How Republicans Lost The Same Sex Marriage Case

The Obergefell decision was perhaps the most fraudulent Supreme Court decision in US history. The logic was non-existent, the arguments were phony, and the decision itself was a totally political one that, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “has no basis in the constitution or this court’s precedents.” And the ramifications of this decision are disturbing, with significant impact on children, on American culture, on the institution of marriage and on the First Amendment rights of Americans — in particular churches, Christian-owned business, and religious schools. Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

First, the issue of same-sex marriage should never have been before the Supreme Court. This is an issue our founding fathers would have insisted be decided by the democratic process. The Supreme Court can’t “interpret” something that is not addressed in the Constitution. Even more significantly, because marriage was NOT originated by human law, civil government has no right to redefine it.   

Second, for same sex marriage to be ruled “constitutional”, then, obviously, those who wrote the constitution would have to have been in favor of it and would have indicated so in the Constitution. Neither is true. And the views of our founding fathers on this issue are the opposite of what the five elite lawyers in black robes claimed they were.  

Indeed, homosexuality was looked upon by the founding generation as a deviant sexual behavior, which, by the way, continues to be documented by reams of social science research. The only time homosexuality is mentioned anywhere in the law by America’s founding generation is at the state and local levels; and then it was in defining the crime of “sodomy,” and always with steep penalties attached.     

Third, the idea that the Supreme Court trumps the other two branches of our government is a bizarre notion with little historical evidence to back it up. The founders gave it the power to offer interpretations in cases brought before it, but never gave it the power to create policy. Many of our founding fathers – Washington, Madison, Jefferson, etc – mocked this idea as one that would destroy the democratic nature of our government. It wasn’t until the Marbury v. Madison decision and some subsequent decisions that the Supreme Court essentially voted to give itself more power. But Congress never ceded them this power; and even today, there exists nothing in our founding documents that prevents the States from simply refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. Nullification, as it is called, by a state was common in the past and should once again be used by the states to counter an out-of-control Supreme Court.  

Fourth, Anthony Kennedy claimed in the majority opinion that homosexuality was something one is born with – “immutable” he said, a completely false notion. Genetic researchers have never discovered a “gay gene”; and the Human Genome Project, involving 150 of the world’s top geneticists, was not able to find a “gay gene.” None of the professional organizations like the American Psychological Association or even the pro-homosexual Kinsey Institute will claim that homosexuality is genetic. Kennedy made up this phony claim because if homosexuality is not genetic, and thus only a behavior, it is too flimsy of a foundation upon to redefine the ancient institution of marriage. What’s strange is that even the proponents of this case did not make the claim that homosexuals are born that way. Where is Kennedy getting this info?

Fifth, the majority wrote that “The 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.” No it doesn’t. This is a bald-face lie. A first grader could read the history of the 14th amendment and deduce that it says nothing about homosexual marriages. It was ratified in 1868 and was about giving blacks first-class citizenship. No one in 1868 even knew what same sex marriage was. The justices lied again.

Sixth, the majority wrote that “they too may aspire to the transcendent purpose of marriage.” Huh? The transcendent purpose of marriage for thousands of years has been to perpetuate the human race by creating a stable and loving environment for children. There is little evidence that homosexual marriage has anything in common with heterosexual marriage. The average homosexual has a few hundred sex partners in their lifetime, and an astounding 43% of homosexuals report having more than 500 sexual partners. And research shows that most homosexual marriages are “open” marriages in which both partners agree to be free to have sex with others.  

Seventh, the majority argued that same-sex marriage “safeguards” children. What? Quite the contrary, the most recent large scale research on children raised in homosexual households is not pretty. It shows they fare much more poorly than do children raised in heterosexual households in many different categories:  education, drug use, criminality, etc. Homosexual “marriages” with multiple lovers are not a stable environment for children. Just read the horrifying stories of children raised by homosexuals – they’re all over the internet. The court majority lied again.

The homosexual former New Republic writer Andrew Sullivan wrote in a famous 1989 article that “Much of the gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, anti-bourgeois, radical.  Marriage, for them, is co-optation into straight society.”  Sullivan then argues that legalizing homosexual marriage will somehow be good for the homosexual movement because it will encourage more of them to enter into committed and stable relationships. But that hasn’t happened in states with civil unions, either here or abroad; and research shows that homosexuals in legal partnerships continue to favor multiple partners and reckless behavior.  

