2014 Obama became a rogue president, and he unilaterally declared amnesty for 30 million illegal aliens, by my count, as he violated the principles of separation of powers that serve as the bulwark to protect our liberties, defying the American people, the election results and usurping the legislative process and essentially saying “to hell with the Constitution.”
President Obama has threatened to enact an “immigration reform bill” through executive order for months now, if Congress did not pass a bill he could sign, even though the real issue is not one of reforms but rather one of enforcement. All the “immigration reform” in the world will not matter in the face of a Congress reluctant to enforce the law. This is the reason the Secure Fence Act of 2006 still leaves a fence with holes in it, and our southern border is porous as ever.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization … “And it is the president’s Constitutional duty under Article II Section 3, to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed … .”
Can anyone point to a single provision, Article or Section of the Constitution that suspends the principles of separation of powers and supersedes Congressional authority anytime a president, in his sole discretion, decides such because Congress hasn’t met his legislative demands?
This new Executive Amnesty of Obama’s will protect approximately 5 million illegal aliens from deportation and grant them work permits, according to Josh Earnst, Press Secretary, and other White House sources. Other than certain far-left, fringe progressive law professors, who advocate a post-Constitutional America, no one seriously believes that Obama has the authority to do this, even under “prosecutorial discretion,” and not a single Democrat has been able to cite any authority for this act.
Immediately after Obama’s Executive Amnesty Speech, Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC) stated, “Attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are dangerous. The President himself recognized his inability to do [this] …” in the past.
Twenty-two times Obama has stated that he does not have the legal or Constitutional authority to grant amnesty to millions, once saying he is not an “emperor” but a president. He even argued against amnesty in his 2006 book ‘The Audacity of Hope’.
The Obama administration is now justifying Obama’s action through prosecutorial discretion, as they contend that he can decide which groups of immigrants should be a priority. Obama is also arguing that he can go further and use “deferred action” to formally protect certain immigrants from deportation.
During Obama’s speech, he used the example of Astrid, a young female illegal alien, who in spite of “hiding” from ICE completed three college degrees. Those degrees took taxpayer dollars and one American’s place in the admission rolls, while Astrid broke U.S. law again by falsifying her college application using someone else’s Social Security number: That’s acceptable I suppose, since Obama’s S.S. number is a fake too.
Significant differences exist between Obama’s recent EO and President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 policy. Reagan deferred deportation for children of illegal aliens, who had been granted amnesty, placing them on a path to becoming naturalized citizens, which was the general intent of Congress at the time, since a “one time” blanket amnesty had just passed. Obama is going against the will of Congress again, which considered and rejected his DREAM Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democratic Party.
Obama is bypassing Congress entirely. He is unConstitutionally revising existing law and, without Congressional approval, imposing new ones that have been explicitly rejected by Congress numerous times, thereby acting like the emperor of immigration policy.
Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said, “Tonight President Obama issued a royal decree, as any good monarch would do … This president is single handedly creating a Constitutional crisis and hurting the citizens he took an oath to protect and defend.”
James Madison wrote 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.”
One countermeasure is to defund all non-essential government agencies, since the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services is self-funded through immigration application fees, according to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY). Defunding most of the government will force Obama to choose between his Executive Amnesty or a government shutdown, and Congress should not be afraid or balk at using this option. A government shutdown would show Obama that the Republicans are willing to fight.
In a Fox News appearance, Rep Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called on Americans to rally on December 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol and tell Congress to “defund amnesty.”
Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama’s executive overreach, represented by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, is a sham. Everybody understands that Obama will be gone by the time it is settled, and his Executive Amnesty will have become de facto law, unless a successor has the guts to rescind it. One must wonder if Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell are siding with Obama, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal, because McConnell stated “there won’t be any shutdowns on my watch” after winning re-election.
It is no accident that the Constitution’s first substantive words are “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Because of the problems experienced through delegated authority in England, the Framers understood that such authority, currently utilized by today’s U.S. Congress in empowering Presidential Executive orders, leads to dangerous absolutism – extra-legal, supra-legal and consolidated power. And, although the Constitution carefully barred this threat, Constitutional doctrine has since legitimized this dangerous sort of power; therefore, Americans should no longer accept some vague notion of “rule of law” that allows uncontrolled delegation through executive orders, but rather, Americans must demand rule through the law and under the law.
