Hillary Demands Censorship Of Her Critics

Hillary Clinton, taking a lead from socialist Bernie Sanders, has declared that if elected president, she will not appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court unless that person promises to overturn a Supreme Court case that allowed criticism of one Hillary Clinton.

The Citizens United case has become the bene noir of liberal politics. The case was about a citizens group that planned to release a movie during the height of the 2008 presidential campaign about Mrs. Clinton. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said they could not. The Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, said they could.

At issue was the ill-convinced McCain-Feingold law that made it a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison to broadcast the movie or pay for advertising promoting sales of the movie during the 2008 election cycle solely because of its political content. During the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Alito asked a simple question:  Could the government ban books if the content of the book was designed to promote a candidate? The Deputy Solicitor General replied: ‘Yes.’

In what should have been a unanimous decision, the court overturned the government’s effort to censor the movie, with the liberal wing of the court standing with the government in favor of restrictions on freedom of speech. Since then, the decision has been attacked uniformly by liberal partisans who have even gone so far as to submit a Constitutional Amendment to change the First Amendment for the first time in American history.

Now, Hillary has entered the fray. She has declared that any person she suggests for the Supreme Court will have to pass the Citizens United litmus test. In short, that nominee will pledge to allow the government to bar criticism of the President of the United States. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

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

Scalia Defends The Constitution, Questions The 17th Amendment

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reaffirmed his commitment to defending the Constitution while speaking to the Federalist Society in his home state of New Jersey on Friday.

Scalia, the preeminent conservative firebrand of the court, told the audience it is the structure of the government under the Constitution and not the liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights that makes us free.

As reported by The Daily Signal: “Every tin horn dictator in the world today, every president for life, has a Bill of Rights,” said Scalia, author of the 2012 book Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. “That’s not what makes us free; if it did, you would rather live in Zimbabwe. But you wouldn’t want to live in most countries in the world that have a Bill of Rights. What has made us free is our Constitution. Think of the word ‘constitution’; it means structure.”

Congress passed the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights, during the opening months of its first session in 1789, largely following those proposed by the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison. They were ratified by the states and became the law of the land in 1791.

Scalia argued that without the division of power created by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, protection against unlawful search and seizures, and trial by jury of one’s peers among other rights, would just be paper promises with no mechanism to enforce them.

“The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,” he said. “Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.”

Scalia stands on firm ground with his observation. James Madison wrote in Federalist 51 that the best bulwark against government tyranny is structuring a system where “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

He observed: “In…the republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federal and state], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [legislative, executive, judicial]. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Scalia noted that the most profound departure from the dispersal-of-power structure established under the Constitution was passage of the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which changed the method of the election of U.S. senators to the popular vote rather than by the state legislatures.

The Founders intended the House of Representatives to be the “people’s house” with elections every two years, while senators served for six year terms–their constituency being the state legislature. This ensured that senators would have no incentive to trample on the state government’s authority through federal action.

The Constitution created a federal government with certain enumerated powers, leaving all the remaining authority to the states and the people. Scalia and many other critics believe the federal government has usurped broad authority in powers left primarily to the states.

“What a difference that makes,” Scalia said. “When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass. The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their senators, ‘You vote for that and you are out of there.’”

Repeal of the 17th Amendment is one of the proposals in radio talk show host Mark Levin’s bestselling book Liberty Amendments.

Regarding interpretation of the Constitution overall, Justice Scalia is an originalist. In other words, he believes that it is not up to courts to re-interpret the nation’s governing document, but follow what the Founders’ intended. If the Constitution or laws generally need revision, it is up to the legislative branch to do so. “When we read Shakespeare, we have a glossary. We don’t think the words have changed there, so why do we think they have changed in the Constitution?” the justice has told audiences in the past.

Justice Scalia is currently the longest serving member on the Supreme Court, having been appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Anthony Kennedy is the only other Reagan appointee still serving on the high bench.

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

A Court Decision Is No Law At All

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”  – Marbury v Madison 1803.

Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

Void –  having no legal force or effect;  not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual, and unenforceable.

Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three-year-old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty-bound to follow it?

If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10-year-olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10-year-old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

Did you know that a “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…well…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

For instance, the recent Obamacare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.” How can an opinion be enforceable–especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832, famously said: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

Sorry, I know that I am all over the place with this communication–so let me try to bring it together.

The United States is veering aimlessly off course because we have lost control of our government. This has happened partly because we have ceded to the courts lawmaking powers that they were simply not intended to possess.

A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

Friends, courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

Here is my point: All the hubbub over homosexual marriage is a cleverly-designed smoke screen. Who cares what the Supreme Court says? They are merely rendering their “opinion.” The people of Alabama and 30 other states have already spoken on this issue. No court “opinion” can nullify the vote of the people. Did anyone vote to give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg the power to change the institution of marriage? I don’t think so, Tim!

Who do they think they are? No wait…who do WE think they are?  Do you REALLY believe that the opinions of five political hacks on the Supreme Court trump the will of 81% of the citizens in Alabama? I think not. At some point, this is gonna get ugly…and I believe we are nearing that point.

The right to get “married” based solely on who one chooses to copulate with is one of the most short-sighted “opinions” in the history of the world. Liberty is not licentiousness. You have no God-given right to do that which is wrong.

Homosexual marriage is not now, nor will it ever be, “legal” in America. You know it, I know it, and heck, even the homosexuals know it. They don’t want to get married…they just want to destroy marriage.

At some point, if we are to remain free, we are going to have to cast off the chains of government. That’s what our forefathers did. That is what they told us we would have to do.

Jefferson told us “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”  What do you suppose he meant by that?

“Are you proposing violence, Coach Dave?” I hear you asking. Of course not. What a foolish assumption to make. I am, however, proposing resolute, peaceful resistance. I am proposing open defiance against the tyrannical arm of government. I am proposing that Christians obey God rather than man.

Metaphorically speaking, Montgomery, Alabama, will be the Gettysburg of Gay Marriage after the Supreme Court hands down their tyrannical “opinion” in defiance of the will of the people of Alabama and in direct conflict with the Supreme Court Justice of the Universe.

The question is, what will the people of America do? Will they obediently acquiesce to the un-Constitutional edicts of the homsexualists on the Supreme Court? Or will they, as their forefathers did, stand in open defiance to a tyrannical, over-reaching, amoral Federal Government?

I am reminded of a monument that you will find commemorating what took place at Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775. Carved into stone are these immortal words of Captain John Parker, the lead elder at the assembly of Pastor Jonas Clark, who ordered the men from his congregation to rise and resist the Redcoats:

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Not one of our key “cultural” issues has ever been changed by a vote of the people. Abortion, marriage, prayer in schools, sodomy laws, free speech…they’ve all been “changed” by “court opinions.”

In summary, courts offer opinions. Legislatures and we the people make the laws. Supreme Court decisions are not laws—they simply tell us that they are.

Defy them! Nullify them! Tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand!

 

Learn more about your Constitution with Coach Dave and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

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

Supremes Contemplate Making War Against Heaven

The Supreme Court declared, “We are a Christian people…according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with the reverence the duty of obedience to God.” –United States v. Macintosh (1931)

While there are some American people who are ignorantly anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision on what its definition of marriage is, it is important to remember that the job of the Supreme Court justices is to discover written law and apply written law. They are not there to legislate or to activate; nor is it their business to redefine what they do not agree with when it come to the One who gave law.

In essence, they have no business attempting to redefine marriage (Ephesians 5:31).

The people in this country are not ruled by the Supreme Court.  We are all ruled by the Lawgiver, and that includes the Supreme Court (Exodus 18:21; Isaiah 9:6).

“No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” – Judge William Blackstone

The black-robed tyrants are like a bunch of pigeons picking at peas. They pick the cases they do not want to hear and choose the ones they do. It is their duty and obligation to interpret law against crime, not promote crime (1 Peter 2:14).