Most homosexuals view traditional marriage as constraining their lifestyle and regard the whole idea of being homosexual as a way to rebel against heterosexual norms. Indeed, one can find anti-marriage sites operated by homosexuals all over the Internet: https://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

Kennedy’s colleagues are leftist ideologues who would vote for homosexual marriage no matter what, but Kennedy should know better. He had research before him that details the lifestyle of homosexuals. His opinion was extremely naive, and he assumes that all homosexuals want to have committed monogamous marriages. But the reality is that very few homosexuals get married. In Sweden, it’s only 2%. In Vermont, its 22%. And of those who do get married, most are not in any way comparable to heterosexual marriages. Did Kennedy read anything submitted to him by our side? Apparently not.

Few homosexuals will ever marry; and of those who do get married, it will more often than not involve multiple sex partners. This is why homosexual relationships, on average, rarely last more than two years. The research is clear: homosexual marriage is NOT about commitment or monogamy. The goal of the homosexuals is to destroy the institution of marriage and redefine it to their liking.

Eighth, the Obergefell decision was unconstitutional since Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, according to US 28 U.S. Code 455, “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” And they didn’t. Both women had actually officiated at same-sex marriages. Ginsburg even performed a second same-sex wedding three weeks AFTER oral arguments in the Obergefell case. Ginsberg also made statements in support of same sex marriage while the Obergefell case was before the court, a clear violation of Canon A (6) of the Code of Conduct. Some have suggested that the U.S. Codes governing judges don’t apply to the Supreme Court. Wrong. The Pilla v American Bar Association case makes it clear that the judicial codes governing conflicts of interest do apply to the SCOTUS.

This information regarding Ginsberg and Kagan’s violations of the codes was submitted to the court, but Chief Justice Roberts refused to make this an issue. He had the power to do so. As Chief Justice, he is the person responsible for ensuring the integrity of the court. Indeed, Roberts and his colleagues could have voted to refuse to hear the Obergefell case unless Kagan and Ginsberg agreed to recuse themselves; but instead, they allowed Justices Kagan and Ginsberg to ignore their constitutional obligations. If one looks at previous SCOTUS recusals, they involved conflicts far more indirect than the aggressive pro-homosexual marriage actions of Ginsberg and Kagan.

There was a 25 day window to file a petition to rehear a Supreme Court ruling, and it could be only done by the losing parties and typically is based on new information or erroneous actions by the court. It is clear a petition should have been filed, based on the U.S. Code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg. However, the losing parties didn’t have the stomach or the guts to pursue such an appeal, even though all of them received documented information about the illegal actions of Kagan and Ginsberg. For the record, the losing parties were Mike DeWine, the Republican Attorney General of Ohio; Herbert Slatery, the Republican Attorney General of Tennessee; Bill Schuette, the Republican Attorney General of Michigan; and the lone Democrat, Attorney General Jack Conway of Kentucky.

Nor does it help that the conservatives on the court have ignored the recusal issue, apparently preferring to not upset the collegiality of the court over preserving heterosexual marriage, and thereby subjecting generations of Americans to an era of homosexual assaults upon the First Amendment. And yes, they had to know about the actions of Kagan and Ginsberg since this info was contained in two different motions to recuse, which they had before them but chose to ignore.  

When I emailed Ginny Thomas – the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas  – about this issue, she was appalled at my message and responded to the effect that her husband is NOT responsible for ignoring this issue. He’s not? Ok, then who holds responsible those justices who violate the clear codes governing recusal? Santa Claus? It’s nice to know that the harmony on the court remains intact while Christians and those of other faiths are now targeted for fines and jail time by the homo-fascists and reduced to second class citizenship.

After all, it is possible that the conservative justices were somehow unaware of the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg; and I was hoping Mrs. Thomas would bring it up with her husband. Her response was that “There are many people you can consult with. I am not in the ten zillionth position!” So apparently, Mrs. Thomas, an alleged social conservative leader, won’t even talk to her husband about the most important cultural case of the century.   

