One Nation Under God? [Buchanan judges the Judge's cause]

Buchanan - The American Cause ^ | 9 /1 /03 | Pat Buchanan

[ex-snook]

One Nation Under God?

Patrick J. Buchanan

September 1  2003

The granite monument of the Ten Commandments has been rolled out of the Alabama Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Chief Justice Roy Moore has been suspended. Yet, in his defeat there is victory.

For Judge Moore's defiance exposed to all Americans the naked hostility of the court to any official expression of belief that we are a nation under God. His defiance revealed how far America has traveled from the Constitution of our Founding Fathers.

We no longer see through a glass darkly. We can see clearly now.

Under the Ninth and 10th Amendments, our Constitution reserved to the states and the people all powers not specifically ceded to the national government. Can anyone believe the Constitution gave to federal judges, who did not even exist in 1789, power to order sovereign states to tear down monuments that had God's law, the Ten Commandments, engraved upon them? Does anyone believe the Constitution would have been ratified, had the free and independent states understood they were ceding such powers?

In the last 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has erected a judicial dictatorship over a nation of 280 million, usurping powers never granted to it by the Constitution. Possessed of a deeply anti-Christian bias, that court has progressively de-Christianized America and established state atheism as our national religion.

In every election, every poll, every survey, Americans decry it. Now Judge Moore has forced us to face up to it. Only by repeated acts of courageous defiance like his will we force President Bush and Congress to restore the republic that has been stolen from us.

Judge Moore's stand has separated the sheep from the goats among our brethren. Some Christians cast their lot with Caesar, as others scattered like the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane when the Roman soldiers came for Christ, sword in hand.

Is it really right, our milquetoast brethren bleat, for us to defy lawful authority? Ought we not obey, as the Bible commands? But the question is: Whose law are we being ordered to obey?

Are the federal courts acting constitutionally? Are they acting in a way that commands obedience when they declare that no state may in any way acknowledge God, when our own coins say "In God We Trust"?

Just who and what is Judge Moore defying?

The First Amendment, declares U.S. Judge Myron Thomson. But that amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

Was Chief Justice Moore really trying to establish a Church of Alabama when he had placed in the rotunda of the courthouse that monument of the Decalogue? What church? The Ten Commandments are taken from the Old Testament sacred to Christians and the Torah sacred to Jews. Catholics number the commandments in a different order than does the monument.

Chief Justice Moore was only acknowledging that God Himself is the supreme lawgiver and we are subject to his law. This may be offensive to Judge Thompson and Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg, but it was not offensive to the Founding Fathers. Finally, Judge Moore is saying, enough is enough. It is time to defy tyranny because all other recourse has been exhausted.

A half-century ago, the Supreme Court purged prayer from the public schools, an exercise of raw judicial power uncountenanced by the Constitution. Congress did nothing. The court then declared abortion a constitutional right. Forty-two million babies have since passed under the knife. Now, the court has declared sodomy to be a constitutional right.

This renegade court is not following the Constitution; it is distorting the Constitution, perverting the Constitution to impose its ideology upon an unwilling nation, and relying upon the spirit of obedience of a law-abiding people to get away with it. What are we supposed to do?

If you don't like the decisions, they say, go pass a constitutional amendment. But that requires the approval of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states in seven years. And who decides what the amendment means when it is ratified? The same justices of the Supreme Court.

By usurping powers never granted to it, the Supreme Court has imposed a revolution upon our nation. Congress has refused to resist it. Presidents have refused. It is time for a counter-revolution to overthrow this rule of judges and restore our Constitution.

The Founding Fathers who overthrew a king, less odious and tyrannical, would have understood.

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


 

[ex-snook]

While the Nation slept, a greater enemy within has befallen us.

[Conspiracy Guy]

And the Supremes said nothing.

[Ff--150]

It is needless to add, that as we are not encumbered by a nobility, there is no such distinction in the United States, all persons being equal in the eye of the law

Found under HONOR in Bouvier's Law Dictionary. No sir, we are encumbered by nobility: the judiciary. This is why they can write laws, using nonsensical jargon and phantom constitutionality, especially the federal judges.

The Truth can make us free--if someone would just listen...

[headsonpikes]

"...the Supreme Court has imposed a revolution upon our nation."

Exactly!

A socialist revolution.

[ex-snook]

Yes. The Constitutional designed balance among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches is out of whack. That spells bad news.

But who will 'bell the cat'? No leader is in sight.

[Ff--150]

But who will 'bell the cat'? No leader is in sight.

BUMP!!! None...

[Noachian]

By usurping powers never granted to it, the Supreme Court has imposed a revolution upon our nation. Congress has refused to resist it. Presidents have refused. It is time for a counter-revolution to overthrow this rule of judges and restore our Constitution.

We have activist Supreme Court Justices not so much because they usurped the authority of Congress, but because Congress allowed them to do so. Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate the High Court at any moment of its choosing, but for its own reasons declines to do so.

The High Court is an unelected body, accountable to no one, which we can now see was a mistake on the part of the Founding Fathers, but Congress still has to answer to the electorate every two years. Because of Congressional refusal to to use its Committee on the Judiciary to oversee the High Court, and stop the excesses in that Court, all of the Judicial activism of the High Court can be laid at the door of Congress.

The activism of the Court can be stopped by spurring Congress to use its constitutional authority. To direct anger at the Court alone is to let the true culprit escape responsibility. If anger is to be directed anywhere let it be directed at the key that fits the lock, not the knob that opens the door. Congress and Congress alone can put an end to Judicial tyranny - if it wants to. The question is: why hasn't it done so before now?

Perhaps a look at the makeup of the Subcommittees on the Courts and on the Constitution are in order: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/submembers.htm

Among the members of the Subcommittee on Courts is, among others, Ms Maxine Waters, a liberal. "IF" the House Committee on the Judiciary is staffed by liberals who are content with the activism of the High Court that would explain the reticence of that committee, and its Subcommittees, to take the High Court to task.

Congress has much to explain to the people who put them in office. If there is to be a rebellion in this country let it be at the voting booth, in the streets, and on the media. Identify the true enemy, Congress, and focus anger there.

[ex-snook]

Good post. Your "If there is to be a rebellion in this country let it be at the voting booth,"

Hopefully there will be a choice but don't bet on it. Column A = Column B. If so vote third party as the only way to see if there is a critical mass to move the pile

[Noachian]

Hopefully there will be a choice but don't bet on it. Column A = Column B.

That may be so, but congressmen have a reluctance to answer pointed questions. If questions are asked in the media about Congressional complicity in Judicial activism, and how that activism has altered American society, the survivial instincts of some congressmen will kick in and force the House Subcommittees to take action.

That action may be short-lived until, things quieted down, but that would be a start.

When you shed light on roaches they immediately start to move.

[an amused spectator]

No sir, we are encumbered by nobility: the judiciary. This is why they can write laws, using nonsensical jargon and phantom constitutionality, especially the federal judges.

If you ever want to be entertained by what America's new nobility is up to (all 800 or so of them), Google up "Federal Courts Improvement Act".

In 1998, the fedjudges tried to get national concealed carry for themselves (but none for you, peasant!). Now, even as "judge" Myron Thompson threatened to visit what appeared to be fictitious liens on the state of Alabama, the fedjudges are trying to make it a crime for someone to file a fictitious lien against them.

Talk about being an elite!