Why Conservatives Should Make SCOTUS Pick An Elections Issue

Yes, the Supreme Court needs to be made an election issue. The reason is not that the winner gets to make the appointment to the open seat. Justice Scalia’s death has already caused it to be one election issue. The real reason it should be an issue has to do with the Court legislating from the bench. The power of Congress to make laws has been usurped by the Supreme Court. How did that start?  Who is responsible for allowing it to continue? How do we get back to a constitutional court? Read it all here:

lawless-supreme-court-r

 

As Written By Bruce Walker at American Thinker:

Make the Supreme Court an Election Issue: 

Conservatives ought to use Obama’s selection of a Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Scalia as an opportunity to challenge the role federal courts generally and the Supreme Court specifically have assumed as the super-legislative body that can overrule all other parts of federal and state government in our republic.

This is not want the Constitution intended at all.  The Supreme Court seized this power on its own.

This is not a “conservative” versus “liberal” issue.  Hendrik van Loon, hardly a conservative, in his 1927 book America, wrote: “I ought to have mentioned the name of Thomas Marshal of Virginia, who as Chief Justice of the United States had elevated that court to the dignity of a semi-divine institution, ready and often eager to make scraps of paper as such Congressional legislation as seemed to be in contradiction to the sacred stipulations of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court simply invents what it wants the Constitution to mean and then declares its whims to be the meaning of the Constitution.  The Constitution was written, of course, so that it was easy to understand – that was the idea.  Members of Congress, who pass federal laws, take the same oath to respect the Constitution as do Supreme Court justices.

In those cases where the Constitution is unclear and needs to be changed, there is a clear process for doing that, which requires a super-majority of state legislatures to ratify any proposed amendments.  The practical effect of rogue and limitless federal judicial activism is that the amendment process, which was once recognized as the only process for changing the Constitution, has effectively died.  Instead we “amend” the Constitution in a much less rigorous and much less reliable way: through the whims of a handful of Supreme Court justices.

CONTINUE READING ARTICLE HERE

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

    Allen West: “How do we get back to a constitutional court?”

    Why would we want to? The Constitutional Court has been the problem since its inception:

    “…The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

    ‘And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.’ (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)….”

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html.

    Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ConstitutionSurvey.html and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Tyrone L. Greene

      Sir, the answer to your position is quite simple: The Founders [to a very large extent] were religious men who believed they did live in the sight of the Creator, did not for one moment think they were to set up a Theocracy because their Lord did say: “MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD” [John 18:36]. They took HIS teachings quite literally: “You are the salt of the Earth… You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill [that] cannot be hid” [Matt.5:13-16]. So they sought to combine the principles of these teachings by setting up such a unique governmental system [and it still is despite it’s many failings] that it was to take the principles of the Decalogue along with the principles the freedoms espoused through all writers of Scripture, that it would be [although yet imperfect but yet blessed by YHWH] the culmination of what Liberty & Freedom is to be in a fallen world. That is why the people and the nations of the world, since America’s founding, have been drawn to it [and the One who blessed it]. Thus it is a City set on a hill tat cannot be hid. God bless….

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

        Tyrone, thanks for responding. My responses will be separated in this and two more to follow:

        For more regarding the late 1700 founders’ religious persuasions, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s interview with Dr. Gregg Frazer at http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/10/what-did-americas-founders-really-believe-a-conversation-with-historian-gregg-frazer/.

        Dr. Frazer proves from the key founders’ own writings that they
        were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Instead, they were Theistic Rationalists.

        Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Frazer is Professor of History of the Master’s College in California.

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

        When one understands that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes clear that all governments are theocratic, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land.

        Question: Were the governments in the Old Testament under the god Baal (or any other false god named in the Old Testament) theocracies?
        Answer: Of course, they were.

        Question: Was Baal (or any other god named in the Bible) real or
        were they merely ancient forms of We the People?
        Answer: Merely ancient forms of We the People

        Consequently:

        “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws
        reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.

        “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being
        forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

        For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at
        bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

        • Grundune

          Your premise is that all governments are theocracies. Your definition of a theocracy is a government run under a false god or the true Yahweh.

          You consider our constitutional republic a theocracy run under a false god, the U.S. Constitution.

          You feel compelled to campaign to abolish the U.S. Constitution and institute a theocracy under the true God.

          What does God think about all this? Is He on board with you? From where did you get your marching orders? Did God tell you to start by abolishing the U.S. Constitution? Is God going to send a prophet like Moses. Is it going to turn out better this time?

          Is your ministry raking in the funds?

        • Tyrone L. Greene

          Talk to me when you grasp Love’s interplay of Law & Grace with Choice & Free Will. I follow the K.I.S.S. as I have not a degree with letters behind my name…. 🙂

      • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

        “…Many Christians reject these inescapable facts of Yahweh’s
        sovereignty, believing He has no kingdom at present or that His kingdom is limited to heaven. They lift their favorite proof text from John 18:

        ‘Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.’ (John 18:36)

        “The exact same Greek phrase ek toú kósmou, translated “not of this world,” is used several times and is explained in the preceding chapter:

        ‘I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world…. As thou hast sent me
        into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.’ (John 17:14-18)

        “Clearly ek toú kósmou does not mean Yahweh’s kingdom exists only in heaven. Although it is certainly true that His kingdom is not of this world, this does not mean that He does not intend for it to be in this world. His statement in John 18 is better understood to mean that His kingdom is nothing like the other kingdoms in this world. As someone once said, “The only kingdom that will prevail in this world is the kingdom that is not of this world.”….”

        For more, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.

        • Grundune

          Your premise is that many Christians reject Yahweh as their king. Really? Those aren’t Christians, they are apostates.

          So your premise is rubbish.
          That makes your whole statement nonsense.

        • Tyrone L. Greene

          Sir, you presume to divine my meaning with faulty reasoning. I never said our Lord’s Kingdom is limited to Heaven or anywhere else. As I read Scripture, I’m lead to understand: 1. The Earth is the Lord’s [by both Creation & Redemption]; 2. His Kingdom on Earth is not a matter of WHERE [same trap that the Jews of latter O.T. and early N.T. times fell to so do the nominal Christians of today fall to] but WHEN & WHERE; 3. Who will be there & who will not be there and Why. But without going into an exhaustive study on this issue with you, seeing you careless for my answers except as fodder for a debate, suffice me to say: The Kingdom of our Lord is within the being of every Christ believing/following professor [in type] in this life and in the Earth recreated anew [from the burned ashes of all that we see now, including unrepentant sinners and scoffers] according to the promises given in Scripture as the fulfillment of type. Lets meet that great Sabbath Day before His throne like Isaiah said would come to pass! 🙂

      • Paladin

        IF THEY DID – why did the scope and outline of the ‘founding document’ reject Jesus and his 10-Commandments? The Colonials certainly did not!!!!!!!!

      • Gregory Alan of Johnson

        Please correlate John 18:36 with Matthew 4:8-9. You’ll find Yeshua was not going to contract with Satan or any of Satan’s agents (Pilate). This means Yeshua’s Kingdom on Earth (and those dwelling within) do not contract with Satan’s. The ONLY reason Yahweh-God interacts with Satan’s Kingdom on earth is because His children ignorantly do so, because we do not seek His counsel (Joshua 9:14) nor ask properly (James 4:3).

        • Tyrone L. Greene

          Hmmm… Wrong again! If you read the Bible you’d know that it was recorded multiple times that God has interacted with Satan, in Heaven, as they discussed happenings on Earth. [see Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7] And THE ONLY time that direct interaction took place on Earth, as recorded in Scripture, was during the 3 temptations of the Lord Jesus; all other recorded interactions and discourses were through chosen representatives of both sides of the controversy….

          • Gregory Alan of Johnson

            Satan did indeed accept Yahweh’s offer in Job. As you stated, the rest were interactions, not contractual agreements, as Yeshua rejected both the offers from Satan and Pilate.

  • Paladin

    The problem still remains that it rests in humanistic reasonings instead of God Ordained behavior/thought.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Since the “election” has already been decided, what difference should it make except to be part of the show for the sheeple?

  • Paladin

    Based with WHAT as the litmus stone?