Stare Non Determinus [Archive]

Areopagus

15th October 2005, 11:14

After the nomination of now Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, we heard a lot about <em>Stare Decisis</em> and the obligation of lower courts to follow higher courts opinions. Exactly what is <em>Stare Decisis</em>, and when a higher court’s opinion is unconstitutional and un-Biblical, must it be followed?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Stare Decisis is the “policy of courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. … Doctrine that, when court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain set of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same … Doctrine is one of policy, grounded on theory that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed,” at 1406. It is a policy and a doctrine of the Courts, essentially, to follow precedent for the sake of stability of law and society, and it is a doctrine to be honoured and respected.

Security and certainty require that the accepted, and ratified Constitution, under which God given rights are secured, be recognized and followed.

The good doctrine of Stare Decisis is perverted when majority opinion deviates from the text, and internal logic of the Constitution, and is substituted for the Constitution in subsequent cases. Left uncorrected, the initial deviation becomes case law, and an open invitation for even greater deviation as various deranged theories of interpretation, and application begin to form a wretchedly deviant corpus of deceit.

How do the citizens & their elected representatives know when the federal courts have erred?

" [W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=170&parent=57

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition." - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
We the people have the responsibility to elect representatives who are Constitutionally literate, and will not lie when they take their oath of Office. They need to recognize the radical difference between deviant case law (Roe, Casey), and the text & internal logic of the Constitution. They need to correct the federal courts by removing the cases from the court (jurisdiction stripping), or by removing the judges (impeach/remove) from the cases.

Will

15th October 2005, 12:03

We the people have the responsibility to elect representatives who are Constitutionally literate, and will not lie when they take their oath of Office. They need to recognize the radical difference between deviant case law (Roe, Casey), and the text & internal logic of the Constitution. They need to correct the federal courts by removing the cases from the court (jurisdiction stripping), or by removing the judges (impeach/remove) from the cases.

Aeropagus:

Great post:

We the people are dong such a bad job of electing people of integrity to be our representatives that we are never going to get enough of Congress and, maybe, not even a president who will fulfill their oath of office.

Have you checked out my simple way of ending abortion? Please go over to that thread, read the posts and comment!

"A prayer offered to an unknown god, censored by TAV", Lord of the univers; Please grant us liberty, peace and prosperity, for without any of these the other two are meaningless. AMEN!

Will Mattison

bluebird

17th October 2005, 05:33

Not being in the legal profession whatsover, I had never heard the term "stare decisis" until Arlen Specter first mentioned it to John Roberts during his nomination hearings.

Immediately, John Roberts agreed with Mr. Specter that he would 'observe' the stare decisis rulings, he found no conflict with his personal beliefs and stare decisis.

As a layperson, I knew Specter was trying to pull a fast one on the average Joe out there. Instinctively, I knew he was trying to bamboozle the conservatives not the liberals. After finding out what stare decisis meant, I figured this was code to the liberals that, "we'll be okay, don't worry."

I'm willing to bet a number of pro-lifers had the same feelings. I can't speak for the legal types because I'm sure they knew immediately what was being proposed to Mr. Roberts.

Watching Specter and the rest of the middle of the roaders perform their smoke and mirrors questioning to avoid controversy from the left and right made me realize that the Republicans were never going to come down on the side of conservatives. They continue to use them for votes and throw away their issues all the while hood-winking them.

So when George Bush but up his friend, another "stealth" candidate, I knew it was the conservatives that he was trying to fool more than anybody. This time there was a quick and loud rebellion, confirming to me that many others saw and observed what I had at the Robert's nomination -- and weren't about to sit silently through another "performance."

Bottom line here: It's as Michael Peroutka has stated; judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution NOT another court's previous ruling. THAT is the Rule of Law.

Joe_Liberty

21st October 2005, 08:27

Below is part of a dialogue I have been having with an attorney concerning Scott's article. First is my response, and below that is part of his response to Scott's article. I am not an attorney and would be interested in Scott's answer, if he reads this, to the assertion that, while Blackstone admitted exceptions in the case of superior courts, he believed that precedent was absolutely binding on lower courts. - Joe

Once it is admitted that precedent is not binding on all courts, it seems quite arbitrary to consider it binding on lower courts and not Supreme Courts. I agree with Scott that, while Blackstone may have thought so, the fact that he admitted that precedent is not absolutely binding on all courts opens the door for lower courts to ignore precedent. For example, if a lower court judge is confronted with parents who have conspired to kill their child in the womb, that court judge ought to ignore the Roe v Wade precedent and not dismiss the charges and uphold the conviction, because the lower court judge's is a minister of God and needs to uphold Biblical Law and not the flawed decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Chas wrote:

Joe,

Mr. Whiteman gave a definition of stare decisis in his original post which I
don't have handy, and while I could look at Black's Law Dictionary like he
did which is on my shelf, but it means something like: Great deference will
be shown to cases that have been decided. In the case of inferior courts,
where the case was decided by a superior court, it's not just great
deference, but it is absolutely binding. A little clarification--by
superior and inferior, binding precedent is that which is held, e.g., by the
Kansas Supreme Court over all other courts in Kansas, or by the U.S.
Supreme Court over all federal courts and over all other courts IN MATTERS
OF FEDERAL LAW. Federal Courts, even the U.S. Supreme Court, have no say on
what Kansas law or the Kansas Constitution mean. Similarly out of state
courts, no matter how lofty (e.g., the California Supreme Court) have no say
on what Kansas law means, though their opinions may be persuasive. This may
seem pretty obvious but very often laws are very similar from state to
state. California may interpret it one way, but Kansas courts are in no way
bound to follow the California interpretation of a Kansas law that says
exactly the same thing as the California one. They are however absolutely
bound to follow anything that the Kansas Supreme Court has said.

Whiteman said inferior courts should feel free not to follow such binding
precedent. Now the only time this rule "admits of exception," is where the
supreme court for the law in question is sitting in judgment. Under stare
decisis, it follows the law laid down in previous cases that have come
before the court. However, where there are compelling circumstances, it may
overturn precedent. Inferior courts are not allowed this privilege.

Regards,

Joe_Liberty

22nd October 2005, 04:02

Areopagus

23rd October 2005, 07:41

In the current issue of First Things, Justice Anthony Scalia reviews a book by Steven D. Smith. In that review Scalia writes (not yet online):

"Similarly we have a practice of relying on judicial precedent (so called stare decisis) . . . That made sense in a legal system that regards judicial opinions as "evidence" of what "the law" is. It makes no sense in a legal system that regards the judicial opinion itself as "the law," any more than it would make sense to bind today's legislature to the laws adopted in the past."

What would Judge Joe do?

If Joe had been a district court judge shortly after passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and had to decide a case involving continued slavery; would Judge Joe rule in accordance with Dred Scott v. Sandford, or the supreme law of the land?

Folk might laugh at that scenario, but consider this article: “The Term the Constitution Died” http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.18112/pub_detail.asp by Michael S. Greve,
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy 08/01/2003

"Beneath the Supreme Court's many astounding decisions in its 2002-2003 term, and the shifting judicial coalitions that produced those results, runs a unifying basso continuo: Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration--by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility."

That is no laughing matter; especially when you consider the abortion holocaust is mentioned only in passing in Mr. Greve’s article.

It is worth noting that stare decisis isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Article 6, Clause 2 states that “this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,… under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….” Clause 3…all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…." http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

The Judiciary Act of 1789 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/statutes/judiciary_act.htm
SEC . 8. the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will…faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God."

John Marshall answered your question in http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1801-1825/marshallcases/mar06.htm

“If, then, the [inferior] courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any [ruling of the Supreme Court], the Constitution, and not such [ruling of the Supreme Court], must govern the case to which they both apply.”

General law and statutes, from which federal courts derive rules of precedent, are not immune from congressional alteration. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18.

“The Congress has authorized the federal judiciary to prescribe the rules of practice, procedure, and evidence for the federal courts, subject to the ultimate legislative right of Congress to reject, modify, or defer any of the rules. The authority and procedures for promulgating rules are set forth in the Rules Enabling Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071-2077.”
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules9.html

Article. III. Section. 1.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. Article. III. Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to create federal courts other than the Supreme Court and to determine their jurisdiction. It is Congress, not the judiciary, that controls the type of cases that may be addressed in the federal courts.” http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_2_1.html

Additional reading, see THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE RULES OF PRECEDENT http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj50p503.htm

What is the bottom line to all this, Joe? From http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1601#post1601 you posted a link to http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul279.html

Unfortunately, our nation has embraced the flawed notion that only scholars, judges, or attorneys are qualified to understand and interpret the Constitution. We have come to accept that constitutional law must be revealed to us from on high by our black-robed masters. Yet nothing could be further from the ideal of constitutional jurisprudence envisioned by our founders. The Constitution is written in plain, forthright text, and there is nothing mystical about it. It simply establishes a system of shared, limited power between the three branches of the federal government, while reserving most government power to the states themselves.

It seems that schoolchildren once knew far more about the Constitution than many adults do today. Yet we cannot hold intelligent opinions about Supreme Court nominees unless we understand this basic constitutional framework. It is therefore incumbent upon every American to read the text of the Constitution, study the history of its drafting and ratification, and consider whether federal judicial nominees will properly abide by their originally intended roles.

The Constitution above all is a document that limits the power of the federal government. The fundamental point that has been lost in our national discourse is this: the Constitution prohibits the federal government, including the federal judiciary, from doing all kind of things. Until we have federal judges who understand this, it matters little what political stripes or experience they bring to the bench. The Constitution does not empower government and grant rights, it restricts government in order to safeguard preexisting rights. When federal courts disregard this principle, acting as legislatures or failing to enforce constitutional limitations, we get the worst kind of unaccountable government.