So let’s be clear what happened:

  1. Three Republican Attorneys General representing three states in the Obergefell case refused to mention the illegal actions by Kagan and Ginsberg in their written briefs, or even in their oral arguments. They had this information but did not use it. Even more significantly, none of them used ANY moral arguments in their written or oral arguments, despite the fact that NUMEROUS Supreme Court precedents have defined traditional marriage as a sacred arrangement granted to us by God.
  2. The Republican Justices on the Supreme Court refused to even broach the issue of recusal with their colleagues. They could have convinced Kennedy of the inappropriateness of Kagan and Ginsberg voting and perhaps even blocked the case from being heard unless these two agreed to recuse themselves.
  3. When an Amicus, The Foundation for Moral Law, submitted two motions detailing the code violations by Kagan and Ginsberg and arguing they must recuse themselves under the codes governing recusals, they were ignored. Moreover, the second motion was NOT even posted on the Supreme Court docket until three weeks after the Court received this motion; and even then, they incorrectly labeled it a “request” and not a “motion.” And the first motion was never even posted at all.
  4. Obviously, the court was playing games. A motion would have required Kagan and Ginsberg to address the recusal issue publicly prior to participating in oral arguments. However, a “request” allowed the court to ignore the recusal issue since the court does not have to rule on a “request.” When the court illegally changed a filing from a “motion” to a “request,” the Republican Justices should have stepped in at this point and forced the recusal issue–but they chose to be silent. It is hard to believe that the Republican Justices or their staff were unaware of this highly irregular action.  
  5. Despite the illegal actions by the Court ignoring the codes governing recusal and changing a “motion” to a “request,” the three Republican Attorneys General – now the losing party — refused to use this issue to file a petition for rehearing. Indeed, they refused to file ANY such petition whatsoever. Only one, AG Mike DeWine, would even meet with pro-traditional marriage leaders and constitutional scholars to discuss this issue before declaring he would NOT file a petition. The other two Republican officials would not even meet with pro-marriage legal experts to discuss a petition.  

If people want to know why Republicans are losing the culture wars, this is how. If the Supreme Court had followed its own rules regarding motions and followed the U.S. Codes governing recusals, the case would have been won by the pro-marriage side 4-3.

If most homosexuals don’t want to marry, and those who do are out to destroy its real meaning and purpose, what then is the real goal of the homosexual movement? Obviously, it’s to force the rest of society to recognize their deviant lifestyle. They want to rub our faces in it. They want to force churches, mosques, temples, religious schools, religious business people, and religious charities to accommodate their lifestyle. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage by watering down its purpose. They want to redefine the First Amendment so as to be meaningless. As Justice Alito says, “[religious people] will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employees and schools.”

Folks, if you haven’t figured it out by now, this is war. The homosexuals want people of faith to be second class citizens in a country founded by Christians. This is all about revenge for the refusal by the heterosexual world to accept homosexual behavior as normal. The only question is whether we will fight back. Indeed, if the millions of conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Muslims and traditional Catholics unite in opposition to the homo-fascist movement, we can ultimately win.

I, for one, will never compromise my religious beliefs. I will not attend a church that marries homosexuals or refuses to teach what the Bible repeatedly and clearly teaches about this behavior. And I urge every Christian to question their church about this. If a church caves in to the cultural barbarians, then leave it. If they are willing to compromise on such a sacred Biblical principle, they should go out of business.    

If you can’t find a church that remains faithful to the scriptures, start your own home church and invite your friends.  We are all used to formal church buildings and organizational structures, but there is nothing in the Bible that says anything about a “church” being in some building somewhere. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered that many of the first century churches were, in fact, homes. Remember, the “fish” sign was a secret sign used by first century Christians to indicate worship services were held within a home. Throughout the history of Western Civilization, there have been many occasions when Christians have gone underground to preserve their faithfulness to the scripture.   

If your child attends a religious school that is being forced to teach that homosexuality is normal, urge the school to resist such laws; and if they won’t, leave the school. Already, schools are being told they have to now teach children how to engage in homosexual sex. Homeschooling is an option, but also consider forming a home-based school composed of a group of like-minded families and pool resources to make it work. This is already commonplace today. Parents can take turns teaching or even pool their resources to hire tutors to teach certain topics. No building is necessary as the group can take turns using different homes. There is nothing most states can do to prevent such schools.   

Once the attacks on Christians begin to escalate, and Christians are being hauled into court, Christians need to get on juries whenever possible. If someone is being charged with violating a phony “hate crime” law, or a pastor is being charged with a crime for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, or a baker is headed to jail for refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, Christian jury members have the power to prevent them from being convicted. All it takes is one “No” vote as a jury member. This is called “Jury Nullification,” and it is a concept that dates back to our founding days.   

