Is this the beginning of the end of Christian America?
"Our President demonizes and disparages America before the world, tells them we are not a Christian Nation, bows before the Saudi King, but refuses to attend the National Day of Prayer Breakfast.
...A radical political agenda adopted by the executive and legislative branches of government, aided and abetted by a fawning media and educational system has gripped our national government.
...Janet Napolitano and her Department of Homeland Security have targeted Americans who oppose abortions or same-sex marriages and our veterans, as right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. Clearly, the Obama administration's emerging policy of diverting attention from the real terrorist threat is in fact threatening the security of our Nation.
...Public policies dominate Washington that dilute our national sovereignty, destroy the ability of our military and law enforcement to defend us, and make us increasing vulnerable to radical Muslims in our midst.
...Most elected representatives of both major parties have abandoned fundamental principles on the altar of political expediency. We no longer have a functional two-party system.
...President Obama, the most radical pro-abortion president in American history, issued an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy so that Americans are now being forced to become the funders of abortions around the world. He has named several radical pro-abortion advocates to his cabinet and administration. Meanwhile, he and the new Congress are advancing the Freedom of Choice Act - more commonly known as FOCA. If it passes, FOCA will tear down every incremental law which was aimed at reducing the number of abortions in America.
...In the battle over the sanctity of marriage, enraged homosexuals are marching in the streets, assaulting Christians, vandalizing Churches, and menacing Christians who speak out with vile personal attacks and threats of retaliation. Opposition is being silenced. School children are being indoctrinated.
...According to former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked several years in the Bureau's Counter Terrorism Division, every major Muslim organization is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. He said that our federal leadership is reluctant to take action due to political correctness.
...The ACLU and aggressive atheists are well on the way to achieving their ultimate goal: a de-Christianized America. At the same time, the ACLU is working to sabotage our military and law enforcement efforts to combat radical Islamic groups that are working to destroy America by terrorist acts of violence and internal subversion."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Article 1
Americans, living in what is called the richest nation on earth, seem always to be short of money. Wives are working in unprecedented numbers, husbands hope for overtime hours to earn more, or take part-time jobs evenings and weekends, children look for odd jobs for spending money, the family debt climbs higher, and psychologists say one of the biggest causes of family quarrels and breakups is "arguments over money." Much of this trouble can be traced to our present "debt-money" system.
Too few Americans realize why Christian Statesmen wrote into Article I of the U.S. Constitution:
Too few Americans realize why Christian Statesmen wrote into Article I of the U.S. Constitution:
- Congress shall have the Power to Coin Money and Regulate the Value Thereof.
(Not the Federal Reserve Board, which is a private corporation and not a government entity)
They did this in prayerful hope it would prevent "love of money" from destroying the Republic they had founded. Subversion of Article I has brought on us the "evil" of which God's Word had warned.
The solution to our debt challenge is: - quit paying interest on the money "we" print just as the Constitution demands.
- quit giving taxpayer's money to the rest of the world until the dollar is stable.
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Battle over Constitutional Theories in the 2008 Elections
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court (1902-1932), declared that, "Theory is the most important part of the dogma of the law, as the architect is the most important man who takes part in the building of a house." The theories that Supreme Court justices espouse produce the egregious decisions and doctrines of Reconstructionist cases, including the Roe and Casey decisions which we have been analyzing for several months.
Talking Points
Reconstructionist constitutional theory diametrically opposes Constitutionalist constitutional theory; and we must understand these theories in order to evaluate adequately, not only judicial decisions, but the theories held by candidates in the 2008 elections. Questions of constitutional theories have permeated, not just American law, but American culture in general. Therefore, all patriots need at least a cursory understanding of the opposing constitutional theories in today's Culture War. Three very broad and fundamental issues divide Constitutionalists from Reconstructionists. We shall summarize the three issues and then offer a view of the advocates of each theory concerning these issues.
The Issues
1.The Constitution: Constitutionalists respect the Constitution; Reconstructionists reject the Constitution.
2.The Courts: Constitutionalists advocate restraint by the courts; Reconstructionists advocate rule by the courts.
3.The Cornerstone: Constitutionalists recognize the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of American law and culture; Reconstructionists want to reconstruct American law and culture on a Humanistic cornerstone.
The Advocates
The Constitution:
Constitutionalist Theory:Our first great Chief Justice, John Marshall, declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that constitutional principles "are deemed fundamental . . . and as the authority [i.e., the American people] from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent." Therefore, the essential qualities of the Constitution are its fundamental nature, supremacy, and permanence. Justice Marshall also uses the phrase "paramount law" to describe the Constitution. According to Constitutionalist Theory, only the "people" are to make significant changes to the Constitution in accordance with the Article V amendment process.
Reconstructionist Theory:
Modern Reconstructionist theory advocates a very different perspective. The prolific attorney, Laurence Tribe, contends that "[t]he Constitution is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices." To Reconstructionists, the Constitution "reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions . . . . " The Constitution becomes intrinsically no different from, and not superior to, other law — a polemic contrast to the Constitutionalist position.
The Courts:
Constitutionalist Theory:
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 78 eloquently states the Constitutionalist position: "It may truly be said [that the courts] . . . have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment . . . . This simple view of the matter . . . proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two. . . ."