“The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies.” http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html

SWhiteman

24th October 2005, 12:42

Scott does not explicitly state that inferior court judges should ingnore precedent when it conflicts with Biblical Law. I posted the question to him at the TAV forum and have not gotten a reply yet.

Since I received an email stating the above, but have not found this question directly asked of me on the Forum, I'll put it up sua sponte.

My apologies and regret for not being more clear in my article, but that is exactly what I'm saying. Consider, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court notes in reference to the Oath a judge (any judge) takes, Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States if that constitution forms no rule for his government? ... If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take an oath, becomes equally a crime.. I recommend to all of you that you click the hyperlink in Areopagus' signature line, or here for The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury (The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/main...%20Paulsen.pdf) law review article.

Why do we impose upon lesser magistrates an Oath if not for this very purpose? To consider further reading on this please see my article, The Perjured Nation here (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=422) as published in the Christian Statesman.

To my knowledge, Scalia "is willing to stick with precedent even though it departs from the original understanding" of the Constitution. Thomas is not. As in Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America by Cass R. Sunstein. I'm sorry I don't have the page number available, but it was in Chapter 2, section "Of Faint Hearts." I don't support the thesis behind the book, because, among other reasons I don't believe we have Right-Wing Courts despite it being 7/9 Republican.

SWhiteman

25th October 2005, 09:00

Under stare decisis, it follows the law laid down in previous cases that have come before the court. However, where there are compelling circumstances, it may overturn precedent. Inferior courts are not allowed this privilege.
Any one who puts the fallen authority of man, even 9 men in black robes, above the expressed revelation of God in the Bible or the plain reading of the text of the Constitution is not worth engaging in conversation. Such men, while claiming to cast Christ's bands assunder, only have a whole new host of bondage devices for the unwary traveler.

Given that each Judge takes an Oath, and that each Judge, even if he didn't take the Oath we proscribe, rules immediately for God (or at least ought to)
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s Deut. 1:17.

For ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 2 Chron. 19:6.
Why would any one Christian claim otherwise?

If you are debating with non-Christians on such things, you might be casting pearls before swine.

Joe_Liberty

25th October 2005, 09:26

Areopagus,

I agree with you. For example, if I were a lower court judge confronted with parents who have conspired to kill their child in the womb, I would ignore the Roe v Wade precedent and not dismiss the charges and uphold the conviction, because a lower court judge is a minister of God and needs to uphold Biblical Law and not the flawed decision of the United States Supreme Court.

I was not certain that was what Scott was claiming and did not want to misrepresent my own views as his.

Scott,

Thanks for the clarification. As I thought, but was not certain of, Michael Peroutka and the American View do not believe that precedent is binding on inferior courts.

Chas is a Roman Catholic admirer of Aquinas who does not believe abortion is unlawful until after "quickening."

SWhiteman

25th October 2005, 12:21

Chas is a Roman Catholic admirer of Aquinas who does not believe abortion is unlawful until after "quickening."

Chas sent me an email related to the yahoo forum in which he maligned my professional abilities. I did respond declaring that I owed him no explanation of my professional experience, since if right is right, it's right even if I've never been inside a courtroom (which I have, but that is not relevant).

I know the Common Law holds to the quickening distinction, but there is no Biblical justification for that. In Exodus 21:22-25 we learn that an unintentional abortion resulting in the death of the child warrants death, see J. Calvin Commentaries ad. loc., with the phrase "life for life, eye for eye, tooh for tooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" used for the first time. If the unintentional death of a pre-born child merits death, how much more so the intentional murder of a pre-born?

Also, Biblically, there is no facial evidence of "quickening" being the requirement. I believe the the history of "quickening" was a development of man based upon the time at which it was realised the baby was "alive." However, now we have evidence of brain-waves and motion as early as six weeks, months before quickening. I see no reason to restrict the protection of people from murderers to post-quickening of the person.

Joe_Liberty

25th October 2005, 01:10

Scott,

I agree re: "quickening." Some pro-aborts like to use the "legality" of abortion before quickening in Early America to justify abortion today, arguing that "life begins at fertilization" is an historical contruct of the mid-nineteenth century. Of course un-biblical law then is no more valid than it is today.

Camp Director

25th October 2005, 03:39

Hi Scott and Joe,

Scott,

...arguing that "life begins at fertilization" is an historical contruct of the mid-nineteenth century. Of course un-biblical law then is no more valid than it is today.

The fertilization argument may or may not be a construct of the mid-19th century philosophical thought. It is however, a fact of 21st century (and every other century since creation) biological science. It is easily provable that an embryo at the very moment that sperm meets egg has a unique DNA make-up which is based on the recombination of the genetic factors from the DNA of male and female donors by mechanisms still very poorly understood. Thus, it is a separate individual with its own genetic identity unique from both donors. Many (certainly not all) of its physical, mental and behavioral attributes are predetermined by the recombinant DNA in the embryo. Thus, the old arguments used by pro-abortionists that the embryo is not a person because it is "part of the woman's body" fall to insurmountable biological fact.

Other bogus arguments (logical fallacies), of which this "quickening" business is a branch, are usually identified under the acronym SLED (Size, Level of development, Environment, Dependency) are also fatally wounded by biological facts regarding the vast diversity of the human genome. I am not more human than my 10 year old because I am 2 and a half feet taller and have 180 pounds on her. She is not less human because she has not reached puberty and is dependent upon my wife and me to feed and clothe her. An unborn child is not less human because it requires an incubation period inside its mother.

Well, I spent thousands getting that degree in biochemistry (Michigan State University '89). Glad it came in handy for something useful. Too bad many of my colleagues can't grasp that the arguments they make in favor of abortion from pragmatic philosophical positions fly in the face of their scientific training. May God have mercy on their miserable souls.

SWhiteman

25th October 2005, 04:00

Well, I spent thousands getting that degree in biochemistry (Michigan State University '89). Glad it came in handy for something useful. Too bad many of my colleagues can't grasp that the arguments they make in favor of abortion from pragmatic philosophical positions fly in the face of their scientific training. May God have mercy on their miserable souls.

Me too on my Law Degree. If murder is defined as the intentional and premeditated taking of a human life without adequate justification, provocation or excuse, and each of those terms (Justification, Provocation, Excuse) have legal meanings, none of which creates the permission of a woman to kill her lawfully innocent children, it is only by the willful supression of the truth, as St. Paul writes about in Romans 1, that such people cannot realise that abortion is murder. They hold the truth down in unrighteousness.

This, in my opinion, is argument in favour of presuppositional argumentation. It is "self-evident" to biologists, lawyers, anyone that abortion is murder. But they fail to recognise it. They hold the truth down. So, if the evidence makes it clear, what will more evidence do for men who hold the truth down except cause you to waste time and energy trying to convince him of that which he has already suppressed?

We need to declare the law of God, not persuade men into the belief of it. The Holy Ghost can persuade, if He is so willing. If He is not, who are we to think we can.

Oddly enough, I can resort to evidential arguments to show how men reject the evidential arguments, but that would be redundant ... and repetitious.

Camp Director

25th October 2005, 05:17

Scott,

We need to declare the law of God, not persuade men into the belief of it. The Holy Ghost can persuade, if He is so willing. If He is not, who are we to think we can.

Amen! But...

I'm currently working my way through Bahnsen's DVD series "Basic Training for Defending the Faith" based on 1Pet 3:15. Presuppositional thinking is so far from the current mindset and capability of the post-modern Christian that bridging the gap is extremely difficult. As you say, only the Holy Spirit can enable, convict and change in this area. I just spent a very frustrating summer (beyond Camp American which was a joy, especially in comparison) trying to get the teenagers at my church to think like Christians, i.e presuppositionally. They HATED my class especially when we uncovered their worldly thinking to their own view. I got no support from parents or youth staff and my daughters were treated to a rather intense gripe session with youth leadership about me over it. I knew then that I was having an impact. Just not the one I worked, hoped and prayed for. I expected resistance but hoped the Spirit would enable me to overcome it. I know that most of these "good Christian" kids will not survive even a Christian college with their faith intact because they do not want to have a "faith for all of life." Apparently, their parents can't grasp the gravity of the situation and it appears that the same problem applies in their case. This is the result of the work of our recently departed youth pastor, who left the program in a post-modern, church growth movement shambles. No absolute truth in sight.

It is frustrating to my human side but my spirit is reassured that God is in control and He will bring a change in His own time and I will be honored and humbled if He uses me as a conduit for that change.

exmarine

26th October 2005, 04:53

...I just spent a very frustrating summer (beyond Camp American which was a joy, especially in comparison) trying to get the teenagers at my church to think like Christians, i.e presuppositionally. They HATED my class especially when we uncovered their worldly thinking to their own view. I got no support from parents or youth staff and my daughters were treated to a rather intense gripe session with youth leadership about me over it. I knew then that I was having an impact. Just not the one I worked, hoped and prayed for. I expected resistance but hoped the Spirit would enable me to overcome it. I know that most of these "good Christian" kids will not survive even a Christian college with their faith intact because they do not want to have a "faith for all of life." Apparently, their parents can't grasp the gravity of the situation and it appears that the same problem applies in their case. This is the result of the work of our recently departed youth pastor, who left the program in a post-modern, church growth movement shambles. No absolute truth in sight.

