Christian Attorney Says 'Judicial Tyranny' Must Be Stopped

AgapePress ^ | December 8, 2003 | Allie Martin

[Federalist 78]

A Christian attorney says recent rulings against the public display of the Ten Commandments should be a wake-up call for concerned believers.

During the past year, federal judges have ruled that plaques or monuments of the Ten Commandments must be either removed or covered in some public buildings and parks throughout the United States. Kelly Shackelford, president of Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute, says those judges are out of touch with the intent of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"It's really not about just the Ten Commandments," Shackelford says. "This is really about an attempt by some citizens in our society to simply eradicate religious history and religious expression from the public arena."

According to the Liberty Legal spokesman, the rulings are examples of judicial tyranny. "A lot of people didn't realize where these cases had been going," he says. "It's a wake-up call to people [to take notice].

"The judges are taking the country in a direction that is not only inconsistent with the founding of our country, but also inconsistent with what most Americans believe."

Shackelford says it is time for Americans to "get off the sidelines and say 'Enough's enough! We're not going to allow the judges to take over our country by rewriting our Constitution.'" Eventually, he says, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to hear a Ten Commandments case.

The controversy over the public display of the Decalogue started in 1980 when the high court ruled that even a privately donated copy of God's Laws could not be posted on a public school bulletin board in Kentucky.

[Federalist 78]

Nothing in the Oath of Office about No Child Left Behind or Bush prods Congress on Medicare reform - The Washington Times: ... , but we got it anyway.

C'mon Mr. President, how 'bout one for the Constitution?

Presidential Inaugurations: Presidential Oaths of Office

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

1. HR 1547 IH - Religious Freedom Restoration Act

2. HR 2028 IH - Pledge Protection Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

3. HR 2045 IH Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003

4. HR 3190 IH - Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act

5. S 1558 IS - Religious Liberties Restoration Act

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Map Kernow]

My kind of guy! But a column by my favorite, Ann Coulter, last week got me thinking: what if we did succeed in getting a marriage amendment ratified, defining marriage as between a man and woman only? Aren't these black-robed fascists proven experts in ignoring plain language, and conversely in seeing text that isn't there in the constitution? How are we going to stop a Paez or Reinhardt or Souter or Ginzberg from interpreting "woman" in our new amendment in an Orwellian way? For example, by saying that because "Bradley" identifies himself as a "constitutional woman," since he is and always has been Tyrone's "b!tch," that therefore the marriage amendment doesn't prevent his marriage to Tyrone? To us, such reasoning would be a joke at best; but to judges like Reinhardt, it's a simple matter of breathing in the "emanations" from the constitutional "penumbras."

No, I think more radical solutions are in order. The Federal Courts, I was taught, are courts of "limited jurisdiction." Let's limit them so much they can't decide cases involving interpretation of any marriage amendment. And that's just for starters!

[Federalist 78]

The Federal Courts, I was taught, are courts of "limited jurisdiction." Let's limit them so much they can't decide cases involving interpretation of any marriage amendment. And that's just for starters!

100% AGREE!

That strikes at the root, while these amendments and never ending federal court battles over matters that the states should decide for themselves, only hack at the branches.

[Revel]

Yeah but, we are going to have to wait for the dems to be in control of the white house again before conservative will once again be willing to act.

[MrFreedom]

The U.S go by U.N law now
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm

[Federalist 78]

All that matters is that the RNC & DNC occasionally rotate…similar programs, different labels.

[Federalist 78]

Roll Call - Ron Paul's "Get out of the UN" Amendment failed 350-74 - US House, 7-15-03

[Quix]

THANKS Federalist.

Am curious, Jim,

Do you see this issue as part of or akin to the Judicial tyranny in which the Supreme Court now kowtows to foreign court rulings or do you see it as having nothing to do with the judicial tyranny destroying the Constitution?

Thx in advance.

[MissAmericanPie]

That would be easily overcome by wording "woman", as genetically female from birth. No?

[Map Kernow]

That would be easily overcome by wording "woman", as genetically female from birth. No?

You and I would think so. But we believe in old-fashioned stuff, not just "marriage between a person genetically male and one genetically female," but plain meaning of words, original intent of the framers, republican form of government, etc.

The black-robed sophists who will be "interpreting" the amendment don't believe in or owe allegiance to any of that "outdated" stuff. They'll find a way around the most carefully worded amendment---consider this example: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...except...when it can be infringed, right? Or so courts interpreting the clearly worded Second Amendment say.

With genuine reluctance, I still have to say I think the solution has to lie in serious circumscription and diminution of court jurisdiction in this country, insofar as statutory and constitutional interpretation is concerned.

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, I'm no fan of the current judiciary. And I'm also no fan of allowing the Democrats to take charge either. I know what kind of judges they will appoint. Vote out the rats. We need a complete turnover in the liberal activist judiciary.

[LPM1888]

That would be easily overcome by wording "woman", as genetically female from birth. No?

Total genetic manipulation will be a reality in less than a generation. What do you want to do then?

[Map Kernow]

Total genetic manipulation will be a reality in less than a generation. What do you want to do then?

When I was born, the hospital took my itty-bitty footprint. When my grandchild is born, they'll take his or her genetic "print." One that'll stay in the records, and tell the world if it's a boy or a girl for the rest of the itty-bitty's natural born days.

[Quix]

Thanks for your kind response.

AGREED!

I figured we could count on your convictions that far.

I was curious about further refinements of your perspective.

[Ahban]

But the judges appointed by Republicans have done no better. Thomas and Scalia are two good ones, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. The majority of tyrants, er judges, who imposed Roe v. Wade on American, and tossed out all sodomy laws in the Lawrence case, were appointed by Republicans.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, what you gonna do? Elect Democrats? Revolution? What?

[Ahban]

Just what I am doing. Support the few real conservatives left in the GOP, heaven knows there own party won't, for the federal offices and work like mad to build the Constitution Party (or American Independent Party which is the California affiliate of the CP) starting with state legislative offices.

The GOP is moving leftward fast. This may well destroy the Democratic Party. The trouble is, unless another party replaces them on the right, the price of the Dems destruction will be the destruction of America.

Let's face it, the carrot and the stick work better than either the carrot or the stick. The carrot is the encouragement we give to the few conservative Republicans left. The stick is the Constitution Party, which we will beat them like a dog with if they keep betraying us.

[jwalsh07]

The prevailing wisdom amognst the truly "principled" conservatives is to elect Howard Dean so he can further germinate the courts with activists of the marxist persuasion, give over US soverignty to Kofi Anan, Whacky Chiraqi and their ilk and make our apologies to the jihadists while we pull the covers over our heads.

But no need to despair, they will at least have taught the Republicans a lesson.

[Jim Robinson]

The Constitution Party isn't going to beat anyone.