I have RIGHTS! (part 2)
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
I wasn’t going to continue with this topic tonight. Then, a long time acquaintance stopped by unexpectantly Monday afternoon. He is an elected government official who has been elected as a Republican although he readily admitted to me that he ran as a Republican because he would not get elected as a Democrat. (Isn’t that shocking? I know people who are libertine Democrats.) I imagine he holds his libertine Democratic beliefs in check to some extent.
Anyway, for a reason I don’t recall, we started talking about the twelve year old girl and her colored hair extensions. (See previous post.) Not surprisingly, he thought it was great that she won out and thought it was her right to wear the colored hair extensions. He said that the school district capitulated because the district board knew they would lose the case in court.
Maybe so. I don’t like to speculate on how a court will decide a case. But in reality, that is a major part of the problem. Why would a court get involved in a question of whether or not a twelve year old girl can or can not wear hair extensions in school? Who gave the courts such power to nitpick over such an insignificant and totally trivial issue? If someone doesn’t agree with a teacher using yellow chalk because they think it is a negative reference to Asian people should they be allowed to sue to stop a school from using yellow chalk?
This has been one of the major problems in this nation over the last forty plus years! The courts have decided that they should be the final arbitrator over ever mundane issue that could possibly be dealt with by government. THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT WHEN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED THE COURTS!!! NEVER!!!!!!!
When I was a school board member (We had five members on the board.), my position was that if anyone threatened to or attempted to sue the school district over established school board policy, the board should fight that suit in court as long and as hard as possible even if I originally voted against that particular policy. Why? Because the members of the school board were the people elected by the people to make policy for the people of the school district. The school board was to make the policies for the district—NOT the ACLU!!! NOT the NAACP!!! NOT the members of the COURT!!!!! The COURT HAS NO BUSINESS MAKING POLICY FOR THE DISTRICT.
Do you really think that when the United States Constitution was written, that the writers of the Constitution intended for the courts to decide if a twelve year old girl could or could not wear colored hair extensions to school? Do you really believe that whether or not a twelve year old girl can or can not wear colored hair extensions to school is a “right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution?
Who made the court system the final arbitrator of every single mundane issue that faces a duly elected governmental body? The answer is this: the courts did. And the courts did this incrementally over time and the American people have allowed it to happen. So that today, a small school district, who elected democratically the members of that school board to make policy for the district, has to be concerned with whether or not the United States Supreme Court, which has NEVER had an elected member on the court, believes that having colored hair extensions is a “right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
If it wasn’t so serious, it would be absurd comedy. In many ways, we have rejected our indirect democracy for a COURTOCRACY.
We desperately need to restrict the power of the courts so that they return to their original duties of providing the judicial power of government instead of making mundane policy at all levels of the system. We need judges who are not enticed by the power that has been created by years of judicial activism. We need judges who believe in and will follow judicial restraint.
Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not twelve year old girls can or can not wear colored hair extensions in school. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not teachers can or can not use yellow chalk in the classroom. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not prayer can or can not be said in a school setting. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not homosexuals must be allowed to get married to each other. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not a mother has the “right” to MURDER her unborn child. Unless of course, you like judges making policy instead of elected officials. Unless of course, you like a Courtocracy.
However, if you want a Courtocracy, establish it by the legal process—write a new Constitution. Do you prefer nine unelected people to make policy in this nation or do you prefer your elected representatives to make policy. A dictatorship of judges is still a dictatorship. If you want a dictatorship of judges, legally rewrite the Constitution.
Yes, we have rights. WE ALSO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!! The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
Yes, we have rights. THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL ENDS WHEN THAT RIGHT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
Yes, we have rights. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER OUR UNBORN BABIES. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUAL DEBAUCHERY. The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.
Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.
How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?
Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers
“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)
http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2006/ShameOfKansas
www.childpredators.com
www.lifedynamics.com
www.aclj.org
www.libertylegal.org
www.alliancedefensefund.org
www.searchtv.org
I wasn’t going to continue with this topic tonight. Then, a long time acquaintance stopped by unexpectantly Monday afternoon. He is an elected government official who has been elected as a Republican although he readily admitted to me that he ran as a Republican because he would not get elected as a Democrat. (Isn’t that shocking? I know people who are libertine Democrats.) I imagine he holds his libertine Democratic beliefs in check to some extent.
Anyway, for a reason I don’t recall, we started talking about the twelve year old girl and her colored hair extensions. (See previous post.) Not surprisingly, he thought it was great that she won out and thought it was her right to wear the colored hair extensions. He said that the school district capitulated because the district board knew they would lose the case in court.
Maybe so. I don’t like to speculate on how a court will decide a case. But in reality, that is a major part of the problem. Why would a court get involved in a question of whether or not a twelve year old girl can or can not wear hair extensions in school? Who gave the courts such power to nitpick over such an insignificant and totally trivial issue? If someone doesn’t agree with a teacher using yellow chalk because they think it is a negative reference to Asian people should they be allowed to sue to stop a school from using yellow chalk?
This has been one of the major problems in this nation over the last forty plus years! The courts have decided that they should be the final arbitrator over ever mundane issue that could possibly be dealt with by government. THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT WHEN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED THE COURTS!!! NEVER!!!!!!!
When I was a school board member (We had five members on the board.), my position was that if anyone threatened to or attempted to sue the school district over established school board policy, the board should fight that suit in court as long and as hard as possible even if I originally voted against that particular policy. Why? Because the members of the school board were the people elected by the people to make policy for the people of the school district. The school board was to make the policies for the district—NOT the ACLU!!! NOT the NAACP!!! NOT the members of the COURT!!!!! The COURT HAS NO BUSINESS MAKING POLICY FOR THE DISTRICT.
Do you really think that when the United States Constitution was written, that the writers of the Constitution intended for the courts to decide if a twelve year old girl could or could not wear colored hair extensions to school? Do you really believe that whether or not a twelve year old girl can or can not wear colored hair extensions to school is a “right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution?
Who made the court system the final arbitrator of every single mundane issue that faces a duly elected governmental body? The answer is this: the courts did. And the courts did this incrementally over time and the American people have allowed it to happen. So that today, a small school district, who elected democratically the members of that school board to make policy for the district, has to be concerned with whether or not the United States Supreme Court, which has NEVER had an elected member on the court, believes that having colored hair extensions is a “right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
If it wasn’t so serious, it would be absurd comedy. In many ways, we have rejected our indirect democracy for a COURTOCRACY.
We desperately need to restrict the power of the courts so that they return to their original duties of providing the judicial power of government instead of making mundane policy at all levels of the system. We need judges who are not enticed by the power that has been created by years of judicial activism. We need judges who believe in and will follow judicial restraint.
Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not twelve year old girls can or can not wear colored hair extensions in school. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not teachers can or can not use yellow chalk in the classroom. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not prayer can or can not be said in a school setting. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not homosexuals must be allowed to get married to each other. Unless of course, you like judges deciding whether or not a mother has the “right” to MURDER her unborn child. Unless of course, you like judges making policy instead of elected officials. Unless of course, you like a Courtocracy.
However, if you want a Courtocracy, establish it by the legal process—write a new Constitution. Do you prefer nine unelected people to make policy in this nation or do you prefer your elected representatives to make policy. A dictatorship of judges is still a dictatorship. If you want a dictatorship of judges, legally rewrite the Constitution.
Yes, we have rights. WE ALSO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!! The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
Yes, we have rights. THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL ENDS WHEN THAT RIGHT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
Yes, we have rights. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MURDER OUR UNBORN BABIES. WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN HOMOSEXUAL DEBAUCHERY. The rights of an individual do NOT exist in a vacuum!!!
“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 5:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home