Did you see the recent Barna Surveys? They showed that only 9% of Christians have a biblical worldview. In the studies, Biblical worldview was defined as believing in absolute moral truth; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and a firm belief in some basic Christian truths: God is all-knowing and all-powerful Creator of the universe and He still rules it today; salvation is a gift from God that cannot be earned; Satan is real; A Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with others; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

Only 7% of Protestants held a biblical worldview in the study (ony 2% of mainline church attendees. (The word "ICHABOD" comes to mind). Postmodernism was among the most prevalent alternative worldviews in the study and was dominant among the younger generations.

No wonder your TAG and Presuppositional apologetic methods didn't work on the kids. In order for those to work, absolute truth must be presupposed - otherwise you have no common ground to begin with. I have observed that kids today discern truth with their "feelings." With the prevalence of postmodernist thinking among young people, Christianity in America is in a terrible crisis.

When I look at ancient Israel in its time of decay, I notice that they had very bad leaders, and I believe bad leaders (or, a scarcity of good leaders) is a sure sign of national destruction. America of today is similar to Israel in that respect, since we have very few good leaders. Are bad leaders a judgment from God? I think this is very possible. Bad leadership is prevalent not only in our State and Federal Governments but in all levels of academia, in our churches, and ultimately -- in our homes. How many Christian homes have men in them who lead as God would have them lead? Not many.

In the movie "Gladiator," the Maximus character shouts these words to his men before a big battle: "What you do in this life will echo in eternity." Obviously, that is true. We are store our treasure up in heaven. As Martin Luther wrote in A Mighty Fortress is Our God: "...let goods and kindred go; this mortal life also..."

So, I encourage you to not give up on those kids brother! Keep up the "good work" as you never know what effect you are having in eternity until you get there.

KEEP PREACHING IT BROTHER!

If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Jn 8:32

Areopagus

26th October 2005, 10:58

Areopagus,

....a Roman Catholic admirer of Aquinas who does not believe abortion is unlawful until after "quickening."

Robert P. Casey, Governor Pennsylvania - “As a lawyer, I was trained to believe that the Constitution means what the United States Supreme Court says it means.” http://prolife.liberals.com/articles/casey93.html

As an abortionist, I was trained to believe that human life began whenever Aquinas said it did. – Anonymous

As sophists, we were trained to be confounded, and offended by the truth, even when presented by presuppositionalists. -Corinthians1:18-31

In First Things, January 2003: Constitutional Persons http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html , Robert H. Bork stated, "Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception." That objective fact http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html refutes any metaphysical speculation stating otherwise! Additionally, ‘person’ is concurrent with, and not subsequent to ‘being.’ Those stating otherwise have the burden of proof consisting only of subjective criteria arguing against objective fact. Put another way: When is a living human being not a person? Disassociation of being, and person lead to the extermination of both, as it did at Belsen, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Dachau, and Roe v Wade.

Any discussion on terminating a human life must consider the significance of that act in terms of what God has said. Man is made from minerals, and has certain features that are similar to animals, but…God made man qualitatively different from the rest of creation, and it is in this difference that man was given the choice to separate from God, and suffer the consequences. (Rom.5:12-21).

"Soul" or anima distinguishes the living from the nonliving, but God distinguishes man from animal.

Genesis 1:27 “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them....” Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made mankind.” (Exodus 21:12, Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Num. 35:16-21, 30-31) Psalms 8:4 'I think,Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them,8:5 and make them almost like the heavenly beings? You grant mankind honor and majesty; 8:6 you allow them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their authority….” http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Antonin Scalia http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0205/articles/scalia.html , after quoting Rom 13:1-5 (KJV) had this to say about the death penalty:

This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul. One can understand his words as referring only to lawfully constituted authority, or even only to lawfully constituted authority that rules justly. But the core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God. It is the “minister of God” with powers to “revenge,” to “execute wrath,” including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty). Paul of course did not believe that the individual possessed any such powers.

The value that God places on a human being is summed up in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Where human life begins, the similarity between spiritual soul, and material soul ends. Any delayed animation, or ensolument that might be present in an animal is not to be applied to humans.

Christian pro-lifers often quote Psalms 139:
Psalms 139:13 “Certainly you made my mind and heart;you wove me together in my mother’s womb.” This process commenced prior to quickening! Psalms 51:5 “Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.” http://www.bible.org/netbible/psa51.htm . [ The psalmist’s point is that he has been a sinner from the very moment his personal existence began. By going back beyond the time of birth to the moment of conception….] http://www.bible.org/netbible/psa51_notes.htm#5114

What is the eternal status of the aborted?
Psalms 22:9 “Yes, you are the one who pulled me from the womb, and made me feel secure on my mother’s breasts. 22:10 I have been dependent on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.”

The penalty of imputed sin is physical death, and there is no remedy. The penalty of inherited sin is spiritual death, and the only remedy is the grace of God through the 2nd Adam via the imputation of righteousness. Does the imputation of Christ’s righteousness result in sinless perfection while remaining in this world? “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8). Does God impute the righteousness of Christ to all humans from the instant of conception to the the first transgression of the law? Romans 2:14 “For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.”

How long does it take for a human to form a conscience, a sense of personal responsibility, a mind capable of deviating from clear standards of God, or the capacity to ask God for forgiveness based on the atoning work of Christ? The Bible isn’t exact, but it contains some approximations. Deuteronomy 1:39 “Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.”[ sn Do not know good from bad. This is a figure of speech called a merism (suggesting a whole by referring to its extreme opposites). Other examples are the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9), the boy who knows enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isa 7:16; 8:4), and those who “cannot tell their right hand from their left” (Jonah 4:11). A young child is characterized by lack of knowledge.] http://www.bible.org/netbible/deu1_notes.htm#177

Samuel 12:21-23 indicates that David’s child was covered by the work of Christ, the Last Adam.

“Brief Survey of Contemporary Catholic Arguments on Immediate versus Delayed Animation http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/scott_sullivan.htm,” asks; “would Aquinas himself, given what we know today regarding embryology, have reached the same conclusion that he did regarding delayed hominization?” Would he have differed from the conclusion made by Pope Pius IX in 1869?

Quickening In The Common Law: The Legal Precedent Roe Attempted And Failed To Use http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/quickening.htm describes how “new facts of fetal development provided the rationale for the shift from quickening-based protection to conception-based protection, as a natural progression -- being a confluence of common law, Lord Ellenborough, and scientific progress in embryology.”

exmarine

27th October 2005, 11:27

...
As an abortionist, I was trained to believe that human life began whenever Aquinas said it did. – Anonymous

...

In First Things, January 2003: Constitutional Persons http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/schlueter_bork.html , Robert H. Bork stated, "Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception." That objective fact http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html refutes any metaphysical speculation stating otherwise! Additionally, ‘person’ is concurrent with, and not subsequent to ‘being.’ Those stating otherwise have the burden of proof consisting only of subjective criteria arguing against objective fact. Put another way: When is a living human being not a person? Disassociation of being, and person lead to the extermination of both, as it did at Belsen, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Dachau, and Roe v Wade.

I believe the key is that abortionists may or may not deny that the unborn is a human being, but all deny that the unborn is a "person." This begs the question: What is the difference between a human being and a person? I have yet to find someone who can answer that satisfactorily, mainly because there IS NO DIFFERENCE. (A full presentation of this argument may be found in the writings of Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith in "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air"). By the way, some of the best anti-abortions arguments ever made can be found on Koukl's "Stand to Reason" website: www.str.org

Yet, little despotic gods in black robes have arbitrarily decided that the unborn in the first trimester are not persons. Their only authority is themselves. What sort of moral midget concludes that a right to privacy trumps life? The court has imposed its morally bankrupt relativism upon the American people.

Regarding Aquinas, I believe too much authority and reverence has been imputed to Aquinas. Bad things always happen when we place to much authority on any man. While Aquinas made a brilliant argument for the existence of God, he also tried to reconcile human reason (Aristotle) with the revelation (scripture), i.e. place them on an equal authoritative footing. As Francis Schaeffer points out in "How Should We Then Live," Aquinas erroneously believed that man's will was fallen, but NOT his intellect.

catatonic

5th November 2005, 10:02

I was instructed to discuss this article and I am following that command.

I didn't like the article. The Law of Moses points to the Law of Christ which fulfills the Law of Moses. While being no respecter of persons is good practice in a court of law, I think there should be more emphasis on following legal precedent to maintain the stability of our nation. In the case of Roe v. Wade, we are making progress to lower the number of abortions. Abortions are nearly impossible to get in some states. We could reduce abortions by 95% in 10 years if we wanted. Therefore, although I am pro-birth as well as pro-life, and seek to overturn Roe v. Wade legally, I dont see the need for such compelling talk to that end when it jeopardized our national security.

I know we don't like each other but you told me to discuss the article and I did. I'm done now.

One more thing: I love you S. Whiteman

Joe_Liberty

6th November 2005, 08:27

Catatonic,

I don't dislike you. I don't even know you. But I don't understand what you are talking about.

The Law of Moses points to the Law of Christ which fulfills the Law of Moses. While being no respecter of persons is good practice in a court of law, I think there should be more emphasis on following legal precedent to maintain the stability of our nation.

I have no idea what that means.

Therefore, although I am pro-birth as well as pro-life, and seek to overturn Roe v. Wade legally, I dont see the need for such compelling talk to that end when it jeopardized our national security.

What talk? How does Scott's article jeopardize national security?

exmarine

6th November 2005, 09:36

Chas sent me an email related to the yahoo forum in which he maligned my professional abilities. I did respond declaring that I owed him no explanation of my professional experience, since if right is right, it's right even if I've never been inside a courtroom (which I have, but that is not relevant).