Most Americans have been propagandized by the judicial establishment to follow the judge’s orders and convict someone if there’s evidence to do so, but that’s not really the historic role of a jury member. Juries are also supposed to decide whether or not the law in question is constitutional. If you believe the law in question violates your faith or the Constitution, then don’t vote to convict the person. This was commonly done in America’s early days because our founding fathers actually encouraged jury members to be the final “check” on out-of-control government.   

While the legal community opposes jury nullification – it threatens its power to control the outcome of cases – historically, jury members have long had the right to judge both the violation of the law and the constitutionality of the law itself. Here what’s founding father and first Chief Justice of the United States John Jay says about jury nullification: “…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Adams, America’s second president, said that: “It is not only his right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

It is also time for people of faith to withhold our votes from any and all politicians unless they pledge to support, in writing, laws that protect us from this onslaught of legal attacks coming our way. If they are not willing to protect our First Amendment rights, don’t vote for them.     

Homosexual quotas in employment at Christian churches, schools and non-profits may not be far behind. To protect our First Amendment rights, Christians may need to start perfecting networking amongst ourselves to find employees, rather than publicly advertising for employees.  

Christians need to become more discerning in regards to their charitable contributions. Many of America’s largest charities quietly support or fund the homosexual agenda, including the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, United Way, UNICEF, etc. Funding those who persecute us needs to stop. The best charities to support are small local charities operated by people one knows personally.    

Boycott those businesses that support the gay movement. And they are legion: Staples, CVS, Progressive Insurance, etc., etc. Just Google the name of the business along with the term “gay rights,” and it’s easy to find out who they are. It’s time for the millions of American Christians to make their economic clout known in the marketplace and to quit enriching those who persecute us. Christians need to learn how to network with one another to find out what businesses can be trusted.  

We need to also boycott the mainstream media. For generations, the media has misled Americans about the nature of the homosexual agenda and are now cheerleading the attacks on Christians. Many liberal newspapers are teetering on collapse. A 5% reduction in readership will kill off most of the nation’s remaining newspapers. They lie. Who needs them? Get your news from the Internet.  

Finally, let’s quit being nice guys about the homosexual movement. We know that homosexuals are 6-10 times more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals. We know that as many as a third of all homosexuals have indicated in surveys that they have had sex with minors. We know that troubled youth group homes, the Boy Scouts, and even church youth groups all have huge problems with adult homosexuals targeting the children. We know that ever since homosexuals were allowed to openly serve in the armed forces, homosexual rapes have rapidly escalated, thereby destroying the morale of our armed forces.  

We know that there are large scale studies by the Centers for Disease Control and other agencies that show homosexuals are far more likely to have mental breakdowns, abuse drugs, engage in criminal activity and so on  – all indicators of an abnormal lifestyle. We know that the best research reveals that children raised in homosexual homes are, on average, experiencing far more problems than those raised in heterosexual families.

But most Americans know little of these studies and developments because the media refuses to report on them. The dark side of homosexuality has become a state secret; and as a result, many Americans have warm and fuzzy feelings about the homosexual community because all they see is the funny gay guy on some television sitcom. It is left to the Christian community to get the truth out, and we should.  

We should not allow the media’s phony “Ozzie and Harriet” portrayal of homosexuals to remain unchallenged. If Christians have writing, research, website or blogging skills, they need to use these skills to disseminate this information. If a Christian finds out a local child molester is also a homosexual but the media leaves this detail out, he should write about it. If a Christian learns that children at a local group home are being molested, but no one is doing anything about it, he needs to blog about it and make a stink until the authorities are forced to act. If a friend reports he was sexually assaulted by homosexuals while serving in the military, encourage him to write about it and send it all over the Internet.    

It is time to stop being nice guys to those who want to take away our First Amendment rights. This may sound harsh, but we are commanded to fight evil; and while I think it’s important that Churches and Christians continue to reach out to and pray for homosexuals, we cannot ignore the fact that the homosexual movement has declared war on us–and exposing what they do is a perfectly acceptable strategy. It is time to turn the spotlight on these people who seek to destroy our cherished religious freedoms.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalized the procedure of abortion for any reason before “fetal viability,” which is loosely defined.

