Skip to comments.A proposed Constitutional amendment to RESTORE the original meaning of the Constitution
Posted on 08/03/2013 6:49:44 AM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
It is abundantly clear that the president, Congress and out uber-secular courts have twisted the Constitution into a pretzel. They also have completely disconnected the Constitution from the document upon which it (and ALL of our laws) were built.
So, I propose this Constitutional amendment. I call it the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.
Religious liberty being essential to the functioning of a free, Christian nation, the rights of Christians to act upon their Christian values and to proclaim the Word of God shall not be infringed.
Congress shall make no law contradicting the Law of God as expressed in the Holy Bible or prohibiting the freedom of churches other institutions, or individuals who proclaim its principles.
The Judicial Branch will acknowledge the Biblical roots of all our law. Nothing in this Constitution shall be deemed to contradict the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.
Congress shall pass no law contradicting the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible. Such laws will be deemed to be in contradiction to this Constitution.
The President and the Executive Branch shall take no independent actions and the president shall issue no Executive Orders contradicting the Law of God as revealed in the Holy Bible.
Department of Redundancy Department.
We have such an ammendment already.
Its the second.
A far better Amendment would be to prohibit Congress from exempting themselves or any members of the Executive branch from any law passed by Congress.
The Constitution is written in clear English and needs no clarification to enforce it.
There IS an enemy of God, and HE is relentless.
We are where we are today because of unchecked evil
The Bible in use at the time the Constitution as passed was the King James Bible. That’s the one that would be used.
The Catholic Church of 1789 would like to have some words with you about that. :-)
The bottom line is that the Constitution, any constitution, is ultimately voluntary for the majority in a democracy. Only the moral obligation of fairness and individual worth, or the fear of the minority's wrath, keep them in check.
The only reason that the Federal government has not violated every single part of the Constitution is because they have no desire to quarter soldiers in private residences. That said, the Left will soon be more openly calling for a redistribution of living arrangements. So you won't get a soldier in your guest bedroom, but you might wake-up to a gender studies major, with a federal boarding slip, eating your Captain Crunch.
The Constitution was the adult in the room that has kept us to a single civil war over the last 235 years. Without it, we have a very short fuse.
this would basically make America an official theocracy. The Founders didn’t want that because of the trouble government could reek within organized religious instituions. Not only that, but this amendment would absolutely NEVER pass.
However, and with my pessimisistic remarks finished, i do suggest a few amendments that speak to the specific problems we face: Right to Life amendment, banning abortion and euthanasia of the elderly or sick, Civil Marriage amendment banning same sex marriages being recognized by the federal government, an amendment clarifying the role of the judiciary, prohibiting the considering of international laws in court rulings where only American citizens and institutions are concerned, or actions occurring on American soil; expanding the supreme court to fit the needs of the times, and making a specific legislative path that requires states and federal government to approve changes to the system. Also, i’d suggest an amendmen that addresses the imperfectness of the Supreme Court, and the Court system, because as we all know, activist rulings have no place in our country.
It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.And your proposal would certainly be judging those outsiders (those outside the Church).
1 John 1:7-10; 11-24
7 Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because[b] the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says, I am in the light, while hating a brother or sister,[c] is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves a brother or sister[d] lives in the light, and in such a person[e] there is no cause for stumbling. 11 But whoever hates another believer[f] is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has brought on blindness.
11 For this is the message you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We must not be like Cain who was from the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brothers righteous. 13 Do not be astonished, brothers and sisters,[o] that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life because we love one another. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 All who hate a brother or sister[p] are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them. 16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for usand we ought to lay down our lives for one another. 17 How does Gods love abide in anyone who has the worlds goods and sees a brother or sister[q] in need and yet refuses help?
18 Little children, let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action. 19 And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him 20 whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have boldness before God; 22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.
23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us.
James 2 —— New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
2 My brothers and sisters,[a] do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?[b] 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, Have a seat here, please, while to the one who is poor you say, Stand there, or, Sit at my feet,[c] 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters.[d] Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, You shall not commit adultery, also said, You shall not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
how could it keep wrong-doctrine of those claiming to be Christian from entering into the law?)
“A far better Amendment would be to prohibit Congress from exempting themselves or any members of the Executive branch from any law passed by Congress.”
Discussing what amendment should be passed is an exercise in futility. The problem lies not with the amendments as they exist but with the criminal government which refuses to abide by the existing constitution, including courts that insult any thinking citizen by claiming that absurdities such as Obamacare actually DO meet the requirements of the constitution.
Of what avail are new amendments? It is like posting more and more signs in the bank saying that it is illegal to rob the bank. The worst criminals imaginable have taken complete control of the government of what USED TO BE our Republic. Words, either written or spoken, have no effect on these criminals who pretend to be a legitimate government.
I have noticed that when searching online adding more words to describe what you seek results not in a more precise search but simply in millions of results that do not match what you want. Similarly, adding more and more words of law simply gives the criminal more loopholes while making it impossible for those who try to be law abiding to actually do so.
I don’t think our govt’s role is to either enforce or restrict Christianty (or any other religion) — that is the job of parents, peers and your community.
An good example of what happens when a govt takes that role is in most any Muslim nation, and I doubt your intent is to emulate those guys. I’d like to think that what you are trying to accomplish is to get the federal govt *truly* out of Religion, leaving those subjects up to the standards of the community where we each live. I think that is more in line with the founder’s intent.
This would not make the U.S. a theocracy. It would merely require the government to adhere to the bedrock principles upon which America was founded. This country was founded as a Christian nation. That was well understood until around 1960. We need to return to the values that made us great.
It is already in there. Read it again.
The Founders understood that they were writing a Constitution for an America that had been founded upon Christianity. That truth goes back at least as far as the Mayflower Compact. Until we can once again proudly proclaim that this is a Christian nation, we will decline.
All my Amendment does is re-assert the nation’s founding principles.
There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Federal government from endorsing a religion. Nothing whatsoever. It's not in there. What is there is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,Note the phrase "an establishment of". "Establishment" isn't a verb, it's a noun referring to something that has been established. It refers to an established group, i.e. to a denomination or collective formally organized entity. In other words, the Federal government is prohibited from creating legislation that sponsors, endorses, funds, or legally constrains one religious denomination to benefit another. Rather, it is supposed to step back and allow all denominations to exist within the Commonwealth, provided they act within the laws of the land.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
More importantly, however, I believe there is nothing within the Constitution that prohibits our Federal government from officially recognizing, acknowledging, and declaring fealty to a deity or Lord worshiped by the Republic's citizens. In fact, I believe the Federal government (with the caveat that the vast majority of the states, and people that it represents, agree to such) ought to formally acknowledge the risen Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Triune Godhead, as it's Sovereign Lord and King of the United States of America, via an amendment to the Constitution. If the citizens of the United States of America are (by overwhelming majority) of the Christian faith, then IMO that's what I believe our constitutional, representative Republic ought to do.
RIGHT. There is nothing to keep the Congress from acknowledging that ours is a CHRISTIAN nation, founded on BIBLICAL principles. And, because the law is based on the Bible, then almost all significant judicial opinions should cite SCRIPTURE and the Constitution.
Judicial precedent should mean NOTHING. And the rapidly growing practice of citing Sharia in legal opinions has to he stopped cold!
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.