If the Republicans in Congress do not act more forcefully than a lawsuit by March 10th, by March 15th every Son and Daughter of Liberty, who loves America, must arm themselves and march on the Capitol Building and the White House, prepared to fight if necessary, to end this elective despotism, or otherwise, accept that the Republic, the rule of law and Freedom in America have vanished. Americans must not let any President place himself above the Constitution and accountability to the American people he is duty bound to defend and protect.
By Justin O Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith
John R. Houk
© November 14, 2014
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold text mine – Amendment I from Legal Information Institute of Cornel University Law School)
The controversy here is Original Intent vs. Living Constitution. Conservative prefer to err on the side of Original Intent while America’s Leftists prefer to err on the side of a Living Constitution.
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.
Sometime 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 legislative and executive branches of government but violate a constitutional principle.)
Not every judge adheres to the theory of original intent, and many adherents fail to apply it in a uniform and faithful manner. Judges who 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.
Originalists observe that the democracy created by the U. S. Constitution is marked by three essential features: : a Separation of Powers, Federalism, and a Bill of Rights. The Constitution separates the powers of the federal government into three branches, which help foster what is known as a system of checks and … (Original Intent; The Free Dictionary)
… The phrase original intent usually means the subjective opinion of those who wrote the Constitution as to what a particular provision was supposed to communicate. Original intent also is called the intent of the Framers. Researchers try to deduce the original intent by examining both direct evidence (what the 55 drafters said during the Constitutional Convention), and indirect or circumstantial evidence. Examples of the latter include, among other things, what people said about the instrument during the ratification debates, the meaning of key words in common discourse and in contemporaneous dictionaries, and their meaning in legal and literary sources.
The original meaning (or original public meaning) is how a reasonably intelligent, involved member of the public would have interpreted a provision. Primary evidence of original meaning is how words were used in common discourse and the definitions in contemporaneous dictionaries and legal sources. Circumstantial evidence includes the drafting and ratification conventions, public debates, and so forth.
Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.
In the event of a conflict between intent, understanding and meaning, which should control?
The key to answering that question is to answer another: “When the Constitution was adopted, what was its legal force? In other words, how would the courts of the time have interpreted it?
The Constitution is, of course, a legal document, so you can find the correct response to this question by investigating how judges, and other lawyers and public officials interpreted legal documents of the same general kind during the Founding Era. …
Thus, the original legal force of the Constitution—as it would have been applied by Founding-Era judges, lawyers, and officials—is based on the original understanding; if this is not recoverable, then you apply the original meaning. Original intent is useful only insofar as it tends to prove understanding or meaning. (Original Intent, Original Understanding, Original Meaning; By Rob Natelson; Tenth Amendment Center; 5/21/12)
Law School claims to teach Constitutional Law, but the Constitution is never opened. The entire concept of Constitutional Law in Law School is based on Case Law. The original writings, the original language, and the original intent of the U.S. Constitution is not even considered.
Those who wished to subvert the Constitution from the very beginning worked to use the courts, and “implied law,” to disarm the Constitution, so as to allow the federal government a greater opportunity to grow beyond the limitations placed on it by the specific language of the Constitution.
Along with studying the histories of Rome, Greece and Slovenia as examples of past republics, the primary research by the Founding Fathers was from their own Mother Country, England. The Anglo-Saxons provided the principles the founders needed to establish a lasting system of freedom, and liberty. They also recognized how easily statists could use the courts, or the living and breathing concept of Common Law, to change the Constitution, so the founders put into the Constitution strict standards, and a limited means for changing the Law of the Land (through amendments), while also making the Judicial Branch the weakest of the three branches of government.
Judicial Review allows the courts to review the law and determine if it is a just law, or even if it is a constitutional law. This is a commonly accepted concept, and it flies in the face of the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who wanted the States to be the final arbiters of the Constitution – not the courts.
… Judicial Review is indeed a sinister power for the courts to have. For the federal courts to decide if a law is constitutional is for the federal government to determine its own authorities. That, my friends, is hardly in line with the idea of limited government as originally prescribed by the founders.
