Everyone can see that a person appointed for life as a judge does not represent a constituency. There's a reason for that. The judge must stand for the law and only the law. Justice, only Justice, shall you pursue. Leviticus 19:15.
A king is more democratic than a court because if a king is willing, the lowliest peasant can approach the king and petition him to not enact an evil law. Not so the courts, which are forbidden in principle from such outside influence so that it may protect the interests of the the parties before it. This is not a criticism. The courts must have independence from outside influence in order to hear the arguments and evidence of the parties before it and make a judgment based on justice alone. Because of this need for independence in the courts and the protection of the parties before it in the Obergefell case on marriage, it was improper for anyone else in the entire country (unless they were granted amicus curiae status) to petition Justice Kennedy and the other Supreme Court Justices for them to respect marriage and the laws of the states. We, the people, were forbidden from interfering with that process. Thus, the courts are the most undemocratic of the three branches of government – by design.
Therefore, the question arises as to whether a Court should even address such policy questions at all. Not many people know that the Constitution of the United States does not even give that authority to the U.S. Supreme Court. It gave that power to itself. How? In an opinion it issued, of course. It occurred early in our history - the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison.
However, the problems are compounded in our day. As the opinions as to right and wrong change seemingly every day, and each person, educational system, or region of the country, develops its own value system, the choices allowed by liberty grow. As liberty grows in the society, the choices a President can make as to federal judges grow also. As the federal government grows in power extending its tentacles throughout the society, the more likely that a value judgment by an individual sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court will butt up against the viewpoints, choices, and laws of another part of the country. With no objective standard of right and wrong, there’s no telling what moral values a Justice may have when appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Add the mistaken idea that much of the legal community has adopted – that the Constitution forbids any religious influence whatsoever upon a court’s decision, and the Court becomes absolutely hostile to objective good and evil as defined by God. It gets worse.
Add to that system, the idea that all must obey the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions, no matter how far beyond the boundary of law and constitution, and we have conferred upon it the incommunicable attributes of infallibility and absolute obedience, the prerogatives of God alone. A king can change his mind if he sees he has made a mistake and rescind an order fairly easily. Our courts have become something like the legal system of the Medes and Persians, for whom the law once declared by the king couldn’t be changed by anyone, even the king. (Remember the story of Daniel and the lions’ den, when he disobeyed the king.)
Take the homosexual issue. Once the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized that issue for itself to decide for the states what is right or wrong, thereby reversing its own prior opinion (Bowers v Hardwick, 1986, when it said the states decided the question of the criminality of consensual homosexual activity), as it did in Lawrence v Texas, 2003, it can not go back and re-reverse itself by un-constitutionalizing the issue. If it did, it would look even sillier. It might change an opinion as to a result in a case, but we’re stuck with the decision to constitutionalize. The U.S. Constitution has now been interpreted to impose on every state a foreign version of law and federalism, and it is forever enshrined as what the Constitution means for all and for all time. It’s like the law of the Medes and Persians in Daniel’s day, when once the King issued a decree, even he couldn’t reverse it. But it wasn't a king's decision or a legislature's or the Congress' or the people's. It was five judges. And they forever denied the people the right to speak on the issue.
I haven’t even gotten to the Tenth Amendment. Need I explain that the issues which the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address are left to the states and to the people? This one portion of the Constitution is enough to show that the U.S. Supreme Court went beyond its boundary as a court to invent a new form of marriage entirely, equate it with the only form of marriage we had ever known in Alabama and which is a fundamental right, then cram it down our throat by constitutionalizing the issue in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. Apparently, even the U.S. Constitution cannot restrain judges who are intent upon using the Constitution to advance their personal agenda.
Some will argue that the people can now change the Constitution by amendment. Wait a minute. How is it that one group, those in favor of changing the definition of marriage contrary to the Constitution and the will of the people, don't have to go to the trouble of getting three fourths of the states to agree with them but get to have five unelected judges rule in their favor? Yet, those who stand for the original meaning of the Constitution and the right of the people to keep their rights pursuant to the Tenth Amendment have to get three fourths of the states to vote to amend the Constitution to say what it already says?
One state should be able to pass laws on an issue in the way the people of that state desire and that affect it without having to get 36 other states to go along with it. That is part of the American foundation - locals getting to govern themselves, self-government. A court ruling for the entire country on an issue it lacks authority denies the very nature of the American system, its purpose, and the U.S. Constitution when it defies the people so blatantly.
Therefore, a constitutional amendment, say, allowing states to define marriage as they see fit, cannot fix the problem. Even if such an amendment were to pass in the future, it cannot fix that systemic, foundational error that has become so common in modern America - a federal court ruling "ultra vires" (beyond its legitimate authority) that a state law or federal law is unconstitutional. What issue will the "High Court" rule on next that undoes the constitutional system so radically and thoroughly? Do we need a constitutional amendment ratified by 37 states every time it perverts our governing system? What a broken system!
We have a high Court full of highly educated legal professionals who are bound by no God and are content to impose their view of morality and law upon the rest of us without any constraints beyond their ability to contort the words of the Constitution to fit their personal agenda. More removed from the people than a king and immune from removal from office except for the most notorious of crimes. This is a serious problem.
The authors did not address this problem in detail because they considered the judicial branch, which has no army, the least dangerous. As Alexander Hamilton wrote of the Court in Federalist 78: “It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” Its legitimacy is based on its ability to convince us that, in fact, its rulings are based on the U.S. Constitution. It lost that legitimacy that long ago.
In their attempt to justify avoiding the limitations of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices have even gone to the extent of relying upon other nations' laws and international law. See comments by Justices Ginsburg, O'Connor, Kennedy, and others regarding using other nations' laws. We have reached such a perverse condition in this country that the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court completely ignore the U.S. Constitution, the votes of the people, and the laws of the states, but they rely upon the laws of other countries and the kookiest new idea to come down the pike. Somewhere, the American dream of representative government went off the rails, and it is nowhere better represented than in the American judicial system.
The question we must answer (which has already been answered for us in the opinions issued) is whether the U.S. Supreme Court can violate the U.S. Constitution with its opinions. I say, "Of course, it can." But what's the solution?
Saturday, August 15, 2015
What is law 4?
Legitimate law is God's law or law that is derived logically and legitimately therefrom. As Paul wrote, "we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." I Timothy 1:8. It's not just knowing the law, it's using the law lawfully.
Who can do this? Any Christian can do this job of judging the law better than an unbeliever.
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church."
I Corinthians 6:3-4. Paul wrote this in the context of a discussion of Christians taking other Christians to a Roman court. In other words, the least esteemed in the church is better at judging than the best unbelieving judge.
As quoted in "Oaths 3," the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." Magistrates had to swear to this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Notice the elements of these two Oaths: 1. A belief in the most important and reliable authority for a source of law, "God, the creator and governor of the universe." 2. Belief in the God of final judgment, meaning the oath taker recognizes there are consequences for wrong behavior and right behavior. 3. Belief in the bible, which identifies the correct authority (the Trinitarian God), the correct law, and the correct savior.
That last point is important for several reasons. For one, the correct God is critical. The Islamic faith believes in a creator and a final judge, but it does not posit the Trinitarian God, who is more than just a creator and judge. The Trinitarian God is a God of community - three in one; He's a God of mercy, offering His own Son, the second person of the Trinity, as a sacrifice for our sin; He's also a God who offers His Spirit, the third person of the Trinity and the author of the scripture, as a guide and teacher to man. He is with us, as well as above us.
Also, there are many laws in the world, perhaps as many laws as there are nations and political subdivisions and religions and sects; however, God's law is not a matter of human choice, thereby denying its nature. This is the very problem the modern secularist cannot solve and which results in the very problem the above oath is supposed to resolve.