The Court stipulated that abortion must be permitted for “health reasons” of the woman—up until birth. Yet the Court’s broad definition of “health reasons” essentially allowed for any reason and legalized abortion on demand.

The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.

Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.

Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being.

The Court also ignored legal jurisprudence and historical context regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws prohibited abortion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868—contrary to Blackmun’s demonstrably false claims.

Constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely wrote:

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure… It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

The Court also created another precedent by striking down state laws as illegal which had existed in all 50 states for roughly 100 years. These state laws were enacted democratically — decided by voters either through ballot initiatives or elected state legislatures. The Court overruled the rightful authority of the people in each of these states—and the other two branches of government did nothing in response.

Against the will of the people, and in defiance of the Constitution, the Court created policy not based on the Constitution.

Yet the Supreme Court is not the ultimate legal authority in America. The Court does not have the final word on legal matters; American citizens do. The Founders created separation of powers for a reason — Congress can overrule the Supreme Court as well as the president; states can overrule Congress. Congress and state legislatures determine policy as elected branches of government—elected by the people. And the people (in 1973 and 2015) overwhelmingly support significant restrictions on abortion.

By legalizing abortion, the Court legalized the leading cause of murder and human death in America. Since 1973, more than 56 million human beings have been “legally” killed.

The Court in Roe usurped the authority of the people and made murder, illegal according to the Constitution, legal. The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.

This column was first published on Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

US Supreme Court Has Legalized Religious Discrimination Since 1947

In 1947, Justice Hugo Black erroneously used extra-constitutional language from one personal letter Thomas Jefferson wrote (among volumes) to redefine the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Black argued in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the government could not “pass laws that aid one religion … (or) aid all religions.” He gave no explanation as to why the government should oppose a policy that positively affects its citizens.

As a result, the language, to “be separate” from religion, evolved into, “not being entangled with” religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court added to the First Amendment a three-part condition, known as the Lemon Test, to determine future Establishment Clause rulings. The Lemon Test conditions ask if the subject in question:

  1. Has a secular purpose;
  2. Has the “primary effect” of either “advancing or inhibiting” religion; or
  3. Entails an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.

Oddly, a court that cannot define “religion” ruled on religion using non-law for its reasoning, then argued churches (and all things religious) must be separate from society. By the Court’s reasoning, if the government cannot “advance” religion, religion should be uninvolved in every area where the government is involved. And, also for no clear reason, the government can support “secular” causes.

The Lemon Test, in effect, asserts that all laws must have a secular purpose, thereby systematically institutionalizing discrimination against all non-secular views. It also presupposes that religious purposes automatically exclude secular ones, as if they are mutually exclusive from one another, when they are not.

To suggest that the church and state should not be entangled when they already are evidences substandard jurisprudence.

Churches are already and continue to be subject to state laws and borders as well as federal laws and regulations. If what is “religious” is not already entangled by government laws, why would there be a need for a Constitutional Amendment which emphasizes religion as a preeminent freedom?

The government, by its bureaucratic nature, is already entangled in every aspect of society—in order to affect public policy and laws. The very fact that the government is already entangled in every area of life is what prompted the Founders to devise a Constitution to protect citizens from its encroachment. Nine of the first ten amendments to the Constitution specify what the government “shall not” do.

Worse still, the Supreme Court unsuccessfully attempted to define “aid” and “entanglement.” Michael W. McConnell identified the Court’s duplicity in a 1997 American Bar Association Journal article. The Court has held:

THAT RELIGIOUS COLLEGES MAY RECEIVE GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENT GRANTS, BUT RELIGIOUS HIGH SCHOOLS MAY NOT; THAT GOVERNMENT MAY SUBSIDIZE BUS TRANSPORTATION TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS BUT NOT BUS RIDES FOR THEIR STUDENTS ON FIELD TRIPS; THAT GOVERNMENT MAY PAY FOR BOOKS BUT NOT MAPS OR FILM PROJECTORS; THAT IT MAY REIMBURSE SCHOOLS FOR THE COST OF STATE-MANDATED STANDARDIZED TESTS BUT NOT STATE-MANDATED SAFETY MAINTENANCE; AND THAT IT MAY PAY FOR DIAGNOSTIC, BUT NOT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES TO CHILDREN AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

As such, the Court continued to cause further confusion. Religion was clearly not separate from public life; the Court continued to rule on cases regarding conscientious objection, contraception, marriage, education, parenting, and even taxation, which it redefined as “penalties.”