The courts, through case law, have acted as an agent for the forces that are determined to bring down our system, and change it into a tyranny. Those who have bought into the case law myth, as has our female lawyer twitter friend of my friend, are accomplices in the effort to bring down our system of liberty, and limited government.
The damage is widespread, and the statist opinions are entrenched in our system.
Living Constitution is a term used to describe the Constitution’s ability to change to meet the needs of each generation without major changes. This is a concept used in interpreting the Constitution of U.S. It is based on the notion that Constitution of the United States has relevant meaning beyond the original text and is an evolving and dynamic document that changes over time. Therefore the views of contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.
… Mr. Obama found himself engaged in a subject that stirs up his leftwing passions. Below are some of his bombshell comments (emphasis added):
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and [sic] Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
That straightforward excerpt provides a clear window into the constitutional philosophy of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. As radical as “people tried to characterize” the Warren Court, Mr. Obama hints that the Constitution may be interpreted even more radically: in a way which would give the federal government power to tell the people what the feds (and states) must do on their behalf.
… Mr. Obama believes he can “break free” from the additional “constraints” placed in the Constitution by the founders. Toward that end, Mr. Obama’s nominees to the federal judiciary share his leftist worldview. From his “wise Latina” and “gay rumor” appointments to the Supreme Court, to his legion of federal appellate and district court nominees, the common denominator is the idea of appointing high-ranking judges who see the Constitution as a “living document.”
In President Obama’s words from The Audacity of Hope, the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”
In his co-authored book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, Liu, in Obamian fashion, posits a new method of interpretation: constitutional fidelity. “Fidelity” has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately, “what we mean by fidelity,” clarifies Liu, “is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”
In other words, Liu is a “living Constitution” theorist who, like Obama, uses conservative-sounding words to support his radical positions. A Constitution that is interpreted by a few robe-wearing elitists “in a way that adapts its principles” is effectively no Constitution at all.
After many decades of “living Constitution” interpretation, the people have … READ ENTIRETY (A Clear Danger: Obama, a ‘Living Constitution,’ and ‘Positive Rights’; By Monte Kuligowski; American Thinker; 10/2/10)
In the Original Intent vs. Living Constitution debate is the issue of the folly known as Separation of Church and State; thus Leftists have brainwashed Americans to accept Judicial tyranny to mold the public question: Is allowing religion on tax supported institutions and/or property a government endorsement of religious faith?
If the courts were only allowed to use Originalism to validate or invalidate non-Amendment laws (legislative or executive regulations), the issue of Religion influencing government BUT NOT government influencing religion or religious practice would be understood as the intent of the Founding Fathers.
In effect American Leftists and atheists have managed to transform the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government into the very tyranny that was intended to be avoided.
Alexander Hamilton in authoring Federalist #78 spells out the constitutional powers attributed to the Judicial Branch of government:
…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, 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, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. [Emphasis added (by Faith and the Law blog).]
During the past 60 years, many federal judges (followed closely by their state counterparts) have gradually strayed from the constitutional role of interpreting the law – providing “judgment,” to use Hamilton’s word – to actively legislating from the bench, especially in controversial areas of social policy. In other words, activist judges at the federal and state level have abandoned the Founders’ understanding of the constitutionally limited judicial function and have usurped the legislative function (without admitting it, of course) in order to impose a radically liberal vision for America. That vision includes such things as creating previously unknown constitutional “rights” to abortion and same-sex marriage, for example.
Since federal judges are appointed for life, their lack of accountability to the democratic will of the people makes such judicial activism especially dangerous. Hamilton argued in Federalist #78 that the Constitution’s “good behavior” qualification on judges’ lifetime appointments would suffice to keep them in line, but in practice it has not been used to rein in activist judges. It is ironic that the Founders proposed lifetime appointments for federal judges because they most feared overreaching by the legislative branch, while considering the judiciary the “least dangerous” branch.
For judges to effectively bypass that procedure by creating new constitutional “rights” out of whole cloth is at once unconstitutional and anti-democratic. A “living Constitution” philosophy is nothing less than an excuse for activist judges to impose their personal preferences upon an unwilling citizenry in the name of “evolving standards,” which they alone are entitled to discern.