The simplest, most uneducated believer in the cross has two things going for him as a judge above anyone else. He believes in a fixed law that requires punishment for violation - the cross, and he believes in mercy, even for those who violate that law - the cross. The cross combines the most perfect and severest law and the greatest mercy for the violators of that law. By holding to the cross, the Christian combines two of the most important elements that a judge should have. The third follows right behind.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.
Who can do this? Any Christian can do this job of judging the law better than an unbeliever.
"Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church."
I Corinthians 6:3-4. Paul wrote this in the context of a discussion of Christians taking other Christians to a Roman court. In other words, the least esteemed in the church is better at judging than the best unbelieving judge.
As quoted in "Oaths 3," the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution required representatives to swear to the following: "I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration." Magistrates had to swear to this oath: "And I, A.B., profess faith in God the Father and in Jesus Christ his eternal son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Notice the elements of these two Oaths: 1. A belief in the most important and reliable authority for a source of law, "God, the creator and governor of the universe." 2. Belief in the God of final judgment, meaning the oath taker recognizes there are consequences for wrong behavior and right behavior. 3. Belief in the bible, which identifies the correct authority (the Trinitarian God), the correct law, and the correct savior.
That last point is important for several reasons. For one, the correct God is critical. The Islamic faith believes in a creator and a final judge, but it does not posit the Trinitarian God, who is more than just a creator and judge. The Trinitarian God is a God of community - three in one; He's a God of mercy, offering His own Son, the second person of the Trinity, as a sacrifice for our sin; He's also a God who offers His Spirit, the third person of the Trinity and the author of the scripture, as a guide and teacher to man. He is with us, as well as above us.
Also, there are many laws in the world, perhaps as many laws as there are nations and political subdivisions and religions and sects; however, God's law is not a matter of human choice, thereby denying its nature. This is the very problem the modern secularist cannot solve and which results in the very problem the above oath is supposed to resolve.
The simplest, most uneducated believer in the cross has two things going for him as a judge above anyone else. He believes in a fixed law that requires punishment for violation - the cross, and he believes in mercy, even for those who violate that law - the cross. The cross combines the most perfect and severest law and the greatest mercy for the violators of that law. By holding to the cross, the Christian combines two of the most important elements that a judge should have. The third follows right behind.
"He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.
What is law 3?
The Western, semi-Christian world has a serious problem. It doesn't know what law is. The "rule of law" has been understood historically as something fixed, something every man knows he should obey, and something that leads to liberty under God, not man. The rule of law liberates us from rule by man. But if the "law" is identified with the opinion of certain men, then we have done away with the benefit of the "rule of law." By changing the definition of law, we've done away with it and placed ourselves under the rule of men.
Law is God's law and man's law legitimately derived from that law. For example, the law against murder is God's law. The law against speeding in a car is man's law, but it is derived from the law of murder because reckless driving, which one should know will or could probably lead to an accident using a fast-moving multi-ton vehicle, is threatening to the lives of other humans. The traffic laws are intended to protect us from the reckless who might kill us, which is reckless homicide.
Today, I read about a judge who ruled a state law unconstitutional. Why? Because the circumstances had changed, making "a facially neutral regulation into one that actually prevents women from exercising a fundamental right to obtain an abortion." Montgomery Advertiser, "Judge: Rule 'harms' women," August 15, 2015. What circumstances changed to suddenly make the regulation unconstitutional? The West Alabama Women's Center couldn't find an OB/GYN who can get admitting privileges at a hospital. This is not what law is - something that can change based on the circumstances. The judge doesn't understand the law or doesn't care that he's contradicted the most fundamental meaning of law in the writing of his opinion.