Recognizing the litany of problems associated with the Court’s error, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, and the Court modified the Lemon requirements in 1997. Three new criteria were to be applied when ruling on the issue of “separation.” The Court should consider whether the statute:

  1. Results in governmental indoctrination;
  2. Defines its recipients by reference to religion; or
  3. Creates an excessive entanglement with religion.

Despite these changes, at issue remains what secularists and non-religious advocates prescribe to allow—due to their self-proclaimed generosity—limited freedoms of religious expression, belief, conscience, and worship. Religion, they argue, should be “tolerated” to a certain extent in civil society; but politically, religion does not matter, and socially, religion is irrelevant and has no real public consequence.

Yet the vast majority of religions do have public consequences—both constructive and destructive.

What resulted from Court rulings since 1947 was the legally institutionalized religion of secularism and legally institutionalized discrimination based solely on religion—violating the First Amendment’s “Shall Not.”

Five years after Black’s ruling, Justice William O. Douglas warned that America was in danger of “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” A decade after Douglas’ warning, Justice Potter Stewart said the Court was moving toward “the establishment of a religion of secularism.” Fifty-five years later, their concerns proved correct.

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama’s Goal: To Change The Consitution

In 2004, comedian Jay Leno quipped: “They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years, and [heck], we’re not using it anymore.”

Leno’s joke expressed genuine lament for blatant and repetitive constitutional violations evidenced by elected officials. However, while Leno joked about not using the U.S. Constitution anymore, the reality is that many advocate that the U.S. Constitution should, and must, be changed and/or discarded.

Efforts to do so exist in academic and political advocacy.

Georgetown University Constitutional Law professor Louis Michael Seidman argued in an op-ed published by The New York Times in 2012 that the Constitution has “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” He asserts that getting rid of the Constitution is rooted in America’s founding. Following a list of examples he cites of American leaders who have violated Constitution law, he writes:

“IN THE FACE OF THIS LONG HISTORY OF DISOBEDIENCE, IT IS HARD TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE CLAIM BY THE CONSTITUTION’S DEFENDERS THAT WE WOULD BE REDUCED TO A HOBBESIAN STATE OF NATURE IF WE ASSERTED OUR FREEDOM FROM THIS ANCIENT TEXT. OUR SOMETIMES FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT PRODUCED CHAOS OR TOTALITARIANISM; ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS HELPED US TO GROW AND PROSPER.”

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens outlines six specific changes to the Constitution in his book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, published last year. Stevens’ suggestions include:

  • 1st Amendment: Remove any protection of “reasonable limits” on campaign spending on both a federal and state level.
  • 2nd Amendment: Specify only a state’s militia, not individual citizens, can have a constitutional right to bear arms.
  • 8th Amendment: Include the death penalty as part of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  • Require that federal and state legislative districts be “compact and composed of contiguous territory” to prevent political parties from redistricting for “safe seats” and political gain.
  • Eliminate a state’s sovereign immunity if state laws violate the Constitution or any act of Congress; he alludes to states’ rights within a context of “manifest injustice.”
  • Allow Congress to require that a state may perform federal duties in emergencies to reduce “the risk of a national catastrophe.”

Simultaneously, efforts to re-teach the Constitution to public school students have been implemented by the College Board, which produced a “Framework” effective for the fall 2014 AP U.S. History curriculum. In it is emphasized the importance of the United Nations (which did not exist at the time of the ratifying of the Constitution) and using foreign laws to interpret American laws and the U.S. Constitution.

New York University historian Thomas Bender asserts that “internationalizing” U.S. History curricula at every educational level is necessary. In his 2006 book, A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History, he writes: “Americans have always found it difficult to imagine themselves as an enemy, as a problem for other people.” If students learn about America from the perspective of their enemies, Bender suggests, American foreign policy might become more collaborative.

Andrew Burstein, a Louisiana State University history professor, advocates changing the Constitution in a two-part series Salon published last year. Burstein suggests that a new U.S. Constitution should be written, that federal service be mandatory for U.S. citizenship, and that higher taxes must be imposed on the rich in order to “save American democracy.”