I know the Common Law holds to the quickening distinction, but there is no Biblical justification for that. In Exodus 21:22-25 we learn that an unintentional abortion resulting in the death of the child warrants death, see J. Calvin Commentaries ad. loc., with the phrase "life for life, eye for eye, tooh for tooth, hand for hand, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" used for the first time. If the unintentional death of a pre-born child merits death, how much more so the intentional murder of a pre-born?

Also, Biblically, there is no facial evidence of "quickening" being the requirement. I believe the the history of "quickening" was a development of man based upon the time at which it was realised the baby was "alive." However, now we have evidence of brain-waves and motion as early as six weeks, months before quickening. I see no reason to restrict the protection of people from murderers to post-quickening of the person.

I agree completely. First of all, Aquinas' views were infected with the humanism of Aristotle, thus all of his writings must be read and digested with that in mind. It's simply the result of placing HUMAN tradition over the Word of God.

Psalm 139 makes it clear that the unborn are persons from the moment of conception.

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them. Ps.139:15-16

catatonic

6th November 2005, 02:05

Joe_Liberty

6th November 2005, 02:26

I see nothing in Scott's essay about overthrowing government. As I read it, it is about appointing judges who will put their duty to God before flawed man-made precedent. There is nothing rebellious about that. I disagree with you that judges already know about this. John Roberts, Harriet Miers, and Samuel Alito clearly don't. If there are some, like Roy Moore, who do understand this, then obviously Scott's criticism does not apply to them.

Camp Director

6th November 2005, 02:57

It undermines upholding authority who already know and are already responsible for these religious considerations. It promotes rebellious attitudes against government. It tries to push one interpretation of the Bible ontoanother one.

Judges already know about this. There's no reason to belittle them in front of America. I see no reason to rebel against America and overthrow its government now, but we should be militant about electing good leaders.

It's fun to be controversial in everything I say on this board.

To Catatonic:

All I can ask or say about this particular post and the one's preceeding it from you is "huh?!"

It is a gigantic stretch of credulity to imply that Scott has somehow undermined national security by pointing out that case law applies to the litigants alone, a bulwark of non-darwinian law. Your argument that trying to end all abortion by requiring the legislative branch to assert its regulatory authority over the judiciary is somehow a violent revolutionary act is simply the most profoundly illogical double-minded Rodney King-like babbling I've heard in some time. This is the grossest form of neo-con like rhetoric. Very similar to the "I trust the president and if you don't you're a traitor to conservative ideals " argument that was making the rounds only 2 weeks ago. In propaganda detection this is known as "building a straw man" or grossly exaggerating the points of an opponents argument in order to "knock it down."

Reducing abortions by any less than 100% means that babies are being murdered by judicial fiat. The position you argue is not the "pro-life, pro-birth" position you claim but a twisted "I don't like abortion but I'm willing to tolerate them if we just do a lot fewer of them" compromise position.

To those with doubts about Alito:

I find his record, as much of it has been revealed, very enlightening. Also not reassuring in the least. Especially his record as a student. While I would not want to be held to every opinion I held at 22, my core values were virtually the same then as now. My viewpoints have been refined and sharpened in that time and continue to be in an ongoing process.
Joe Liberty has hit on something very subtle but important with his statement about commentaries regarding Judge Alito on the the Conservative Caucus and CP websites.
At a time when our party’s commitment to pro-life leadership is under assault from within, I am concerned that your note may be sending mixed signals to our members.

I agree that there is a very important question that the CP needs to answer for itself. Are we a 100% pro-life no exceptions party of principle or are we a big tent, compromise on the life and other issues to gain votes, all inclusive party? I personally am working towards the former. There is a small but artificially empowered faction who favors the latter. I am frankly, somewhat disturbed about the apparent endorsement of Alito. It looks like Mr. Phillips is saying "he's the best we can hope for." I hope I'm wrong on this and that a clarification will be forthcoming but in light of other things I've seen from some party leadership (and purportedly ex-leadership, as well) I have interpreted it as a harbinger. I will gladly retract if and when a clarification is made.

SWhiteman

7th November 2005, 09:40

I think there should be more emphasis on following legal precedent to maintain the stability of our nation. In the case of Roe v. Wade, we are making progress to lower the number of abortions. Abortions are nearly impossible to get in some states. We could reduce abortions by 95% in 10 years if we wanted. Therefore, although I am pro-birth as well as pro-life, and seek to overturn Roe v. Wade legally, I dont see the need for such compelling talk to that end when it jeopardized our national security.
In the words of Justice Brandeis, stare decisis supports the rule that "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule be settled than that it be settled right." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas, 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932). I flatly disagree. It is more important to do our duty properly and let God handle the consequences, trusting in His sovereign providential care to minister to us in our time of need. He will never leave His children alone, so we can rest in His Hand.

Further, since the Court has continually held that stare decisis is mere policy, not "supreme law" Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808, 828 (1991), why not contest Roe right now? 3,700 babies are going to die today. Consider those individual babies who will die. I'm sure the tormented souls of those children who end up in hell would have preferred having the matter settled rightly.

Also, I don't play the percentage game. I know many do, and many men of good faith get caught up in it. I am not for saving 95% of the babies in 10 years. If God chooses to make progess like that, to God be the Glory, but we are to follow his commands turning neither to the right nor to the left. We cannot play the game, "If we save this many, we can let that many go." We need to always be working toward the elimination of murder, or at least the prosecution of those who commit murder in any form. And besides, "we" are not in power. "We" cannot guarantee a change in 10 years. "We" are without representation in the U.S. Congress. "We" have a few good men in the States who bring our desires forward each term (I'm thinking of Bobby Franklin in Georgia, for one) but "we" get shot down each time by "they" who are comfortable with a certain number of abortions. "We" on the outside must demand the prosecution of abortion, every abortion (recognising that the administration of justice by humans will be fallen), and not the removal of abortion from the culture "by choice."

Consider, we are talking about murder, something over which the civil government has exclusive jurisdiction. We are not talking about Pot or Alcohol, something over which the civil government has no jurisdiction but rather comes under the self, familial and ecclesiastical governments. It might be okay to talk about reducing the number of drinks people have by 95% over the course of 10 years, since that conversation presupposes no civil governmental enforcement either for or against consumption. Such is proper action for various "vices" that are reviewable only by governments other than the Civil Magistrate. But protection of human life through the prosecution of murder is the first and exclusive duty of civil government -- the power of the sword was not given to man, family, nor church, rather soley to the State.

In the Bible, there is no exception to the death penalty for murder. There is no substitition, ransom, redemption, restitution or restoration permitted. Num. 35:30-34. Killing a person, even an unborn person, is putting your hand against the life of God's image bearer. Gen. 9:6. Blood that goes unpunished soaks into the ground and causes the land to vomit its inhabitants from it. In the Old Testament, if a murder was unsolved, the magistrate was to take a heiffer, breaks its neck and deliver it dead unto the priest. The magistrate was to tell the priest, "Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. Provide atonement, O Lord, for Your people." God would provide atonement. Deut. 21:1-9.

Yet our magistrates know, heck they've zoned, where murder of unborn children occurs daily. Do you think we deserve to remain on this land? God would be fully justified (first because of our general sinfullness, but now for our particular barbarity) in destroying the United States en toto. He appears to be about the task of doing it city by city.

But make no mistake, we are under judgment. We have been judged with a worm. Little by little, the worm eats at the fabric of our society, until one day we'll wake up and our cloak of protection will be gone.

One more thing: I love you S. Whiteman
Hey, who doesn't?

Actually, I hope you don't fear getting booted from this forum for disagreeing with me. Disagree with me, contest with me, all you want. The only reason anyone has been kicked out of the forum has been for profanity and blasphemy. I am prepared to tolerate hostility toward me in this forum. I am unwilling to entertain hostility toward the Christ in any forum.

SWhiteman

8th November 2005, 09:05

I'm moving Alito comments out of this forum for simplicity sake.

Clike here (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323) or go here: http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323

SWhiteman

8th November 2005, 09:29

It undermines upholding authority who already know and are already responsible for these religious considerations. It promotes rebellious attitudes against government. It tries to push one interpretation of the Bible ontoanother one.
One of the fundamental glories, but in modern day overlooked or disregarded, of the Reformation was the Calvinist doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. The premise is simple: Rulers are ministers of God to thee for good. When a Ruler ceases to rule well, rather evilly, he ceases to be the minister of God, is outside of his authority and directly against God in all those acts that he does evilly or without jurisdiction. Then it becomes the duty of the lesser magistrates to properly administer their charge.

Consider, as Marshall reasoned in Marbury v. Madison (if you haven't read the Irrepressible Myth of Marbury yet, do it), judges take an Oath to the Constitution, not to the Congress, so they couldn't just do Congress' bidding. The Judge must be satisfied in his own mind that nothing he does violates his Oath or the Law of God. See Blackstone Book I, p 69ff. In a Biblical understanding of Law and government, "Just following orders" is no excuse.

A recommended read on related topics is HITLER'S JUSTICE: THE COURTS OF THE THIRD REICH by Ingo Muller. Only one judge, a Lutheran by the name of Lothar Criseig (sp.?), in all of Germany resisted Hitler -- the others all anticipated his next move and like good Positivists, justified his and their actions before the next evil event even occurred. If you have not read R.L. Dabney in Vol. III, Discussions on positivism, please do so. If you need a copy, let me know by sending me a private message. I'll let you know what it will cost, but I think it will be about $30 (shipping included) for a nice hardcover.

Then consider, in America the judges are predicting where the culture is going, and anticipating that move, forcing onto us abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, &c. If you have not read the sodomy decisions starting in Baker v. State (Vermont) and running through Lawrence v. Texas, do so and you will realise that the justification for sodomy is not that the culture or the constitution originally or presently supports it, but that through cultural and legal evolution, it will some day -- so why not now?

Since we have an election ever four years, America has not suffered with a particular Hitler. But there have been a corporation of Hitlers whose reign spans several Presidential terms, but each of which has evinced a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism.

Joe_Liberty

18th December 2005, 10:21

FYI, The American Life League is supporting Alito's nomination and has fallen into the stare decisis trap. Here is an email I received from Judie Brown:

American Life League has not proclaimed Judge Samuel Alito to be pro-life. We have, however, studied his judicial philosophy and have determined that it would be most appropriate to have a man with his outlook on the Constitution serving as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Alito's rulings in several appeals court cases have been characterized as "pro-abortion." We would beg to differ. As an appeals court judge, Alito was bound to follow the interpretations of the Constitution presented in various Supreme Court precedents. In one such case, he noted that Supreme Court precedent required the appeals court to uphold a lower court's decision that the partial-birth amendment act was unconstitutional. In another opinion, Alito noted that the Supreme Court had set a precedent and he did not have the authority to rule otherwise. He has been careful to note that he was following the Supreme Court, not the Constitution.

Alito could have followed God's law and upheld the partial birth abortion ban, but then he would have been viewed as an activist judge, the sort of jurist Alito himself speaks against. Alito, like newly-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, saw his job as appeals court justice to take cases from the district court and apply legal precedent to square the district court's decision with the Supreme Court's. If he hadn't applied the precedent, the Supreme Court would have merely returned the case to the appeals court with a stern order to apply precedent. If he refused he would be subject to impeachment.

Do we know exactly what Sam Alito will do if his nomination is approved? Of course not. But based on the way he has approached his work as a jurist, we feel confident that a justice who applies the Constitution correctly will serve the nation well -- and the babies, too.

Camp Director

18th December 2005, 04:43

Joe,

There are none so blind as those that will not see. Some time back, before the 2004 election I wrote an article called Bridge To Victory (http://ohiocp.org/bridgetovictory.php) in which I used the Bridge On The River Kwai as a metaphor predicting the future reaction of folks who have bought into a lie and allowed themselves to be used by their enemies in order to improve their own prospects and morale. The Ohio CP had many problems with folks here who were with us as late as January of 2004 but jumped ship as the full court press of "George is really a Christian and a conservative" was instituted. If you get a chance click on the link above read it and see if I might not be onto something. I invite your criticisms on it.

Joe_Liberty

18th December 2005, 08:11

Chuck, I like it and will make use of it.

Areopagus

18th December 2005, 09:02

FYI, The American Life League is supporting Alito's nomination and has fallen into the stare decisis trap. Here is an email I received from Judie Brown:

I am very glad that you took the time to query Judas (I mean Judy) Brown, and post the propaganda piece on the forum. Her reply is so typical of the Republican dialectic which is a synthesis of pro-abortion action http://www.gopchoice.org/ with pro-life rhetoric. Judy must have taken Thus Spake Zarathustra seriously. She has learned how to overcome “Thou shall not murder,” the Constitution, state law, and conscience. One thing this woman has repeatedly proved is that the life of her cottage industry, American Life League, and the life of the Republican Party must be preserved at the expense of millions of human lives.

She loves the lies more than life itself: “Alito was bound to follow the interpretations of the Constitution presented in various Supreme Court precedents.”

Michael S. Paulsen stoke001@umn.edu McKnight Presidential Professor of Law and Public Policy, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Research and Scholarship, http://www.law.umn.edu/facultyprofiles/paulsenm.htm exposes her for the liar that she is:

Marbury's logic applies for lower courts as well as others. Thus, a lower court may, and arguably must, "underrule" (to coin a term) Supreme Court precedents that depart from a sound reading of the written Constitution. The Supreme Court usually will have the authority and jurisdiction to review and reverse such lower court underrulings; such jurisdiction is consistent with Article III and the constitutional structure generally. But that does not mean that the lower court judges are personally required to abet the constitutional violation. They can, and should, make the Supreme Court do its own dirty work. They can, and must, exercise their own (reverse-able) constitutional interpretive power independently, and correctly. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/main...%20Paulsen.pdf

She lives to lie: “If he hadn't applied the precedent, the Supreme Court would have merely returned the case to the appeals court with a stern order to apply precedent. If he refused he would be subject to impeachment.”

Dear Judy Clinton, I mean Hillary Brown you have to have 67 senators to remove a federal judge, but:

"President Bush, 70 percent of the public, 64 senators, and four Supreme Court justices say there is no constitutional right to deliver most of a living baby and then puncture her head with a scissors," http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/release031303.html

How often does Judy lie? Whenever she opens her mouth:

But based on the way he has approached his work as a jurist, we feel confident that a justice who applies the Constitution correctly will serve the nation well -- and the babies, too.

Jeffrey N. Wasserstein, former clerk for Judge Samuel Alito, stated that; “The best indicator of how a justice may act on the Supreme Court is the judicial record that the justice had before elevation to that court.”
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/13357538.htm That same record is why “State abortion foes withhold support of Alito nomination.”http://njrtl.org/content/newsletter_details.asp?ArticleID=1022

The conclusion is the same as it has always been with these folk: Judy 'LIAR' Brown & the “Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade” http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=9

Areopagus

18th December 2005, 09:08

Joe,

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

I once thought that, but this woman isn’t blind. Make no mistake, she knows exactly what she is doing. (1 Timothy 6:10)

The regular voter can be given the benefit of the doubt, but not this woman. I corresponded with her too, a few years back.

Camp Director

18th December 2005, 11:53

Areopagus,

I take your word on this. You have access to a lot of excellent sources. I guess I am trying to be a little charitable because I have so many local pro-life leaders, some former CP'ers and some of them friends, who have been hoodwinked by drivel like Steven Mansfield's The Faith of George W. Bush. By the way, I like Mansfield a lot but he is one of those "recapture the Republican party" dreamers who is easily impressed by professions of faith without examining the fruit.

Areopagus

19th December 2005, 06:41

I guess I am trying to be a little charitable because I have so many local pro-life leaders, some former CP'ers and some of them friends, who have been hoodwinked by drivel like Steven Mansfield's The Faith of George W. Bush. By the way, I like Mansfield a lot but he is one of those "recapture the Republican party" dreamers who is easily impressed by professions of faith without examining the fruit.

Chuck,
I wholeheartedly agree with you absolutely 100%. Lots of folk just follow the herd. If the herd is wrong, they don’t feel so bad since they aren’t alone. Most folk are born followers. They rationalize along with the herd which is fine, except when the herd is headed over the cliff. Charity is warranted in the absence of a series of actions that dictates otherwise on this issue of mass murder. Your insight on this issue is as valuable as J. Lofton’s exclusive interviews exposing the deceptiveness of the spokespersons for the religious right, or Joe’s posting of J. Brown’s propaganda. They expose the leaders of the blind, and you tackle the problem of the blind followers.

The notion that the GOP can be reformed is advantageously used by the Democrats who have infiltrated the party, and beguile the reformers into a never ending series of subtle gambits. They stroke the reformers’ egos, and deceive them into believing that progress is being made, while offering monetary compensation to those who think that progress is far too slow. The few who see through those tactics are forced to face the specter of Democratic control. It takes supreme confidence in Almighty God to survive that demonic gauntlet, and break from the GOP. Pork-bellied Christians, the new welfare queens of the GOP, are not up to that disciplined task.

Joe posted his reply from J.Brown, and I no longer have the ones I received on legislation similar to Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2462&postcount=2 . I got the same nonsensical reply to that bill as Joe did to Alito’s unfitness for judge.

J. Brown is literate enough to understand the Oath of Office, but she REFUSES to acknowledge the obvious, and she isn’t alone is this refusal among pro-life organizations.
Jews for Life is an exception. JFL isn’t a major pro-life organization by any stretch, but the literate woman who founded it sees right through the GOP deception most of the time.

Whiteman documents the prevalent pro-choice attitude among pro-life organizations http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=9 “….THEY WANT ABORTION TO REMAIN SAFE, LEGAL AND RARE.” Independent of Mr. Whiteman, I arrived at this same conclusion after corresponding with the NRLC, Dobson, and J. Brown on Article 3 legislation introduced by Ron Paul. It sometimes takes this one-on-one interaction to determine their exact position.

Lawyers who worship the judges, and despise the Constitution (like Jaybird Sekulow) are advising these organizations to pursue legislation that will be shot down in court, so the lawyers will have a job defending it. The same lawyers sing the song of myth about the judiciary to founders/board of these pro-life organizations, and they swallow the whole boatload of bunk right along with hook, line, and sinker.

SWhiteman

19th December 2005, 07:08

Recommended reading, if you'll take it. Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich by Ingo Müller. The Third Reich judges were legal positivists (the author presents that as good) who tried to move law through their determinations in their cases to where the sovereign (Hitler) was intending to go (the author presents this as bad). Point being, the judges saw where Hitler was going and tried to beat him there. Now, review some of the real progressive or positivist decisions from Baker v. Vermont to Lawrence v. Texas and you'll note that the "law" is not where those cases are, but the cases are pushing the law to where it's sovereign, either "the People" or the cultural leaders are "naturally progressing." I.E., we don't need to pass laws for queer marriage because the courts will lead us there.

And where was the Church in Hitler's day, or where is it in ours? Saying things like "we see the realities of today's Justice system" or "to over-rule the slaughter of Jews would make him an 'activist' judge."

