Saturday, December 08, 2007

False democracy and false freedoms

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

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

This past legislative session the legislature in the State of Illinois passed a law, over the governor’s veto, to require a moment of silence at the start of each school day. The following article is about the ACLU joining in a law suit to prevent that law from being put into operation. The article is from the Peoria Journal Star, December 7, 2007, page B3. The article in its entirety:

“The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on Thursday jumped into the legal battle to bar enforcement of a law requiring a moment of silence in public schools throughout the state.

‘The law is unconstitutional,’ ACLU Legal Director Harvey Grossman said after receiving permission from U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman to become a so-called friend of the court in the lawsuit.

Grossman said the ACLU would file ‘an exhaustive brief’ with Gettleman providing the reasons why the law violates the Constitution.

The suit, designed to erase the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, was filed by talk show host Rob Sherman, an outspoken atheist, and his 14-year-old daughter, a freshman at Buffalo Grove High School.

Sherman says the law requiring a moment of silence represents an attempt to inject religion into the public schools. The measure was passed by lawmakers over Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s veto.

Gettleman already had barred the Illinois State Board of Education from enforcing the law pending further proceedings in the case.”

I was not going to write about this today. It struck me that this article was printed on December 7th. Sixty-six years ago on December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. We fought a major war to protect our nation, to protect our democracy with its representative government, and to protect our Constitution as written by the Founding Fathers of our country.

This article demonstrates that we, as a nation, have strayed greatly from all that we fought for in World War II. I have stated many times that we have allowed the Supreme Court and the lower courts to usurp their authority and to plunge our nation down the path of Courtocracy. This is just another example of that unconstitutional and undemocratic path we have allowed to happen.

As stated many times before, the First Amendment to the Constitution declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The clear and clearly understood meaning of “establishment of religion” was and is that Congress should not mandate that one religion be the official religion of the United States. That concept is based upon the historic fact that in England the Church of England was the established church for the nation of England. A couple of our colonies had also established one religion as the established religion for the colony.

AT NO TIME DID THE WRITERS OF THE AMENDMENT EVER DECLARE THAT THERE SHOULD BE OR MUST BE A “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”—A WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. That concept was and is a fiction created by the U.S. Supreme Court in a court decision using a phrase used in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson who was in England as a U.S. ambassador when the First Amendment was debated and written. The U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutionally rewrote the Constitution and nine unelected people imposed their will upon all of the people of the United States. By definition, that action by the Supreme Court was both undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Looking at some of the material in the article, the ACLU representative is quoted as declaring “The law is unconstitutional.” That statement is a patently false statement. By definition, any law passed by a duly elected representative body in a democracy is constitutional. The Constitution gives the legislative body the power to make law. This law was not only passed by a legislative body but it was also passed by a super majority since it was passed after the veto of the governor.

It may or may not be acceptable to our courts based upon their previous unconstitutional rulings but that has not been decided. However, it is beyond dispute that a law duly passed by a constitutional body must be constitutional at the time that that law is passed. The ACLU is a liar and has been for numerous years. That body is not interested in protecting our Constitution and its procedures. It is interested in promoting its own agenda and imposing its will by unconstitutional and undemocratic means upon the majority of the people of this country. And we, with the backing of a power obsessed Supreme Court, have allowed it to happen.

How many members of the ACLU have been elected to Congress or to the various State legislatures while declaring their membership and their goals? If they are really interested in protecting our Constitution, they would do so through the democratically established method of passing the appropriate legislation through the established democratic process. Instead, they have overwhelmingly relied upon nine unelected court members to unconstitutionally rewrite the Constitution by judicial fiat. When has any federal judge ever been elected by the people to pass law?

“Sherman says the law requiring a moment of silence represents an attempt to inject religion into the public schools.” How? How is a moment of silence injecting religion into the schools? In a moment of silence, a student can think about anything he wants. He can be thinking of ways to murder his fellow classmates. He can be thinking about never thinking again. He can be completely devoid of thought.

However, even if that is a true statement, it IS NOT unconstitutional to “inject religion into the public schools.” Requiring a moment of silence is not “establishing a religion” according to the original intent of the First Amendment. How do I know? Besides the historical record of the debates about the First Amendment, we historically have this undeniable fact. Public schools, at one time, constitutionally used the Bible to teach reading!!! If teaching reading through the Bible was not an unconstitutional “establishment of religion” and it was not and has never been declared to be so at the time it was done, how can requiring a moment of silence be an “establishment of religion” according to the true wording and understanding of the Constitution?

The article concluded with this statement, “(federal judge—my addition) Gettleman already had barred the Illinois State Board of Education from enforcing the law pending further proceeding in the case.” Here is a question for all constitutional scholars. Where in the United States Constitution is any federal judge given the constitutional power to bar a governmental body from any State from enforcing a duly passed law by that State before any federal court has even heard the case let alone determined that law to be unconstitutional? The answer, of course, is that there is no such provision in the United States Constitution. This is another court created power unconstitutionally grabbed by the courts!

To allow the Supreme Court or any court to rewrite the Constitution by judicial fiat is not democratic freedom. It is a false dependence upon nine unelected people to make policy for a nation that claims to be a representative democracy. It has led to the obscene insanity of declaring that mothers have the “right” to murder their own unborn babies. It is Courtocracy by the few NOT democracy by the many. Did the true heroes who died in World War II and since die to defend our Courtocracy or to defend our democracy???

When are we going to take back our democracy from the power hungry, power obsessed United States Supreme Court?


Post a Comment

<< Home