Donna Brazile, the Democratic Party’s vice-chair of voter registration and participation, linked to Burstein’s article in a tweet she posted: “We need a new constitution. Here’s how we save American democracy from charlatans, loudmouths and the 1 percent.”

Likewise, Barack Obama stated on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM during a Sept. 6, 2001 ‘Slavery and the Constitution’ panel discussion that the U.S. Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He added that America’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama claims: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” The Constitution, he explains, is a “charter of negative liberties. … (it) … says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”

The Constitution and the balance of power the Founders created, Obama argues, prevents traditional legal approaches “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren, he says, “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Founding Fathers To Americans: Don’t Forget God

Many argue the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with U.S. law, that the depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments carved into the architectural structure of the U.S. Supreme Court building only represent one concept of several “early written laws.”

The marble frieze, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” located on the Court Building’s eastern pediment, depicts Moses as one of three Eastern law givers (Confucius to Moses’ left, Solon to his right). Some historians argue that by including Moses holding two blank tablets (the Ten Commandments) as part of the frieze, Moses represents only one of three Eastern civilizations whose laws primarily influenced American law.

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Image credit: shutterstock.com

Likewise, others argue that the South and North wall friezes inside the Court’s Chamber where the Justices rule do not emphasize Moses over any other lawgiver. Moses is only one of 18 lawgivers whose images are carved: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses (holding an inscribed tablet), Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

Yet, above the bench where the justices rule, carved on a marble relief are two men sitting on either side of a tablet on which I through X are carved. The allegorical figures represent “The Power of Government” and “The Majesty of the Law.” The numeric tablet represents the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

Entering the Court’s Chamber from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building are two oak doors on which there are carved two tablets with roman numerals I through X. These numeric tablets represent the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

The images of tablets with inscriptions all depict the same roman numerals I through X, not any other number or letter in any other typeface. The numbers specifically represent the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which are widely acknowledged and understood as interchangeable with the numbers one through ten (1-10).

Many oppose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law. Many also demand that any public displays be removed from public property. Yet the majority of Americans oppose their removal. In fact, according to Pew Research polls, “Americans overwhelmingly support displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, with more than seven-in-ten saying they believe such displays are proper.”

Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation clarifies why:

“A NATION’S MONUMENTS AND NATIONAL SYMBOLS REFLECT THE HEART OF THE PEOPLE AND IDENTIFY WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE SOURCE OF THEIR NATION’S GREATNESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS. AMERICA’S MONUMENTS AND SYMBOLS CONTAIN THE DECLARATION THAT THE SOURCE OF OUR BIRTH, LIBERTY, AND GREATNESS IS GOD.”

McDowell surveyed and found numerous biblical inscriptions on government buildings from the Library of Congress, to the U.S. Capitol, the National Archives, the Washington Monument, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and others.

Interestingly, despite public opposition, the National Park Service repositioned the Washington Monument’s metal cap on public display in order to block visitors from being able to read its inscription: Laus Deo (Praise be to God). It has not, however, covered or removed the blocks embedded in the inside walls of the structure on which numerous references to God are inscribed, including “Holiness to the Lord,” “Search the Scriptures,” “In God We Trust,” “The memory of the just are blessed,” and others.

George Washington undoubtedly would be appalled by the National Park Service’s actions. He himself actually insisted that America as a nation must do more than just publicly acknowledge God. He wrote a proclamation (published in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal on October 17, 1789) in which he emphasized:

“IT IS THE DUTY OF ALL NATIONS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PROVIDENCE OF ALMIGHTY GOD, TO OBEY HIS WILL, TO BE GRATEFUL FOR HIS BENEFITS, AND HUMBLY IMPLORE HIS PROTECTION AND FAVOR.”

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents concurred with Washington’s directive. They understood that public displays and public acknowledgements of God were not coercive measures. They were instructional expressions of free speech and free worship. National monuments served as reminders, encouragements, and examples of American leaders who publicly emphasized the importance of valuing, relying upon, and honoring God.

No Founding Father argued that America as a nation should forget God. In fact, they argued the opposite.

Further still, they and their predecessors evidenced through their own actions that they opposed any legal prohibition of inscribing biblical verses or expressions on the very structures and monuments they themselves had commissioned to be built.

This column was first published by Constitution.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth