Judicial Abuse of the 14th Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation & Homosexual "Marriage"


In the January 2011 edition of the California Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia correctly says the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to sex discrimination or sexual orientation cases. 1

Activist federal judges, on the other hand, see the 14th Amendment as a blank check to legalize whatever conduct they happen to approve of, such as abortion, homosexuality, & gay marriage.

But these activist judges are destroying federalism by bringing about a massive transfer of power from The People and the States to their own black-robed selves.

What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts?

1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 enumerates the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between several States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or its Citizens) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects 3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases federal courts have permission to hear! Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):

…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. [emphasis added] 4

In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton comments on each of these enumerated objects of federal judicial authority. But here, we will consider only cases “arising under the Constitution”, which, in the words of Hamilton [which I ask you to note most carefully],

…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union (2nd para) [emphasis added]

Are Provisions About Abortion, Homosexuality, or Marriage “Expressly Contained” in the U.S. Constitution?

2. Let us consider State Laws which made abortion or homosexual contacts to be crimes. Let us also consider the recent case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, where federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, an Amendment approved by the People of California to their State Constitution, violates the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the 14th Amendment. Proposition 8 says, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.

Are State Laws addressing abortion and homosexual contact proper objects of the judicial power of the federal courts? Are amendments to State Constitutions defining “marriage” a proper object of the judicial power of the federal courts?

Above, I asked you to note most carefully Hamilton’s statement in Federalist No. 80 (2nd para) that the judicial authority of federal courts extends to cases which “…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union”.

Is anything about abortion, homosexual contact, or marriage “expressly contained” in the U.S. Constitution? No! Those words and concepts do not appear at all in the U.S. Constitution.

In the 3rd para of Federalist No. 80, Hamilton gives examples of cases “which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union”: If a State violates the provisions of Art. I, Sec. 10 which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money, the federal courts have jurisdiction to overrule such infractions as are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union.”

Does Art. I, Sec.10 Prohibit STATES from Making Laws about Abortion, Homosexuality & Marriage?

3. Article I, Sec.10 enumerates the acts prohibited to the States. Does anything in Art. I, Sec.10 prohibit States from criminalizing abortion or homosexual contact, or restricting marriage to one man and one woman? No! No! and No! Consider also Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 32 (last para):

the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor … is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary. [emphasis added]

So! Since the U.S. Constitution contains no grant of power over abortion, homosexuality, or marriage to the federal government; and since Art. I, Sec. 10 does not prohibit the exercise of authority over those objects to the States, authority over them remains with the STATES or the People! [See also the 10th Amendment to the same effect.]


The Original Intent of the 14th Amendment.

4. Now, let us look at the 14th Amendment, which activist federal judges have seized upon to circumvent the FACT that the U.S. Constitution shows that jurisdiction over abortion, homosexual contact, and marriage is reserved by the States or the People.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (ratified 1868) says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does this mean? Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

a) In Ch. 11 of his book, Prof. Berger shows the true meaning of the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

“Due process of law” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Specifically, that freed slaves could not be punished except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial where they could appear, cross-examine witnesses and put on a defense! “Life” meant “life” as opposed to being lynched; “liberty” meant being out of confinement instead of in confinement; &property” meant the person’s possessions.

Professor Berger points out [and I ask you to note it most carefully] that “due process of law” refers only to trials - to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It most manifestly does NOT involve judicial power to override Acts of a Legislature!

b) In Ch.10, Prof. Berger shows the true meaning of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment:

…nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Professor Berger proves that this equal protection was limited to the rights enumerated in The Civil Rights Act of 1866. Section 1 of that Act says:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America … That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

This 1866 Act secured to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property. “Political rights” were excluded [Remember, the 14th Amendment did not give freed slaves the right to vote]. But respecting the rights listed in the Act, States were now required to treat blacks the same as whites. THAT is what the “equal protection” clause in the 14th Amendment means.

How Federal Judges have Perverted the 14th Amendment.

5. Activist federal judges have committed grievous offenses against the U.S. Constitution with their perversions of the 14th Amendment:

a) They have evaded the constitutional limits on their power to hear cases by fabricating individual “constitutional rights” from the 14th Amendment so that they can then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”, thereby claiming “federal question” jurisdiction!

Thus, in Roe v. Wade (1973), seven judges on the supreme Court said a

right of privacy…founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action (p. 153)

makes unconstitutional a State Law making abortion a criminal offense! Those seven judges just made up a “constitutional privacy right” which they said was in the 14th Amendment and which they said prohibits States from outlawing abortion!

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), six judges on the supreme Court said a Texas Law criminalizing homosexual contact was unconstitutional because it violated practitioners’

…right to liberty under the Due Process Clause (p.578)…of the Fourteenth Amendment (pp. 564, 579).

Those six judges just made up a “constitutional liberty right” to have homosexual contact!

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker asserted that “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage” (Opinion p.113); and determined that the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment contains a “fundamental right” to marry persons of the same sex (p.114, etc)!

He just made up a 14th Amendment “due process right” to marry persons of the same sex!

But abortion, homosexual contact, & marriage are not provisions expressly contained in the U.S. Constitution. So the federal courts have no “federal question” [or "status of the parties" or "diversity"] jurisdiction to hear these cases!

b) They have evaded the constitutional limits on their powers by redefining 5 the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment from its original meaning of ensuring that freed slaves got fair trials before they could be deprived of life, liberty or property, to seizing power to nullify State Laws they don’t like, and Amendments to State Constitutions they don’t like!

Thus, the supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas used the “due process” clause to seize power to overturn State Laws criminalizing abortion and homosexual contact; and Judge Walker used the “due process” clause to overturn the Will of the People of the State of California restricting marriage to one man and one woman.

Again, the “due process” clause refers only to judicial proceedings: That freed slaves couldn’t be lynched, deprived of their freedom, or have their property taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial.

“Due process” never involved judicial power to override Acts of the Legislature of a Sovereign State or Amendments to State Constitutions. The sole purpose of the “due process” clause was to ensure that freed slaves got FAIR TRIALS!

c) They have evaded the constitutional limits on their powers by redefining the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment from its original meaning of requiring States to secure to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property; to prohibiting the States from making any “distinctions” or “classifications” in their State Statutes or Constitutions the federal judges don’t like!

Thus, in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker asserted that Proposition 8 violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment because it “disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification” (Opinion p. 135).

6. So! Activist federal judges have been using the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment to override acts of State Legislatures which outlaw conduct federal judges want to legalize! They simply make up a “constitutional right” to do those things. Under their view, there is no limit to their powers! State Legislatures criminalize child rape, but 5 judges on the supreme Court can fabricate a “constitutional right” to have sex with children – a “liberty and privacy right” in the 14th Amendment to have sex with children! If these “liberty and privacy rights” mean that women can abort babies, and homosexual contact is lawful; why can’t they also mean that adults can have sex with children? Why can’t they mean that people have “liberty and privacy rights” to commit any crime? What’s the limit? There IS no limit! Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, said:

…As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (p. 579)

Kennedy just tossed Art. III, Sec. 2 out the door! He and his ideological allies recognize no limits on their judicial power! Just name an act you want legalized and if 5 of them agree, Voila! A new “liberty” “right”! And a Law made by a State Legislature prohibiting that act bites the dust. And since supreme Court judges claim the right to “set policy” for all of these United States (and we have let them do it), State laws throughout the land prohibiting that act also bite the dust. And that is how we got a handful of supreme Court judges setting “policy” for everyone in the country.

7. Abortion, homosexual contact, marriage, prostitution, child sex, drugs, etc. are issues reserved to the States or The People. The federal government is not granted power in the Constitution over these objects, and they are not prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 10, to the States.

The Supreme Court’s Radical Redefinition of “Liberty”

8. The quote from Justice Kennedy shows that federal judges have redefined “Liberty”: They see “liberty” as freedom from moral restraints; they do not see “liberty” as freedom from coercive civil government – to the contrary, they are determined to force their radical conception of “freedom” down our throats.

But Professor Berger proves that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not understand “Liberty” as freedom from moral restraints. He proves that the purpose of the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, confined, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial; and the purpose of the “equal protection” clause was to require States to secure to blacks the same right to contract, to hold property, and to sue, as whites enjoyed, and the equal benefit of all laws for security of person and property.

9. Do you see how federal judges have usurped powers never granted to them and how they are destroying our Constitution? If we do not insist that federal judges adhere to the “original intent” of the U.S. Constitution (and this original intent is readily ascertainable, Justice Scalia’s comment to the contrary notwithstanding), then the Rule of Law can not be reborn, and we will fall.