… READ ENTIRETY (Judicial Philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution; posted at and by faithandthelaw; 5/11/10 – Derived from Focus on the Family, the updated link there: Judicial Philosophy Series)
The point I am attempting to drive home here is that Judicial Tyranny has usurped the Original Intent of the design of the Founding Fathers. In the realm of religion and politics Judicial Tyranny has become the despotic tool of America’s Left to transform America away from Christian morals. The Left has a vision of society/culture mirroring morality as dictated by a like-minded elitist few that feels people are not capable of leading a life that benefits what is good for humankind.
Founding Fathers viewed this mentality as statist tyranny; hence the common language in matters of dissolving any union with the British Crown and forming a rule of law under the authority of We The People constantly alluded to God’s superiority as the measuring stick for the morals of a good and effective government.
Leftists mindful of a societal paradigm shift realized the best way for people to depend morals established for the good of society rather than defined by the Creator of all that exists is to discredit the efficacy of the Judeo-Christian paradigm Western Society is based upon. ERGO Judicial Tyranny has step by step dissolved any effect Christian morals and culture has on government.
This whole exercise in a brief examination on the distortion of America’s Constitution at the hands of an activist-tyrannical judiciary is due to an excellent essay by Michelle Malkin about the systematic exercise of godlessness in America can be demonstrated in violent and inherent moral selfishness flowing from younger generations in America. Without a Christian infusion being allowed back into our culture without a tyrannical judiciary’s countermanding, this moral selfishness will be the moral fiber of America’s future.
One Nation Under Godlessness
November 14, 2014
Cheating. Bullying. Cybersexting. Hazing. Molestation. Suicide. Drug abuse. Murder. Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America’s schools, it’s quite clear that the problem is not that there’s too much God in students’ lives.
The problem is that there isn’t nearly enough of Him.
With the malfunction of moral seatbelts and the erosion of moral guardrails, too many kids have turned to a pantheon of false gods, crutches and palliatives. They’re obsessed with “Slender Man” and “Vampire Diaries.” Alex from Target’s hair and Rihanna’s tattoos. Overpriced basketball sneakers and underdressed reality stars. Choking games and YouTube games. Gossip and hookups. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat.
It’s all about selfies over self-control, blurred lines over bright lines.
In a metastatic youth culture of soullessness and rootlessness, the idea of high school teens voluntarily using their free time to pray and sing hymns is not just a breath of fresh air. It’s salvation.
But leave it to secularists run amok to punish faithful young followers of Christ.
Last week, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a religious freedom lawsuit against Pine Creek High School here in my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs. Chase Windebank, a senior at the District 20 school, had been convening an informal prayer group for the past three years “in a quiet area to sing Christian religious songs, pray, and to discuss issues of the day from a religious perspective.”
Windebank and his friends weren’t disrupting classroom time. They shared their Christian faith during an open period earned by high-achieving students. Other kids used the time to play on their phones, eat snacks, get fresh air outside, or schedule meetings for a wide variety of both official and unofficial school clubs.
A Pine Creek choir teacher had given permission to Windebank and his fellow worshipers to meet in an empty music practice room. No complaints ever ensued from other students or faculty. For three years, the group encountered no problems, according to ADF’s complaint. But in late September, Windebank was summoned to the assistant principal’s office and ordered to stop praying because of “the separation of church and state.”
The school singled out the young man of faith’s harmless activities and banned members of his group from discussing current issues of the day from a religious perspective during an open period in an unobtrusive meeting place.
As Todd Starnes of Fox News, who broke the story of the lawsuit last week, lamented: “Public school administrators and their lawyers have succeeded in suppressing and oppressing the Christian voice at Pine Creek High School.”
It defies common sense that in conservative-leaning Colorado Springs, home to a vibrant faith community and leading evangelical organizations, students would be reprimanded and deprived of basic constitutional rights. As a letter from local parents to the school district decried: “To what benefit does it serve a school to limit the ability for a student to pray with their friends, fellowship with their friends, or discuss daily events from a Christian perspective? It is obvious that School District 20 is taking a freedom FROM religion perspective, not a freedom OF religion perspective.”