Those who do not recognise the Sovereignty of God will follow the most sovereign man.

Areopagus

19th December 2005, 07:22

I have a copy of "Theologians Under Hitler" (1985 Yale University Press) by Robert P. Ericksen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300038895/102-0207519- 1740902?v=glance

On page 146:

Until April 1932, Hirsch supported Aflred Hugenberg and the rightwing German National Peoples Party, rather than Hitler and the more radically rightwing National Socialists. But on the eve of the presidential election, in that month, he publically threw his support to Hitler in a letter to the local Party newspaper:

You know that I am not a National Socialist and that I have more than mild doubts about the NSDAP. You also know that I consider Hugenberg to be the right statesman for the present difficult times, although he is not recognized as such by the Volk...But I cannot get around the fact that a situation has developed without my assistance. And Hitler now is the only representative of a will to break with the mistakes of the twelve years from 1919 to 1931, the only candidate on 10 April to offer a new German begining.

On page 148 the following comments are most revealing:

The clinching assurance for Hirsch in his encouragement of a Volks church was his conviction that Hitler was a heaven sent Christian leader. As he wrote in the early summer of 1933:

"No other Volk in the world has a leading statesman such as ours, who takes Christianity so seriously. On 1 May Adolph Hitler closed his great speech with a prayer, the whole world could sense the wonderful sincerity in that."

Emanuel Hirsch, a scholar of exemplary credentials, was a product of Christian mainstream theology in Germany.

Camp Director

20th December 2005, 10:50

Meanwhile, back at the court...

Scott,

What does this decision by the sixth circuit "1st Amendment 'doesn't create church-state wall of separation'
Court whacks civil-liberties group, OKs Ten Commandments display" (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48006) (sorry, WorldNet Daily was all I could get to real fast) do the the arguments about stare decisis?

I know the Supremes took a schizophrenic swipe at this Ten Commandments question and the referees ruled it a 15 round draw but doesn't this kind of take a slap at those who say that the rulings of the Supremes is final, since this is a court house case and they ruled against most court house displays?

Does this earn the 6th Circuit the "Roy Moore Memorial Intestinal Fortitude Award" or does it mean anything at all?

SWhiteman

21st December 2005, 09:42

Probably nothing. Stare Decisis coupled with the Lemon Test has ensured that the Supreme Court's rulings are inherently unreliable to provide the proper evidence of Law.

Stare Decisis is a judicial policy to follow the previous rulings of the coordinate court and that lower courts will follow the previous rulings of superior courts, unless it doesn't. It is a yellow-bellied man's way out of making a tough ruling. If a lower court wants to rule that prayer is schools is okay, it won't because of Stare Decisis and the known impending onslaught of complaint against that court by the ACLU etc. However, if a court determines it is time to decriminalise sodomy, despite that case being determined just 15 years prior, i.e., Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 affirming a State's right to prosecute sodomy was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.

Rule of thumb: Stare Decisis is invoked when it can be used to keep a Judge from doing the right thing, but it is ignored when the Court has determined to act. Another example, Planned Parenthood v. Casey never had to come to the court. The Court could have just said Stare Decisis, but it didn't because it wanted to take the case and lay the framework that 1.) while there was no constitutional authority to decriminalise abortion in 1973, 2.) there is none now, 3.) we've given women nearly 20 years of making their sexual decisions based upon their ability to obtain an abortion, and it would be wrong to take that way (even though there is no right), 4.) so, Stare Decisis.

Now, couple that with the Lemon Test, which Scalia described as
Some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys ... The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. See, e. g., Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 679 (1984) (noting instances in which Court has not applied Lemon test). When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it, see, e. g., Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (striking down state remedial education program administered in part in parochial schools); when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding state legislative chaplains). Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs "no more than helpful signposts," Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973). Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

So on the 10 Commandment things, remember the Kentucky & Texas Commandments case from this past summer. In one state the Commandments were okay, but in the other they were not (I don't know which state was permitted because I don't care because the decisions were nonsense and the ACLJ should be ashamed). These ruling were from the same Supreme Court. The distinction from the summer was that because the font size of the letters were larger than things in the area and the 10 Commandments stood out more in one State, but in the other State the letters were of equal size with the surrounding documents or monuments, it was okay.

By the way, I didn't study the cases because it is utter foolishness. The courts do not produce justice. The very day I got admitted to the Bar in Massachusetts, my mentor attorney, Chester Darling of St. Patty's Day Parade fame took me for a drink and told me, (paraphrase) "Now that you're admitted, I can let you in on a little secret. Justice is dead in these Courts."

Michael Paulsen, the author if The Irrepressible Myth of Marbury v. Madison also wrote an excellent article on Stare Decisis for the Yale Law Review. Find it and get it. He points out that the the courts claim the policy of Stare Decisis is to be respected so as to not bring disrepute on the courts. Paulsen properly points out, that we'd better respect them if they ruled well.

Augustine noted, "without justice, Kingdoms are but great robberies." City of God book IV, c. 4. So, what are we?

Camp Director

21st December 2005, 11:21

Here's a link to the 6th circuit decision (http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/acluvmcopinion.pdf). Apparently, the 6th has told ACLU "no more of these 'separation of church and state' cases in our circuit. The argument is extra-constitutional."

If so, then maybe it's a step in the right direction. :cool:

SWhiteman

21st December 2005, 04:36

In the opinion, the court stated, "Because the challenged display here is identical in all material respects to the third and final display in McCreary County, we held this appeal in abeyance pending Supreme Court review. Unlike
McCreary County, we conclude that the Mercer County display lacks a religious purpose and further conclude that it does not endorse religion." Note, the Court invokes Stare Decisis and affirms the Lemon Test. The ACLJ and the like that seek to put God's Word in a cornucopia of religious and historical displays so as to bleed it (the Word) of any religious meaning have conceded jurisdiction over these matters that the Courts simply have no authority to hear, let alone opine over, and more so rule incorrectly about.

I think the only remedy we have is to deny these courts our consent and respect.

SWhiteman

23rd December 2005, 03:13

My more detailed response to CampDirector's question can be found here (http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=491&AMVIEWUSER=b840b8954c666fbdd19deda1f6535010) in my article Sixth Circuit Commands Kentucky to Blaspheme God or An Erection of the Ten Commandments and God lose again in Federal Courts.

FredFlash

11th March 2006, 09:45

After the nomination of now Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, we heard a lot about Stare Decisis and the obligation of lower courts to follow higher courts opinions. Exactly what is Stare Decisis, and when a higher court’s opinion is unconstitutional and un-Biblical, must it be followed?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=423

A lower court should always respect the law established by a higher court. The highest court may, under some circumstances, modify or even reverse law it previously established.

Fred

FredFlash

11th March 2006, 09:55

deskjockey

13th March 2006, 10:46

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=170&parent=57

There were no debates in the State legislatures that passed the Bill of Rights. What is plan B?

Fred Dear Fred, I think you have misinterpreted this to a degree. Jefferson did not say there must be a debate, but that we must, "recollect the spirit manifested" in the debates. I think this is referred to as "the spirit of the law" not necessarily the spirit of the debate. But there really are two valid theories. One is intent as Jefferson claims and the other is simple meaning of the word. This is the difference between Scalia and Thomas. Because we often can not truly understand the spirit having not participated, and even if participating, then not filter it objectively, we often are forced to the simple meaning of the word. Never the less the debate took place already in most states and had been resolved before the affirmation of the
federal bill of right.

Michael prove it. OK what better state then VA. They passed their Constitution before dealing with this Fed issue and resolved it as, "That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others." As I said in another thread, it dealt with separation of denominations not the abolishment of religion with givernment.

FredFlash

14th March 2006, 12:05

Dear Fred, I think you have misinterpreted this to a degree. Jefferson did not say there must be a debate, but that we must, "recollect the spirit manifested" in the debates. I think this is referred to as "the spirit of the law" not necessarily the spirit of the debate. But there really are two valid theories. One is intent as Jefferson claims and the other is simple meaning of the word. This is the difference between Scalia and Thomas. Because we often can not truly understand the spirit having not participated, and even if participating, then not filter it objectively, we often are forced to the simple meaning of the word. Never the less the debate took place already in most states and had been resolved before the affirmation of the
federal bill of right.

"To recover, therefore, in practice the powers which the nation had refused, and to warp to their own wishes those actually given, was the steady object of the federal party. Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the will of the majority of the convention, and of the people themselves."

Those words convince me that Jefferson was referring to the debates in the State Ratification Conventions on the U. S. Constitution. He believed it was the state delegates, who spoke for the people, that voted for ratification that gave legal authority to the document. It was their understanding of what they voted for, as expressed in the official debates and proceedings of the state conventions, that fixed the meaning of the document.

Fred

FredFlash

14th March 2006, 12:20

"That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others." As I said in another thread, it dealt with separation of denominations not the abolishment of religion with givernment.

I read you to believe that the establishment clause should be interpreted according to the intent of the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776. Why?

Why not interpret it, as the Court did in 1878 in Reynold v. U. S., according to the Memorial and Remonstrance and the Virginia Act for Establishing Religous Freedom?

Fred

deskjockey

14th March 2006, 07:53

"To recover, therefore, in practice the powers which the nation had refused, and to warp to their own wishes those actually given, was the steady object of the federal party. Ours, on the contrary, was to maintain the will of the majority of the convention, and of the people themselves."