The Remedy for Judicial Lawlessness

10. Are there remedies for this judicial lawlessness? YES! Congress must use its Impeachment Power to remove the usurping judges. They serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1) and do not have “lifetime appointments”. Alexander Hamilton addressed judicial usurpations and the judiciary’s “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force” in Federalist No. 81, 8th para:

…the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body [House], and of determining upon them in the other [Senate], would give to that body [Congress] upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it [the impeachment power], while this body [Congress] was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations…

Now you know that federal judges can be impeached, convicted & removed from the bench for usurping power. The Rule of Law does not require us to go along with all court decisions. Rather, if the decision is an usurpation, the Rule of Law requires us to spit on the decision and demand that the judges be impeached & removed from the bench.

Our Rights do NOT Come from the Constitution!

11. Finally, a word about our Rights: The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the 3 branches of the federal government. It is NOT about our rights, which come from God, are unalienable, and predate & pre-exist the Constitution! We created the Constitution and the federal government! Why would the Creator (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine & define our Rights?

Endnotes:

1 State legislatures may make laws re abortion, homosexuality, marriage, etc. as permitted by their State Constitutions. But as these are not among the enumerated legislative powers of Congress, Congress is not permitted to make laws on these subjects. Neither are federal judges.

2 Hamilton says this is the only instance where the Constitution contemplates the federal courts hearing cases between Citizens of the same State. (Federalist No. 80, 3rd para from end).

3 The 11th Amendment (ratified 1795) withdrew from federal courts the power to hear cases filed against one of the States by Citizens of another State or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign State.

4 What a mind! All those Hamilton haters who parrot the lies about how Hamilton was a “statist”, etc, demonstrate a profound ignorance of The Federalist Papers & The U.S. Constitution.

5 When federal judges redefine terms in the Constitution, they “amend” the Constitution in violation of Art. V. Article V. sets forth the two lawful methods of amending the Constitution, neither of which is “redefinition by judges”.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.





Comments

comments

About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • SuperUnnatural

    it's only considered "hate speech" by those that are purposely pissing God Off and have since creation began on this planet. stop the occultic practice of reverse speech, in fact the next time you feel like opening your "mind" or your mouth, or turning your computer on or any technology you have, force this thought to go through your mind that God never tolerated you or the practices you protect. God destroyed those. God sent HIS son to die on a cross so that people would WAKE UP to reality and stop these human perversions and so that instead they can be self controlled, sexually pure, spiritually pure and not vulnerable to your attacks but instead know how to fight you. God never tolerated perverts or homosexuals or those who have abortions. He showed man kind how to kill them and put curses on those who do this very thing. you hate it more that you can't actually tell the future and want people to ignore your past or even stop any record of it from being alive but yet, you mimic true prophecy and God's ways of revealing knowledge to humans through your perverse acts. how does it feel knowing that someone can actually do this and what Prophecy really is, is NOT the foretelling of "immediate" future behaviors but a revealing of how you have punished those that Obey God and how God is going to destroy you once and for all. there won't be a trace left of you any where in the universe.

  • SuperUnnatural

    stop censoring the internet because you already lost control and hate anyone opposed to your agenda to push ancient evil practices that God destroyed in the flood Noah, and you know what I am saying is fact but through your fantasy of a life, you wish to be able to keep this from being said. you have already been judged and God never tolerated homosexuals or abortion or sorcery in any way, by any ways. (any ways means all the names you give to your practices of witchcraft, even politics) I am talking about this "silencing of lambs" forcing Christians to tolerate you or lose their life when they openly object and protest against you. you are confusing people with political crap that came to power only because God handed you over to the gods you worship and you found out reality that those were never gods or God's creation but in fact are demons helping to lead you to hell, the path to destruction after all is wider than the amazon or Mississippi rivers and those that love it and follow that way are killed, are spiritually dead and help to kill off those that are most vulnerable. That's why you have no offspring, no children. God never tolerated your filth. Matthew 24 "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man". this has all been seen before and is still being committed. the ancient town of Sodom (sodomy) and gommorah, Ai, Jericho (all those kings destroyed for being offspring of those ancient sexual perverts) and many many more towns destroyed for disobeying God and committing every offense they could so that God would be pissed and God's creation destroyed. but PURE HUMAN DNA is what God created, what fallen angels raped and destroyed and since (their offspring called Demons AFTER the flood) are still destroying. you will not be put in hell this time because at least hell was a place to prolong your suffering until you were ready for judgement but in this era, that will be destroyed by God himself while those here on earth paving the way for the anti-Christ will just be dead. no Hell no afterlife for you. ever. no reincarnation, nothing. and you know that. that's why you attack and claim you suffered anything but you never suffered. there is catastropy that has been predicted that God put in place to happen once this prophecy has been fulfilled and you are helping to fulfill it.

  • Chris

    "What does this mean? Harvard Professor Raoul Berger’s meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, proves by means of thousands of quotes from the Congressional Debates, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship."

    No, that's the cover story!

    Even constitutionalists (of which I used to be for over 2 decades, but no longer am) that are worth their salt know that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not to protect freed slaves, but rather to open the door for the whites, along with the Negro, Asiatics, etc., to be conglomerated together to the same level of enslavement and control via government granted privileges through various forms of contracts, like Social Security, birth certificates, etc., and licenses for virtually everything (e.g., incorporation, "Marriage", driving, business, building, contractors, etc.).

    This is a long subject and can't be covered here. Suffice it to say: The 14th Amendment paved the way for the erosion, by gradual increments, of all liberties.

    Regarding the sexual pervert problem. Here's the only solution:

    First, there’s the need for the offender to turn back to The Great I Am that became flesh and dwelt among us, with Confession of Him as your salvation and Kinsmen Redeemer, repentance and baptism (full immersion) in His name. Acts 2: 38.

    If the sin continues: 1 Corinthians 5: 4-5.

    For those who will not repent: Leviticus 18: 22 – 29; 20: 13

    The only solution for this nation is to turn back to Him, His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, His Kingdom/Will on earth.

  • Greg137

    Interesting.. What the people need isto remember that, We, the People, have the expressed authority to throw out corrupt justices by voting for congressmen, and senators who are willing and able to impeach federal justices that do not comply with the constitution... We also need to elect a Congress and a Senate who will be willing to impeach Obama as well..

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrodriquez Michael Rodrquez

    Just remember at NUREMBURG. TRIALS post WWII, the lawyers and judges were the ones that passed the laws that sent 6 million JEWS to their deaths. When governments go corrupt look first at the judges and the immoral laws of tbeir decisions they enact.

  • Ron

    So what is next? Child molesters, the Catholic church would appreciate that one. It would save them tons of money for priest molestations if it were legal. How about beastiallity, having sex with a corpse, in a world with anything goes, except morality or common sense, its no wonder we could be compared to Sodom and Gamora...

  • DrSique

    The abuse of our Constitution, and laws in general, really ramped up when "We the People" allowed progressives to change the role of the judiciary from upholding our laws to interpreting our laws. The 14th Amendment is also used to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens who are clearly not umder the jurisdiction of these United States. Any outrage from Scalia over that one? Probably not. There are maybe two dozen federally elected officials in Washington who are not either generally corrupt or pushing their own personal agenda. All the rest need to be tarred, feathered and run out of OUR Capitol.

  • 7papa7

    The left knows that they can never get their perverted agenda through congress so they are illegally doing it from the bench with judicial activist judges. Most of these so called judges should be impeached. Their perversion of our Constitution is abominable. The left has been working to fill the judiciary with their activist judges for decades now and we the people are paying the price for their total lack of respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.

  • Raymond

    If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

    The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: forall that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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. Jude 7

    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

    Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

    And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast,and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

  • Charles LaFoe

    ok then lets start impeaching judges as some of us have been asking for for a looong time

  • Stanpauley

    Absolutely amazing. Somehow, this information has to be made more available to the general public. Is there anyone who is pursuing this issue, and if so, who? This is some of the best information that I have seen about the freedoms American citizens have, and of which they are not aware. This information, if properly disseminated, would change the political landscape of this country. Lets hear it for states rights.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org Ted R. Weilandt

    "...rights, which come from God, are unalienable...."

    Sounds good, but is it true?

    "...The Bill of Rights was a compromise between the constitutional framers and the anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution as originally framed. In theory, the Bill of Rights protects the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” among other things. But have life, liberty, and happiness been advanced or protected since the first Ten Amendments were ratified? Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, have we had less government intrusion or has the Constitutional Republic merely licensed and limited those rights?

    "The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including homosexuals and infant murderers, demand their rights. Few are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.

    "The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the constitutional framers had in mind:

    'John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Constitution’s Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty.' ( C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)...."

    For more, see "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to article.

  • Spense

    Thanks for the education Publius..... Supreme court justices who usurps should he hung!