Every step of the way, the states have combated and ignored the established laws concerning marriage in an attempt to overthrow America’s sovereignty.

We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]” –John Hancock

There has never been, and never will be, marriage that is based on sodomy. It is an institution that belongs exclusively to the Church and not to the state. God-ordained marriage cannot be changed regardless of what the people or the judges may say or what the people want if contrary to God’s moral law.

Furthermore, when you look to Canada, you can see this has everything to do with giving way to the sodomites while giving permission to attack and assail anyone and everyone who disagrees with their abominable behavior. This includes telling the Church whom they have to marry; telling homeschoolers that they can no longer teach their children that sodomites are an abomination; and even going so far as to attempt to lower the age of anal consent from 16 years old to 14 years old. What does that have to do with marriage? Nothing (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Roman 1:24).

As the Supreme Court looks at the issue of redefining marriage, the first “sodomite president” Barack Obama and his administration have already asked and gotten the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.

Of course, to do that, Obama had to set the stage. He repealed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and placed 225 homosexuals in key positions. Then he appointed a radical lesbian to the bench of the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan.

Elena Kagan is the former dean of Students at Harvard. Contrary to Harvard’s founding mottos, “For Christ and the Church” and “For the glory of Christ,” Kagan is known for “Queerifying Harvard.”

During her tenure, she did the following:

  • Kagan hired former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein to teach “queer” legal theory, in which he taught courses on taking up new identities such as bisexuality, transgender f**k, involving polygamy, sadomasochism, and the sexuality of minors.
  • Kagan also hired other radicals (a lesbian and a transsexual) to teach transgender law courses, as well as Cass Sunstein, who has written in support of polygamy and free-for-all marriage relationships.
  • Kagan viciously attacked our military in opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” even banning military recruiters from coming on campus. Kagan’s attempt to ban the recruiters was unsuccessful; and even after losing her legal campaign, she encouraged students to continue protesting them.
  • Kagan’s radical activism on campus was so toxic that there was even a campaign to make the entire university trans-inclusive, using Harvard’s “gender identity” non-discrimination policy to spew gender confusion among students on campus.

Elena Kagan has never judged a case a day in her life. Yet, Obama, unqualified for office himself, has seen fit to “qualify” her for the Supreme Court.

America needs to come to terms and understand that no president, no administration, and no Supreme Court has a right to break God’s laws.

America, your only hope is responding to the crimes of those who believe that they are above the law, which they are not. Impeachment and indictment are the rightful remedies for such criminals, found in Article 2, Sections 4, and Article 3, Section 1 of our Constitution.

“If the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, then we have ceased to be our own rulers (under God), and the Supreme Court is our ruler.” President Andrew Jackson

As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord (Joshua 24:15)!

To Spit Against Heaven

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

Here’s The Man Who Could Redefine Marriage…

A recent profile of Justice Anthony Kennedy begins with this: “The Irish Catholic boy who came of age in Sacramento after World War II is an unlikely candidate to be the author of the Supreme Court’s major gay rights rulings. But those who have known Justice Anthony Kennedy for decades and scholars who have studied his work say he has long stressed the importance of valuing people as individuals.”

Well, like Kennedy, I’m also Catholic; and I likewise value all people as individuals, including gay people—as does my Roman Catholic Church and Pope Francis. But why must we, therefore, reject our faith’s millennia-old, traditional-natural-biblical teaching on marriage as between one man and one woman? That’s the question, and not just for Catholics but countless non-Catholic Christians.

For Catholics faithful to their Church’s teachings, the Justice Kennedy scenario is increasingly maddening, if not dismaying. They are looking at the prospect of marriage being redefined in America based on the swing vote of this lifelong Catholic. They’re not optimistic, especially given Kennedy’s shockingly relativistic views expressed in previous major court decisions.

The most notorious was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which enshrined Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. There, Kennedy led the majority with this breathtaking proclamation: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

That line was crafted by a Supreme Court majority that included three Reagan-Bush (first Bush) appointees, all of them Christians: Anthony Kennedy (Catholic), Sandra Day O’Connor (Episcopalian), and David Souter (Episcopalian). The authorship is usually attributed to Kennedy. Joining his slim 5-4 majority were John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun, who authored the original Roe decision, which he slowly crafted inside the United Methodist Church building next to the Supreme Court.

Of course, in truth, this is plainly not the Christian/Catholic understanding of liberty. What Kennedy and allies expressed is a totally non-Christian (arguably anti-Christian) and completely individualistic understanding. If you’re looking for a slogan for what both Pope Francis and his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, called the dictatorship of relativism, that statement is it. Kennedy’s formulation of liberty is a radical secular progressive’s understanding; a progressive would argue that definitions of liberty and everything else are always changing and evolving, and always up to the person or the culture of the moment.

If Anthony Kennedy persists in this damaging misunderstanding of liberty, next using it to justify legalized gay “marriage” on top of legalized abortion, then he could serve as a poster boy for Christian churches’ colossal failure in properly teaching the laity. We shall see.

On the plus side for faithful Catholics, the four likely votes against gay marriage are all Catholic: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and (perhaps) John Roberts. Tellingly, the four most probable “yes” votes for redefining marriage will come from Sonia Sotomayor—a secular, non-practicing Catholic—and Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan—all of which, to my knowledge, are non-practicing, non-orthodox Jews.

Who says religion doesn’t matter?

The presence or lack thereof, or level of devoutness, is at the heart of where America—from everyday citizens to justices on the high court—stand on this unprecedented cultural novelty called “gay marriage.”

Finally, an added insight into Justice Kennedy’s role at this crucial historical stage in the life of America: As noted, Kennedy was a Reagan appointee. Also nearly a Reagan appointee was Bill Clark, to whom Reagan quietly offered the Supreme Court vacancy that instead went to Sandra Day O’Connor in July 1981. Clark and Reagan were extremely close.

Reagan as governor appointed Clark (his chief of staff in Sacramento) all the way through the California court system in the 1970s, including to the state’s supreme court. There in Sacramento, Clark had a close relationship with a fellow Irish Catholic, Anthony Kennedy, who served there on the federal bench. The two had a regular one-on-one lunch together.

As Clark’s biographer, I was privy to his deep concerns over Kennedy’s decisions at the U.S. Supreme Court. He told me often that Kennedy was a man “unusually influenced” by his immediate surroundings. Clark was very humble; but he believed that if he would have accepted Reagan’s offer for the seat that went to O’Connor, he could have kept Kennedy on a path of judicial restraint and constitutionalism that (among other things) would have had Kennedy voting for the side of Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey Sr. (a pro-life Democrat) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Clark himself likely would have authored that majority decision, which could have been a 6-3 decision.

Alas, it was not meant to be. Clark instead became Reagan’s national security adviser, where, as head of the National Security Council, he and his president laid out a remarkably bold and successful plan to defeat Soviet communism and win the Cold War. No small achievement.

For Clark, it was a great regret that he wasn’t there on the court to reverse Roe v. Wade in 1992; but, ultimately, he understood that he could only do so much. Clark’s calling—what he and Reagan called “The DP,” or “The Divine Plan”—was to win a Cold War, not to take on this element of the Culture War. The Culture War, unfortunately, was left to the likes of Anthony Kennedy.

Bill Clark died in August 2013. His old friend Anthony Kennedy is very much alive and active. For Clark, his solid Catholic education, both Augustinian and Franciscan, was central to all of his thinking. He would never have been so bold as to redefine liberty as the “right” to define one’s own meanings of human life and existence, and Clark certainly would not have rendered unto himself the right to redefine marriage. Will Justice Kennedy do so? Hey, if he has already averred that one has a right to define one’s own meanings of human life and existence, then why can’t one devise one’s own meanings of marriage?

All of America watches in anxious anticipation to see how this Irish Catholic boy from Sacramento decides. In many ways, tragically, the future of marriage resides in the hands of this one man. It should not be.

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