Those words convince me that Jefferson was referring to the debates in the State Ratification Conventions on the U. S. Constitution. He believed it was the state delegates, who spoke for the people, that voted for ratification that gave legal authority to the document. It was their understanding of what they voted for, as expressed in the official debates and proceedings of the state conventions, that fixed the meaning of the document. What part of writing the Constitution or participating in the state debates did Jefferson take part to understand the “spirit”? And I’m not rejecting his point, but putting it in context. Wasn’t he in France during this time? Also, your overall interpretation of the Constitution being based on a limitation to Jefferson would make the Federalist papers null and void, yet they oft cited as the prime source of intent for legal purposes, not Jefferson.

I read you to believe that the establishment clause should be interpreted according to the intent of the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776. Why? Fred, I provided the VA preamble to point out that the proper interpretation of Madison was not to avoid acknowledgment of God. Again, I said it many times, the federal Constitution is a nomocratic document and the state is teleocratic. I don’t know why the Federal Constitution, a nomocratic document, should be interpreted from a teleocratic doc. Never the less, Madison so eloquently had presented a lucid case, that such sways me.

Why not interpret it, as the Court did in 1878 in Reynold v. U. S., according to the Memorial and Remonstrance and the Virginia Act for Establishing Religous Freedom? I think you misinterpreted the case. Let me start with Waite’s, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.”

As and aside, he then claims the controversy of religion was in fact animated in many states, contrary to the argument of where were the debates on religion, (in our previous postings) to ratify the Bill of Rights.

He then continues, “The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning”. And that definition of “religion” is the exclusive purpose for him to then introduce the Madison Memorial. It was not for a point of law as you suggest by the question or for the interpretation of the establishment clause. With the definition of religion he then tests the merits of Reynold’s claim of “religion”. He continued onto the next issue, “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere (religious) opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” So he didn’t even take the position of no religious law under no circumstance by the Feds but claimed the givernment can make religious law regarding polygamy. Having established the givernment had made such religious law and the defendant violated it, the lower court was upheld.

This gets back to my often stated comment, we introduce false conclusion as the premise of our question. The courts never interpreted Memorial as a point of law, but merely looked to it as one source to find the definition of a word. He could have similarly look to Merriam Webster if available.

FredFlash

14th March 2006, 09:26

What part of writing the Constitution or participating in the state debates did Jefferson take part to understand the “spirit”? And I’m not rejecting his point, but putting it in context. Wasn’t he in France during this time? Also, your overall interpretation of the Constitution being based on a limitation to Jefferson would make the Federalist papers null and void, yet they oft cited as the prime source of intent for legal purposes, not Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson probably read the published records of the debates and proceedings of the state ratification conventions to find the “spirit” of the debates at the conventions. That is what I do.

Fred, I provided the VA preamble to point out that the proper interpretation of Madison was not to avoid acknowledgment of God. Again, I said it many times, the federal Constitution is a nomocratic document and the state is teleocratic. I don’t know why the Federal Constitution, a nomocratic document, should be interpreted from a teleocratic doc. Never the less, Madison so eloquently had presented a lucid case, that such sways me.

Please define "an acknowledgement of God" for me; please show me how the government of Virginia acknowledged God during the early years of the republic; what is a nomocratic document; what makes the state teleocratic?

I think you misinterpreted the case. Let me start with Waite’s, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.” As and aside, he then claims the controversy of religion was in fact animated in many states, contrary to the argument of where were the debates on religion, (in our previous postings) to ratify the Bill of Rights.

He then continues, “The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning”. And that definition of “religion” is the exclusive purpose for him to then introduce the Madison Memorial. It was not for a point of law as you suggest by the question or for the interpretation of the establishment clause. With the definition of religion he then tests the merits of Reynold’s claim of “religion”. He continued onto the next issue, “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere (religious) opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” So he didn’t even take the position of no religious law under no circumstance by the Feds but claimed the givernment can make religious law regarding polygamy. Having established the givernment had made such religious law and the defendant violated it, the lower court was upheld.

Show me where the Reynolds opinion says the bigamy law in question was a religious law. Is the duty not to have more than one wife a religious duty or is it a social duty?

"No cognizance" in a legal context means that the law will not decide the dispute. The dispute over whether or not it is proper to have more than one wife is not settled religious courts. It is a civl matter. The Supreme Court policy of not resolving religious disputes goes back farther than Reynolds.

This gets back to my often stated comment, we introduce false conclusion as the premise of our question. The courts never interpreted Memorial as a point of law, but merely looked to it as one source to find the definition of a word. He could have similarly look to Merriam Webster if available.

Selecting the definition of the word "religion" is 99.44% of interpreting the establishment clause; and the Court thought James Madison was the authority. The Reynolds decison was in line with the definition of religion as Madison defined it. The law in question did not establish a duty to God because odious behavior is never a duty owed to God.

There is a great potential for abuse with the "no odious behavior" rule. Fortunately, that has not been a big problem; but the potential is certainly there because the rule does require the Court to determine what is and is not a duty to God.

During the Early Years of Grand and Glorious American Republic a minority of the state courts (I believe it was three) abused the "no odious behavior" rule by finding that blasphemy was odios. However, the Madison view overwhelmingly prevailed in the majority of the state and eventually prevailed absolutely.

In the famous (or infamous) Ruggles case in 1811 Judge Kent in New York could not even find any American precedents to support his blatantly biased opinion and resorted to British law. Can you believe that? Using foregin law to justify his judicial activism?

Fred

SWhiteman

15th March 2006, 09:32

If for no other reason than to take this conversation from the particular "American" context and to push it into a proper Christian context, Reformed Protestantism as it existed in the States, please note that Reformed Christians (confessing the Westminster Standards) believe (Ch. 23.3):
Civil magistrates ... ha[ve] authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
Blasphemy must be punished. It was in recognition of this duty that the early State Magistrates fulfilled the terms of their office properly. As men became less Christian, they cared less about blasphemy.

So, 1.) I don't much care about Jefferson's or Madison's opinions. They are not my Pope. There is an infallible standard, issued from the Mouth of the Christ, that all authority on heaven and earth is under Him; that all governments must "kiss the Son," and that civil governments are appointed by God to be administrated according to His purpose and for His glory -- Jefferson's opinions notwithstanding.

2.) Why rely on Jefferson or Madison? Why not look to the lives of the other signors of the Declaration and the Constitution? Why not, more importantly, look to the opinions of the thousands of State Legislators who actually did the ratifying of the Constitution. (See M.E. Bradford Original Intentions[/i] Why start in 1787 or 1776? Are not the several nations that eventually joined efforts to battle with the king in 1776 and in 1778 entered into a "firm league of friendship ... binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion" (Articles of Confederation, Art. 3) a better starting point? Or really, why start in 1776, by the time of the great decline in Religion in America, and why not start 1607 with Jamestown, at least to show Virginia's founding; 1620 with Plymouth Rock, at least to show Massachusetts Bay's founding; etc. (See Kendall & Carey, [u]The Basic Symbols of American Political Tradition

To start a conversation about "America" and "its" view of religion is to confuse the language and assumes that there is or was a monolithic "American" view (I know what you are thinking), rather than a plurality view from the various and several, albeit united States.

So your pet Jefferson is but one man who cannot stand against the force of almighty God who requires of His administrators to pass laws only in accord with His Will -- who, in my opinion if it matters, was right about the state not funding the Church in the performace of its duties. But that does not put God out of the arena; it just means there is no Erastianism (State governed Church) or Ecclesiocracy (Church Governed State). But Christ-ocracy (Christ's Rule) is a necessity. One god will reign, either some man-invented idol, the devil or man (either individually or corporately) -- or Christ. As for me and my house ...

If you will accept evidence of that opinion from some non-Reformed Christian writing at about that time and upon whom the Founders (1776/1787 founders) rested, please note:
Legislature[s] in all ... cases act[] only ... in subordination to the great lawgiver, [i]transcribing and publishing His precepts.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries, Book I, p. 55

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:18

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:23

I don't much care about Jefferson's or Madison's opinions. They are not my Pope. There is an infallible standard, issued from the Mouth of the Christ, that all authority on heaven and earth is under Him; that all governments must "kiss the Son," and that civil governments are appointed by God to be administrated according to His purpose and for His glory -- Jefferson's opinions notwithstanding.

Please show me this infallible standard issued from the Mouth of the Christ. Show me where Christ ever said that all authority on heaven and earth is under Him. Show me where Christ ever said that all governments must "kiss the Son" and that civil governments are appointed by God to be administrated according to His purpose and for His glory.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:27

Why rely on Jefferson or Madison?

Because that is what they did during the Early Years of the American Republic.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:30

Why not look to the lives of the other signors of the Declaration and the Constitution?

Becuse they all thought it was best to let James Madison explain what it meant.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:35

Why not, more importantly, look to the opinions of the thousands of State Legislators who actually did the ratifying of the Constitution. (See M.E. Bradford [u]Original Intentions[/i]

The State Legislators did not ratify the U. S. Constitution.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:51

Why start in 1787 or 1776? Are not the several nations that eventually joined efforts to battle with the king in 1776 and in 1778 entered into a "firm league of friendship ... binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion" (Articles of Confederation, Art. 3) a better starting point?

Lets start with the text of the provision under consideration.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 11:53

To start a conversation about "America" and "its" view of religion is to confuse the language and assumes that there is or was a monolithic "American" view (I know what you are thinking), rather than a plurality view from the various and several, albeit united States.

I am right there with ya on that point.