Think about it: If the high-schoolers gathered in the cafeteria to listen to Billboard magazine’s No. 1 pop hit “Habits (Stay High)” — “You’re gone and I gotta stay high/ all the time/ to keep you off my mind” — school officials would have no issue.
If they lounged in a courtyard to joke about the latest girl-fight videos or off-color joke memes posted on Vine, no problem.
If they discussed the latest “Walking Dead” episode or napped in the library? All good.
But singing “Amazing Grace” and studying scripture? This subversion must be stopped!
How did we get here? And in Colorado Springs, of all places — not Berkeley or Boulder or Boston? Blame cowardice, ignorance and politically correct bureaucrats pledging allegiance to one nation, under godlessness, without religious liberty, and the occult of extreme secularism for all.
Constitution, Judicial Tyranny and a Moral Society
John R. Houk
© November 14, 2014
One Nation Under Godlessness
Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2010).
Copyright © Townhall.com. All Rights Reserved.
Townhall.com About Page
Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.
Townhall.com is designed to amplify those conservative voices in America’s political debates.
By uniting the nations’ top conservative radio hosts with their millions of listeners, Townhall.com breaks down the barriers between news and opinion, journalism and political participation — and enables conservatives to participate in the political process with unprecedented ease.
As a part of Salem Communications Corporation, Townhall.com features … READ THE REST
Six U.S. Senators have placed outgoing (i.e. lame duck) – Majority Leader Senator Reid – on noticed that if President Barack Hussein Obama unilaterally forces an illegal alien amnesty edict, that audacious Presidential act will cause a constitutional crisis. It is the belief of the Senators (Original Intent) that immigration law is solely the purview of the Congress.
Since I agree with those six Senators, Obama illegal Alien Amnesty should be another nail to the coffin of impeachment. God knows many of those nails have already been hammered but political numbers, political correctness, and a cowardly GOP leadership have FAILED to move the coffin from the House to the Senate.
Cruz, Lee Threaten ‘Procedural’ War on Senate Floor to Stop ‘Lawless Amnesty’
November 5, 2014 – 3:43 PM
Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and David Vitter of Louisiana sent a letter to lame-duck Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada today saying that if President Obama takes unilateral action to grant amnesty to illegal aliens it “will create a constitutional crisis.”
The senators told Reid that they would assist him in enacting a measure to stop Obama from unilaterally granting an amnesty, but that if Reid lets Obama go forward with such an amnesty they “would use all procedural means necessary” to make the Senate focus on the constitutional crisis they say that this “lawless amnesty” would create.
On Dec. 11, the continuing resolution now funding the government will expire. Before that date, both Houses of Congress will need to approve a new continuing resolution to fund the government beyond that date.
If the CR does not permit the Executive Branch to spend money on some action, the Executive Branch cannot take that action.
“We write to express our alarm with President Obama’s announced intention to take unilateral executive action by the end of this year to lawlessly grant amnesty to immigrants who have entered the country illegally,” the senators wrote Reid.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete’ than its power over immigration,” the senators said. “Therefore, President Obama will be exercising powers properly belonging to Congress if he makes good his threat.
“This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers,” the senators told Reid.
“As majority leader of the Senate, you have the responsibility of not only representing the citizens of your state, but also of protecting the Constitution through vigilant exercise of the checks and balances provided under the Constitution,” wrote Cruz, Lee, Sessions, Roberts, Crapo and Vitter.
“Therefore, we write to offer our full assistance in ensuring expeditious Senate debate and passage for a measure that preserves the power of Congress by blocking any action the president may take to violate the Constitution and unilaterally grant amnesty,” the senators said.
“[H]owever,” they continued, “should you decline to defend the Senate and the Constitution from executive overreach, the undersigned senators will use all procedural means necessary to return the Senate’s focus during the lame duck session to resolving the constitutional crisis created by President Obama’s lawless amnesty.”
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2014. Cybercast News Service.
CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.
Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets – bias by commission and bias by omission – that results in a frequent double-standard in editorial decisions on what constitutes “news.”
In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission.
CNSNews.com endeavors to … READ THE REST