Posted on 08/02/2013 4:44:43 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
The 5-4 opinion by the Supreme Court on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) raises questions about the Court’s authority. The debate should focus on the role of the Supreme Court within the Republic and its duty to interpret the Constitution. The debate should not be over marriage.
In the DOMA case, the five-member majority ignored long-accepted Equal Protection law. The decision is neither grounded in the constitutional text nor in prior precedent. It is contrary to the Western legal tradition, natural law, and the created order. Marriage was not invented by religion or civil authorities and predates both.
(Excerpt) Read more at lc.org ...
The U.S. Constitution cannot be properly understood or interpreted outside the context of the Biblical roots of all Western law. So, to make "legal opinions" that contradict the Word of God is to violate the Constitution as well.
We could address this by appointing Supreme Court judges for their Biblical knowledge as well as their legal knowledge. Justices without a firm grasp of scripture (the Law of God, which stands above all law) cannot adequately do their jobs.
Another option might be to require Supreme Court cases to be heard by both a secular court and one steeped in Biblical Law. In cases where the two courts disagree, they could meet in conference committee (the way they House and Senate do) to work things out.
Either way, I think the goal should be to re-focus on the source of our law and make sure judges are looking at the whole picture.
SCOTUS COTUS AND POTUS all need slapped down
Traitor Roberts screwed the pooch with 0bamaDontCare.
There is no Constitutional stipulation that this is the role of the Court. It is an authority the Court arrogated to itself in Marbury v Madison. But for that determination by the Court in the earliest of days, to grow beyond its mandate, we might still have a Constitution today which resembled that which the framers contemplated.
A state passed an amendment to their state constitution by a wide margin.
And the SCOTUS votes it invalid as the “people” have no standing.
They are tyrants.
Another option might be to require Supreme Court cases to be heard by both a secular court and one steeped in Biblical Law. You mean sort of like a Shariah court?
No, I think that's a bad idea. Leave it as it is, but ask broader questions and quick picking dumb asses like Roberts out of the blue.
That Obamacare ruling was one of the worst decisions ever.
meant:
...quit picking...
The conservatives and liberals are both pissed at the Supreme Court. Conservatives for gay marriage and liberals for the voting act. This might be the best time to change the Supreme Court with everyone mad. Lol.
Right. I think you are talking Prop 8 in Cali? No judge(s) has the right to do do that.
No, NOT like a Sharia court. I just think we need to find some way to make sure judicial opinions consider the WHOLE of our law, including the basic foundation upon which it is built. A ruling that “seems” to comport with civil law, but IGNORES the roots of that law, is a bad decision.
It is absolutely astounding to me how freely judges ignore God’s Law and Natural Law, but claim their rulings are valid.
The liberal part of the Court probably never understood the Constitution and don't give a damn.
And even the court’s so-called conservatives have a tendency to ignore the Constitution’s roots in God’s Law. In no way was any part of the Constitution meant to contradict Christian values. Yet hundreds of court decisions do just that - and cite the Constitution as the reason! It’s crazy.
I wasn’t trying to intimate you were supporting a Sharia court. I do think it would be problematic to introduce a Christian court too though, and I’m very pro Christianity.
As for returning to our judicial roots, I think that is a noble cause.
For about the last six months, I’ve been trying to emphasize that our Constitution if implemented in a non-Christian nation, would have a very hard time giving the populace what it was intended to. I think that’s why we’re seeing so many problems in our own nation. As we drift from God, we drift from the glue that holds our nation together.
I think that holds true in criminal courts, and of course at the SCOTUS also.
Your goal is a decent one. In spirit, I’m with you. I’d have to give it more thought to know exactly how we get there though, without causing down sides along with it.
You are wrong, not on principle but on implementation/reasoning. You se there's this thing called precedent *spit*, which ostensibly is to function just as you suggest. The problem is that the cases used for precedent are chosen to fit the conclusion the judge wants.
What we need is Constitutionalism instead of case-law; that is, start with the Constitution and reason [completely] from there w/o appealing to prior decisions.
Say what? The Constitution is written in plain English, and thus needs *no* 'interpretation'. The most wicked mischief ensues, whenever some buffoon tries to 'interpret' it...
the infowarrior
We need a Constitutional amendment stating that this is a Christian nation and that nothing in the Constitution is intended to contradict Biblical Law.
I don't think that would fly very well for two reasons:
—1— It would be seen as a repeal, in part, of the 1st Amendment.
—2— Because Christianity is a thing that a person (not a country) is; moreover, this sounds like an attempt at legalistically declaring Christianity, which cannot be done (because it is personal-relationship with Jesus)… furthermore, I would want no part in increasing the number of goats
on the left-hand side. Let no one, ever, even think that because I am an American, I am saved
.
I'd rank Raich way up there too: Raich's reasoning was basically even though we said that intrastate commerce could be regulated by congress if it impacted interstate commerce, if there isn't interstate commerce, we can still regulate intrastate commerce.
(See the logical nullity there?) Raich was a unjust justification of the War on Drugs, just as Wickard was for congressional-regulation (American Fascism).
But their golden goose
of precedent really is Roe v. Wade, it proved that the States would accept that they could make something up out of whole cloth (a right to privacy, which doesn't touch on the real issue in the case [murder, and the ability of the States to define and prosecute it]) and use it to invalidate virtually every state's law if they wished. — look, also, at how this right to privacy does not apply to general interactions with police, or the TSA, or the NSA, or the ACA… no, it only applies to abortion.
Wickard is one that has been milked and derived from for a long time; I believe that they could find a way to overturn it and say that all decisions based on it are still valid, but that's because Raich and ACA prove how intellectually dishonest and power-mad they really are.
Nothing in there contradicts the ORIGINAL intent of anything in the Bill of rights. You also are wrong if you believe America was not founded upon the bedrock principles of the Holy Word of God. Th truth of that goes back as far as the Mayflower Compact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