Reconstructionist Theory:
William Ray Forrester, former Dean of Cornell Law School, expressed a radically different view. Declared Forrester, "[The U.S. Supreme Court as an institution] is even more unique and unprecedented than commonly supposed. Indeed, the institution can no longer be described with any accuracy as a court, in the customary sense. Unlike a court, its primary function is not judicial but legislative. It is a governing body in the sense that it makes the basic policy decisions of the nation, selects among the competing values of our society, and administers and executes the directions it chooses in political, social and ethical matters. It has become the major societal agency for reform."
The Cornerstone:
Constitutionalist Theory:
The U. S. Supreme Court in 1892 (Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.) and 1931 (U.S. v. MacIntosh) described America's legal and cultural cornerstone: "These and many other matters which might be noticed, [i.e., a long list of historical documents, quotes, etc. specifically expressing America's Christian underpinning] add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organized utterances that this is a Christian nation."
Reconstructionist Theory:
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court (1902-1932), declared that, "Theory is the most important part of the dogma of the law, as the architect is the most important man who takes part in the building of a house." The theories that Supreme Court justices espouse produce the egregious decisions and doctrines of Reconstructionist cases, including the Roe and Casey decisions which we have been analyzing for several months.
Talking Points
Reconstructionist constitutional theory diametrically opposes Constitutionalist constitutional theory; and we must understand these theories in order to evaluate adequately, not only judicial decisions, but the theories held by candidates in the 2008 elections. Questions of constitutional theories have permeated, not just American law, but American culture in general. Therefore, all patriots need at least a cursory understanding of the opposing constitutional theories in today's Culture War. Three very broad and fundamental issues divide Constitutionalists from Reconstructionists. We shall summarize the three issues and then offer a view of the advocates of each theory concerning these issues.
The Issues
1.The Constitution: Constitutionalists respect the Constitution; Reconstructionists reject the Constitution.
2.The Courts: Constitutionalists advocate restraint by the courts; Reconstructionists advocate rule by the courts.
3.The Cornerstone: Constitutionalists recognize the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of American law and culture; Reconstructionists want to reconstruct American law and culture on a Humanistic cornerstone.
The Advocates
The Constitution:
Constitutionalist Theory:Our first great Chief Justice, John Marshall, declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that constitutional principles "are deemed fundamental . . . and as the authority [i.e., the American people] from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent." Therefore, the essential qualities of the Constitution are its fundamental nature, supremacy, and permanence. Justice Marshall also uses the phrase "paramount law" to describe the Constitution. According to Constitutionalist Theory, only the "people" are to make significant changes to the Constitution in accordance with the Article V amendment process.
Reconstructionist Theory:
Modern Reconstructionist theory advocates a very different perspective. The prolific attorney, Laurence Tribe, contends that "[t]he Constitution is an intentionally incomplete, often deliberately indeterminate structure for the participatory evolution of political ideals and governmental practices." To Reconstructionists, the Constitution "reflects a set of conflicting ideals and notions . . . . " The Constitution becomes intrinsically no different from, and not superior to, other law — a polemic contrast to the Constitutionalist position.
The Courts:
Constitutionalist Theory:
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Number 78 eloquently states the Constitutionalist position: "It may truly be said [that the courts] . . . have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment . . . . This simple view of the matter . . . proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two. . . ."
Reconstructionist Theory:
William Ray Forrester, former Dean of Cornell Law School, expressed a radically different view. Declared Forrester, "[The U.S. Supreme Court as an institution] is even more unique and unprecedented than commonly supposed. Indeed, the institution can no longer be described with any accuracy as a court, in the customary sense. Unlike a court, its primary function is not judicial but legislative. It is a governing body in the sense that it makes the basic policy decisions of the nation, selects among the competing values of our society, and administers and executes the directions it chooses in political, social and ethical matters. It has become the major societal agency for reform."
The Cornerstone:
Constitutionalist Theory:
The U. S. Supreme Court in 1892 (Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.) and 1931 (U.S. v. MacIntosh) described America's legal and cultural cornerstone: "These and many other matters which might be noticed, [i.e., a long list of historical documents, quotes, etc. specifically expressing America's Christian underpinning] add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organized utterances that this is a Christian nation."
Reconstructionist Theory:
Arthur Miller, prominent law professor and TV commentator, pens an extraordinary example of Reconstructionism: "The Justices [of the Supreme Court function] as a de facto Council of Elders [and] may be likened to the oracles of ancient Greece . . . . The Constitution is a theological document. . . . [A]nd the Justices are the High Priests who keep it current with each generation of Americans. . . . The Constitution is always in a state of becoming, always being updated to meet the exigencies faced by successive generations of the American people. Each generation writes its own Constitution.
Questions for Candidates
- The polemic differences between these two bodies of constitutional theory generate numerous questions that we need to be asking our candidates for office in these fundamentally important elections of 2008:
- Reconstructionists argue that court opinions and decisions as old as 1803 are "out-dated, useless, etc." Do you agree? Why or why not?
- What is/are the source(s) to which an interpreter should refer in determining the meanings of Constitutional words and phrases?
- Is the judiciary intended to be the "weakest branch of government"? If not, what should be its relationship to the other two branches?
- Are there problems with the Supreme Court's being the agency described by William Forrester and Arthur Miller? If so, what are some of the worst problems?
Alfred Lord Denning, a top-ranking British jurist in the Twentieth Century, declared that "We have already strayed too far from the faith of our fathers. Let us return to it for it is the only thing that can save us." Constitutionalist theory is based on this Judeo-Christian "faith of our fathers." Will we Twenty-First Century American Constitutionalists fight for this faith in the 2008 elections? The answer is up to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