Fred

FredFlash

15th March 2006, 12:19

So your pet Jefferson is but one man who cannot stand against the force of almighty God who requires of His administrators to pass laws only in accord with His Will -- who, in my opinion if it matters, was right about the state not funding the Church in the performace of its duties. But that does not put God out of the arena; it just means there is no Erastianism (State governed Church) or Ecclesiocracy (Church Governed State). But Christ-ocracy (Christ's Rule) is a necessity. One god will reign, either some man-invented idol, the devil or man (either individually or corporately) -- or Christ. As for me and my house ...

If you will accept evidence of that opinion from some non-Reformed Christian writing at about that time and upon whom the Founders (1776/1787 founders) rested, please note:
Legislature[s] in all ... cases act[] only ... in subordination to the great lawgiver, [i]transcribing and publishing His precepts.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries, Book I, p. 55

The Objects Of The Political Laws by Saint George Tucker

The objects of the political laws of a state as mentioned by eminent writer, are, first, to provide for the necessities of the nation.

To encourage labour and industry, to provide necessary workmen, to promote agriculture, to advance commerce, to establish an easy communication between the different parts of the state, to regulate the rates of money, are ranked among the first objects of a good government. To encourage education, the liberal arts, and sciences, justice and polity, and to fortify itself against attacks from without; to preserve peace, to support the dignity and equality of the nation, and to form advantageous connections, and a beneficial intercourse with other states and nations, may be considered as forming the aggregate of the political laws of a nation. I say nothing of the advancement of piety and religion; the present age seems to doubt of the necessity of any connection between church and state.

http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d03000.htm

http://www.history.org/Almanack/people/bios/biotuck.cfm

**********************

St. George Tucker

Lawyer, trader, inventor, scholar, professor, judge, essayist, poet, gardener, stargazer – St. George Tucker was what the 18th century called "a man of parts."

St. George Tucker was born near Port Royal, Bermuda, in 1752, the son of Colonel Henry Tucker, a trader and owner of the Grove plantation. His christening name, St. George, had been in the family since about 1600, when Frances St. George married George Tucker of Kent, England.

Reared in Bermuda, Tucker sailed for Virginia at age 19 to pursue an education in the law, a study he seems already to have begun. He enrolled at the College of William and Mary in 1772 and read under George Wythe, who had instructed Thomas Jefferson. Wythe examined and approved Tucker for the bar on April 4, 1774.

Virginia's courts closed as the Revolution began, and Tucker could not pursue his practice. He returned to Bermuda in June 1775, two months after the raid on Williamsburg's Magazine. Before he departed, he told Peyton Randolph and Jefferson of the existence of a similar magazine in Bermuda that might be a target for rebel retaliation.

The Continental Congress had banned trade with colonies that remained loyal to Britain, and Tucker's father, the colonel, traveled to Philadelphia in July to argue for Bermuda's exemption. He received it by negotiating with Benjamin Franklin the capture of the powder his son had mentioned earlier. Two American vessels carried away 100 barrels from the Royal Powder Magazine in Bermuda the night of August 14, 1775. St. George Tucker hinted that he helped roll some of the barrels to the ships.

Tucker returned to Virginia on January 3, 1777, landing at Yorktown aboard the Dispatch (a ship purchased for him and his associates by his father, the colonel) with a cargo of smuggled salt. Tucker became his father's Williamsburg agent and made himself financially comfortable in a deal that dispatched indigo valued at £10,000 in four ships from Charleston, South Carolina, to the West Indies to trade for arms.

When the British entered Hampton Roads in 1779, Tucker joined the militia as a major. He later fought at Guilford Courthouse, where he sustained a minor wound; chasing a runaway soldier, he ran into the man's bayonet.

Fluent in French, he served as Governor Thomas Nelson's liaison with the French army at the Battle of Yorktown. His letters and diary from those days are rich in historical detail, and his description of General George Washington's arrival in Williamsburg before the battle is widely quoted.

After the war, Tucker practiced law in the Petersburg area until 1788. That year he accepted appointments as the professor of law and police at the College of William and Mary, and as judge of the Virginia General Court at Richmond.

He succeeded George Wythe at the school and, as was true of Wythe before him, Tucker favored lectures, and he preferred to teach in his home (the St. George Tucker House on Market Square), where his law library was handy. He usually had about a dozen pupils. One of them, William Taylor Barry, wrote: "He is a Man of genuine Cleverness and of the most exalted talents."

He was appointed to the Virginia Court of Appeals in Richmond. In 1813, St. George Tucker became United States District Court judge at Richmond, serving until 1825.

**********************

deskjockey

17th March 2006, 09:09

Thomas Jefferson probably read the published records of the debates and proceedings of the state ratification conventions to find the “spirit” of the debates at the conventions. That is what I do. Fred, you don’t do that at all. You go to atheist websites, look for an anomaly or a misunderstood quote and extrapolate out from that. We just finished such where you provided the proof, contrary to your own argument, about Sabbath use of the capital, clearly misunderstood in the spirit and word or otherwise would clearly have been withheld.

You can not get the spirit from reading debates years later, you get only the simple words. The problem is the simple words are out of context and out of spirit. You provided the judge’s use of Madison in the Reynolds decision. First you didn’t read the decision and therefore made gross assumptions as to the context and use and drew erroneous conclusions. You can’t tell if when those words were being said, all the other congressman had swords drawn and ready to attack the speaker, or if everybody was looking at each other like the speaker was the second coming. I watch loony insane Congressman today give floor speeches every night to a room of two people. I watch Black congressman talk about Black slave ships coming to AmeriKa where 250M slaves died at sea, except there weren’t 250M people in Africa to start with. Now I can look at the words and assume this is all truth accepted in the spirit of the entire congress or actually watch it in the spirit on TV and recognize this congress critter needs serious mental health rehab, in the spirit. This gets back again to the Thomas Scalia issue. Both considered conservative, one saying we go by the simple word, the other by the spirit or intent. They distinguish the difference. So let us not rehash this for a third time. Thanks.

Please define "an acknowledgement of God" for me; please show me how the government of Virginia acknowledged God during the early years of the republic; what is a nomocratic document; what makes the state teleocratic? I restate and incorporate herein, my and others responses, probably no less then 10 times to one of these questions and 50 times to the other. Your question of religion and early givernment has been so well covered by TAV, it being the reason I joined this website. Either I’m hallucinating, seeing much here that doesn’t exist or you don’t bother going back 2 and 3 pages to read what was already covered. I even provided links to the other threads. What is the point of this tactic?

Show me where the Reynolds opinion says the bigamy law in question was a religious law. Is the duty not to have more than one wife a religious duty or is it a social duty? You introduced Reynolds, not I. Utah was a territory not a state so drawing broad assumptions is dangerous, never the less the issue is thoroughly covered in the opinion. I suggest you read it rather than have me paraphrase it.

"No cognizance" in a legal context means that the law will not decide the dispute. The dispute over whether or not it is proper to have more than one wife is not settled religious courts. It is a civl matter. The Supreme Court policy of not resolving religious disputes goes back farther than Reynolds. Fred, what is your game? You introduced Reynolds and Madison’s cognizance. Reynolds used Madison for one reason, and it wasn’t for a point of law but for a definition (not of law). We just covered this 2 pages ago. Utah was not a grantor of the Constitution. Utah, as admission to statehood agreed to abandon polygamy. Reynolds covered your question in detail. Let us not rehash covered ground. Also, church law, including Mormon, more than one wife is not law. And the one wife, civil, church problem has been well covered. But remember civil is not Federal it is state. Reynolds got pushed to Federal because Utah was not a state.

Selecting the definition of the word "religion" is 99.44% of interpreting the establishment clause; and the Court thought James Madison was the authority. The Reynolds decison was in line with the definition of religion as Madison defined it. The law in question did not establish a duty to God because odious behavior is never a duty owed to God. I’m not rereading Reynolds, but I think Madison was one of two sources for the definition. We don’t know to what degree either was relied on. I do agree with your conclusion of the case. Explain, why prayer in skul or in givernment is odious to God, and why the Jews of Jerusalem did it anyway even before Christ.

There is a great potential for abuse with the "no odious behavior" rule. Fortunately, that has not been a big problem; but the potential is certainly there because the rule does require the Court to determine what is and is not a duty to God. Read the whole case. I’ve only briefed it for a minute and have already forgotten most, but if memory serves me at all, the first issue, as with any case, is if the District court had proper jurisdiction, Utah being a territory not a state. BIG TIME ISSUE TO KEEP ALL YOUR ASSUMPTIONS IN CONTEXT.

Jurisdiction not to imply the District had such over states and questioned if so over territories, but the alternative. The fed was proper to decide said issue for a territory, and it did not signify the intrusion into state religious issues, and the court was not making law. The Federal court nor congress is granted power of law making for “odious” behavior and you’ll find such nowhere in the Constitution. Never the less the tendency has emerged in our left leaning court of late.

Reynolds, having been an issue of territories is not a good case in my opinion for understanding the relationship of Fed & States and execution of the 1st amendment.

During the Early Years of Grand and Glorious American Republic a minority of the state courts (I believe it was three) abused the "no odious behavior" rule by finding that blasphemy was odios. However, the Madison view overwhelmingly prevailed in the majority of the state and eventually prevailed absolutely. I agree with the Madison view, but it really was irrelevant to the 13 countries, just like NC’s view is irrelevant to France and England. Each of the 13 countries had their own gig. So the state legislatures, which do have law making rights over behavior, unlike the US legislature can make behavior laws.

In the famous (or infamous) Ruggles case in 1811 Judge Kent in New York could not even find any American precedents to support his blatantly biased opinion and resorted to British law. Can you believe that? Using foregin law to justify his judicial activism? Never heard of such a thing? And NY of all places.:rolleyes: