God exists — Rights come from Him — The purpose of government is to secure these rights
Pastor David Whitney
Pastor David Whitney posts sermons, announcements, commentaries, and more. From his notices, you will learn of some of the classes around the country studying Institute on the Constitution’s U.S. Constitution course. Pastor Whitney is a Senior Instructor at Institute on the Constitution.
The American view of law and government has been lost on much of America’s judiciary, the United States Supreme Court being a prime example, as clearly evidenced in statements made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which were televised on January 30, 2012 on Al Hayat TV of Egypt. The Supreme Court Associate Justice denounced the U.S. Constitution as the appropriate constitution to use as a model for constitution-writing in a “democracy” in modern times.
Well, first we might ask Ms. Ginsburg why she would even advise a group of people to establish a “democracy.” She ought to learn that America is a “constitutional republic,” a nation whose government is defined by a written compact, i.e. the United States Constitution (which nowhere contains the word democracy). The American government is designed to be a government which obeys the laws of God (known through His revealed Word), and is established and given its limited powers by the People, who are its sovereigns. The People have agreed, in their written compact, to elect representatives to administer the duties and principles of that defined government, expecting those elected to stay submitted to the structure and authority defined in that Constitution.
We might react to Ms. Ginsburg’s comments by saying, “Of course she wouldn’t believe that the U.S. Constitution is the appropriate model for other nations! The U.S. Constitution is premised on the Biblical Worldview, which she does not hold. Why would we expect her political philosophy to be in agreement with it?”
The American view of law and government, formed from a Biblical Worldview, should be the political philosophy of all of those who serve on the Supreme Court of the United States:
Given her declarations, should Associate Justice Ginsburg be allowed to continue to serve on the Supreme Court? The U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1 says: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour…”
Ms. Ginsburg’s own statements (seen below) demonstrate her lack of qualification to serve, and should be considered an impeachable offense.
(Ms. Ginsburg’s statements included those shown below, as taken from a transcript prepared by The Middle East Media Research Institute, www.memri.org. Added emphasis is ours.)
“It is a very inspiring time – that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people. [...] “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.” [...] “You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one [sic] since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
Peter Boyce, an IOTC U.S. Constitution Instructor in Millville, NJ, has written and distributed the following letter to the editor:
“The Judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”Ignorance is not grounds for her removal, but contempt for America is. Let’s look at the fundamental difference she holds in contempt.
Taken directly from the South African Constitution, Bill of Rights section: Section 15: freedom of thought and freedom of religion.
That sounds nice! But look what immediately follows their “Bill of Rights”… Section 36 allows the rights listed to be limited only by laws of general application, and only to the extent that the restriction is reasonable and justifiable in “an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.”
As quickly as the Rights are granted by their Government, they are compromised away by any laws which their legislators deem “reasonable and justifiable”. This stands in direct contrast to our own Constitution’s Bill of Rights: Amendment 1: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….”
The basic difference is that in America rights are unalienable because, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, “…all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….” In America, legislators have no authority to make laws which compromise rights because those rights come from God, not government.
Ginsberg could just as well have recommended the old Soviet Constitution or the United Nations Charter for Egypt to emulate since they are also drafted on the premise that rights are granted by government and are therefore no more than revocable privileges.
Justice Ginsburg holds contempt for what Americans hold dear — the concept of God-given Unalienable Rights. The crux of it is — she holds contempt for her own Creator, which by Biblical definition is not good “behaviour”.
Peter F. Boyce
U.S. Constitution Course Instructor
Millville, NJ 08332
Defending marriage as only between one man and one woman, Pastor David Whitney testified before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee of the Maryland General Assembly on Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012. He spoke in opposition of SB241, euphemistically-named the “Civil Marriage Protection Act.” His testimony is seen below:
SB 241: Civil Marriage Protection Act
Honorable chair, and Senators, my name is David Whitney; I am the Pastor of Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church of Pasadena, Maryland and the Senior Instructor at Institute on the Constitution. I teach the only course available anywhere on the Maryland State Constitution, which each of you took an oath before Almighty God to uphold. I’d like to address the unconstitutional nature of SB241: Civil Marriage Protection Act. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the State of Maryland, any bill passed by the General Assembly and even signed by the Governor is not law if it violates the Supreme Law of the State of Maryland.
Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 5a:
Read More →
To a large audience at the Baltimore County Campaign For Liberty meeting in Timonium, Maryland, on the evening of Wednesday February 1st, Pastor Whitney presented the subject of Maryland’s Constitutional provisions regarding the State Militia.
Read More →
The most important thing I can do as a result of this course is use the knowledge actively. By this I mean the following:
To do all of this constantly would be a full time job. So, I will do as much as possible when I see issues that are critical. As opportunities present themselves, I will inform people of the constitutuionality of that issue.
Read More →
Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson from the “Institute For Creation Research” will be preaching at my church: Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church Sunday, Nov. 13, 2011. His topic: Science and Christian apologetics.
Read More →