Also, court decisions that undo the law of God and man's law derived therefrom are growing in our midst. The most prominent examples are the court decision forbidding the criminalization of the murder of a certain helpless segment of our population (Roe v. Wade, 1973), the forbidding of the criminalization of consensual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and the requirement that states recognize and license the so-called marriage of same-sex couples. Changes so drastic cannot be called law. They are based solely on the personal opinions of the Justices writing and agreeing with the opinions. They rely on their black robes alone to promulgate obedience among the authorities of the states and the people.
These robed purveyors of perversions of the law can rely on people obeying them because of the successful propaganda efforts of the legal community during the last few decades. Instead of promoting the true and historical definition of the "rule of law" on Law Day each year or when other educational opportunities arise, like important court opinions, the legal community says, "Federal courts must be obeyed." It matters not what the federal court says; the importance is that everyone fall in line and salute like good soldiers. But where are these soldiers marching? And doesn't even the lowliest in rank soldier have the duty to disobey an unlawful order?
Peace and conformity at all costs is what matters. And this message is from the people - the lawyers - who helped lead the colonies to liberty from an overweening authority which went beyond the law and ordered taxation and other measures and which the colonies knew to be unlawful. When will the legal community really begin the debate in the public realm where the regular folk can hear it, instead of leaving it to the law review articles? When will the legal community quit fearing the people and start respecting them by acknowledging that the courts are not only undemocratic, which they should be, but that they have gone outside their judicial bounds and become our masters?
What will change next? What will we be told to obey next that is new and inordinate and offensive to God and the godly? How does a society preserve law as intended? See next post.
Law is God's law and man's law legitimately derived from that law. For example, the law against murder is God's law. The law against speeding in a car is man's law, but it is derived from the law of murder because reckless driving, which one should know will or could probably lead to an accident using a fast-moving multi-ton vehicle, is threatening to the lives of other humans. The traffic laws are intended to protect us from the reckless who might kill us, which is reckless homicide.
Today, I read about a judge who ruled a state law unconstitutional. Why? Because the circumstances had changed, making "a facially neutral regulation into one that actually prevents women from exercising a fundamental right to obtain an abortion." Montgomery Advertiser, "Judge: Rule 'harms' women," August 15, 2015. What circumstances changed to suddenly make the regulation unconstitutional? The West Alabama Women's Center couldn't find an OB/GYN who can get admitting privileges at a hospital. This is not what law is - something that can change based on the circumstances. The judge doesn't understand the law or doesn't care that he's contradicted the most fundamental meaning of law in the writing of his opinion.
Also, court decisions that undo the law of God and man's law derived therefrom are growing in our midst. The most prominent examples are the court decision forbidding the criminalization of the murder of a certain helpless segment of our population (Roe v. Wade, 1973), the forbidding of the criminalization of consensual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and the requirement that states recognize and license the so-called marriage of same-sex couples. Changes so drastic cannot be called law. They are based solely on the personal opinions of the Justices writing and agreeing with the opinions. They rely on their black robes alone to promulgate obedience among the authorities of the states and the people.
These robed purveyors of perversions of the law can rely on people obeying them because of the successful propaganda efforts of the legal community during the last few decades. Instead of promoting the true and historical definition of the "rule of law" on Law Day each year or when other educational opportunities arise, like important court opinions, the legal community says, "Federal courts must be obeyed." It matters not what the federal court says; the importance is that everyone fall in line and salute like good soldiers. But where are these soldiers marching? And doesn't even the lowliest in rank soldier have the duty to disobey an unlawful order?
Peace and conformity at all costs is what matters. And this message is from the people - the lawyers - who helped lead the colonies to liberty from an overweening authority which went beyond the law and ordered taxation and other measures and which the colonies knew to be unlawful. When will the legal community really begin the debate in the public realm where the regular folk can hear it, instead of leaving it to the law review articles? When will the legal community quit fearing the people and start respecting them by acknowledging that the courts are not only undemocratic, which they should be, but that they have gone outside their judicial bounds and become our masters?
What will change next? What will we be told to obey next that is new and inordinate and offensive to God and the godly? How does a society preserve law as intended? See next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)